test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
In support of the 90's comics and heroes...
cybersoldier1981
Posts: 2,501 Arc User
I've been hearing a lot of negative remarks about the 90's comics and I figured it's about time I stood up for them and made a few points clear. I think I've come to understand why there's so much animosity toward them.
Now, in no way am I defending some of the stupidity of that era. There was a lot- namely stemming from one particular company that ran its course and is a shell of what it used to be.
So, let's get a few things straight first.
Most people preach the 'Silver Age' as being the best era for comics. And sadly, a very small percentage of comic critics (especially those on this game) were even alive during the Silver Age, and I'll bet a percentage of them didn't even read comics or remember anything about them. A Wikipedia article is not the same thing as experiencing that era of comics, folks- don't blow smoke up my butt.
The sad thing is, many of the 'Silver-Age Fanboys' are what I call "antiprogressives". If a reboot of a movie or television show comes out, he's always right there to claim that the original was 'better'. When they make a new motorcycle with better gas mileage and easier maintenance, he's there swearing it sucks and that the old kick-starter smoke-belching hogs that rattled themselves to pieces were 'better'. There's a way to deal with these people- you ask them 'WHY'. Most of the time, their 'reason' why the Silver Age was better is something along the lines of nostalgia. Fun fact, people- nostalgia and quality or not the same thing, otherwise we'd still be using rotary phones and pooping in chamberpots.
To be fair, the Silver Age had its share of problems. You REALLY think that Batman and Superman didn't kill people because of their code? Well, there was a code that held them back- the Comics Code. The Comics Code Authority was created because Fredric Wertham though comic books would make young boys into homosexuals [I wish I were kidding about this, it's true]. So, Batman didn't let the Joker live because he refused to violate his personal code of honor, he did it so you wouldn't start making out with your best friend Tommy after you shared a bottle of Yoohoo on the park bench. So, while comics survived this, what made the Silver Age heroes 'good' wasn't the writing and the heroic ideals they embodied- it was good old fashioned, over-religious, homophobic unnecessary censorship.
Of course, for a bit of shock go dig up some older comics from the Golden Age where Batman and Superman were killing dudes like they were in a Tarantino movie. That sound is your reality peeing on itself. You're welcome.
Now that this Silver Age argument is pushing up daisies and out of the way (I killed it, and the Comics Code isn't here to stop me, deal with it), I can focus on the issue at hand.
The 90's comics get a lot of bad rep from a lot of people because of Rob Leifield, who is probably one of the crappiest artists ever. For the time, his 'concepts' weren't bad, but his execution was just plain awful. Now, I'm going to throw this out here, and I want you to actually think- what's dumber, someone who respects the 90's for its contributions to comics, or someone who claims the entire era sucks because of one artist? [Pause for bacon jerky] I rest my case. ONE guy. And you know what? Here's the weird thing- his stuff SOLD. You can't argue with the sales... unless you REALLY think an entire era of comic fans were just stupid.
The rise of the Antihero. I use this word loosely. I think it's abused, and most people who think they know what they are talking about- don't. I'm going to say this ONCE and I want you to pay attention, it might save you from some embarassment one day. An antihero and a dark hero are not one in the same. Just because they kill someone does not make them an antihero. Just because they smoke and use guns and use dirty words does not make them an antihero. Please quit being an idiot, thank you for your time. I will give you an example. Judge Dredd- Dark hero. Yes, he's brutal- but he's doing what he does for a cause greater than himself, and in his own mind (and several others) he is a good guy. Deadpool? Antihero. Out for himself and his money, will do bad things for money. Spawn? Both- started as an Antihero, became a Dark Hero.
The introduction of this concept was not only acceptable, but welcomed. Wolverine is probably one of the WORST characters in comics but if you threw his name on a My Name is Princess Boogerfinger comic book, dudes would line up in droves to buy it. X-Men wasn't a new thing in the 90's- but when the Comics Code stopped being a major concern, Wolverine was able to be a 'badass' and he carried the X-Men to success. The 90's also brought Ghost Rider back, which no one can say is a bad thing.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Deadpool and Cable were introduced and those guys aren't going anywhere any time soon- and have had major impacts in the current Marvel Universe. It's also worth mentioning that DC recently wasted no time in grabbing up WildC.A.T.S. because this was another comic with a lot of potential (that is still being wasted)
I'd like to pause right here and remind everyone how awesome the X-Men and Spider-man and even WildC.A.T.S. cartoons were in the 90's. I'd also like to remind everyone of the Hanna-Barbera Silver Age cartoons where Aquaman and Green Lantern were running around with little boys. You done yet, fanboys?
The 90's had some AMAZING events. Before this, events were a bit lackluster and most comics were unconnected little caper-stories that could stand alone. The 90's introduced major story arcs- and boy did they raise the bar.
Superman met his match at Doomsday, and quite honestly- it was a good comic book. Granted, his return wasn't so great... a lot more could have happened. But in all honesty, this event was so huge it was considered serious news. People were caught off guard when the news came out Supes was gonna die. And to be far, the way people saw things... a testament to how we felt about that classic restraint of what makes a 'real' hero. Of course, you couldn't be shocked... in '88 people voted on Jason Todd dying. Yes, WE killed Robin with a 900 number. Eat your heart out, Zsasz.
Bane broke the Bat. Yeah, that whole 'The Dark Knight Rises' that everyone went gaga over this past year? Based on a 90's story called Knightfall. This was a significant event in Batman comics, and I hate to say it- but Azrael made the Bat-suit look AWESOME.
It also had Kingdom Come, which I HIGHLY recommend to anyone who roleplays a caped superhero good-guy. This is an amazingly awesome comic that I can't recommend enough... and is also a significant inspiration to the upcoming game Injustice: Gods Among Us.
We also had the Age of Apocalypse, Infinity Gauntlet, Carnage, Rise of the Midnight Sons and WAY too many events in Marvel comics for me to even list. To this day, very few comic events can come close to the momentum and impact of those in the 90's. We should know this, they have a new event every month these days...
GUNS! Before, guns and superheroes went together like Micheal J. Fox and a canned carbonated beverage. For some odd reason, in the mind of some- blasting superheated death-rays is kosher, while firearms are the tools of evil incarnate (Meanwhile, the Geneva Convention outlaws the use of directed energy weapons...). What did this do? Well, I won't lie- some guys went way overboard and created pistols I couldn't mount on an MRAP and use effectively. But it also gave some heroes a chance to have an offensive capability AND a set of powers without having to choose between powers and combat efficiency. I won't get into a thing about guns being right or wrong- that's a political thing and I don't want that drama here. But let's face it, superheroes could only face-punch so many people before a smart villain decided to make something immune to face punches (like a good helmet or a booger on the nose).
SO what happened???
Well, it's simple. The 90's were a stage in growing up for a generation. Compare comics to video games. Video games were for kids when they came out, and we got hooked. We didn't let go. And with all the changes to the times, we carried them with us. Remember when fighting games were the best-sellers out there, and they all had some version of a Fatality? That was a stage. And just like every stage, we took from it and moved on. It wasn't a 'bad' time that should have never happened- it was different, it was a change, sort of like when you hit puberty- most people remember how awkward and interesting it was- and you're glad its past but just as glad it happened (I don't remember puberty, I was only 4 when I became a man).
So, before you launch into slamming the 90's, remember- we needed it to happen.
And seriously, the little boy thing was getting creepy.
Now, in no way am I defending some of the stupidity of that era. There was a lot- namely stemming from one particular company that ran its course and is a shell of what it used to be.
So, let's get a few things straight first.
Most people preach the 'Silver Age' as being the best era for comics. And sadly, a very small percentage of comic critics (especially those on this game) were even alive during the Silver Age, and I'll bet a percentage of them didn't even read comics or remember anything about them. A Wikipedia article is not the same thing as experiencing that era of comics, folks- don't blow smoke up my butt.
The sad thing is, many of the 'Silver-Age Fanboys' are what I call "antiprogressives". If a reboot of a movie or television show comes out, he's always right there to claim that the original was 'better'. When they make a new motorcycle with better gas mileage and easier maintenance, he's there swearing it sucks and that the old kick-starter smoke-belching hogs that rattled themselves to pieces were 'better'. There's a way to deal with these people- you ask them 'WHY'. Most of the time, their 'reason' why the Silver Age was better is something along the lines of nostalgia. Fun fact, people- nostalgia and quality or not the same thing, otherwise we'd still be using rotary phones and pooping in chamberpots.
To be fair, the Silver Age had its share of problems. You REALLY think that Batman and Superman didn't kill people because of their code? Well, there was a code that held them back- the Comics Code. The Comics Code Authority was created because Fredric Wertham though comic books would make young boys into homosexuals [I wish I were kidding about this, it's true]. So, Batman didn't let the Joker live because he refused to violate his personal code of honor, he did it so you wouldn't start making out with your best friend Tommy after you shared a bottle of Yoohoo on the park bench. So, while comics survived this, what made the Silver Age heroes 'good' wasn't the writing and the heroic ideals they embodied- it was good old fashioned, over-religious, homophobic unnecessary censorship.
Of course, for a bit of shock go dig up some older comics from the Golden Age where Batman and Superman were killing dudes like they were in a Tarantino movie. That sound is your reality peeing on itself. You're welcome.
Now that this Silver Age argument is pushing up daisies and out of the way (I killed it, and the Comics Code isn't here to stop me, deal with it), I can focus on the issue at hand.
The 90's comics get a lot of bad rep from a lot of people because of Rob Leifield, who is probably one of the crappiest artists ever. For the time, his 'concepts' weren't bad, but his execution was just plain awful. Now, I'm going to throw this out here, and I want you to actually think- what's dumber, someone who respects the 90's for its contributions to comics, or someone who claims the entire era sucks because of one artist? [Pause for bacon jerky] I rest my case. ONE guy. And you know what? Here's the weird thing- his stuff SOLD. You can't argue with the sales... unless you REALLY think an entire era of comic fans were just stupid.
The rise of the Antihero. I use this word loosely. I think it's abused, and most people who think they know what they are talking about- don't. I'm going to say this ONCE and I want you to pay attention, it might save you from some embarassment one day. An antihero and a dark hero are not one in the same. Just because they kill someone does not make them an antihero. Just because they smoke and use guns and use dirty words does not make them an antihero. Please quit being an idiot, thank you for your time. I will give you an example. Judge Dredd- Dark hero. Yes, he's brutal- but he's doing what he does for a cause greater than himself, and in his own mind (and several others) he is a good guy. Deadpool? Antihero. Out for himself and his money, will do bad things for money. Spawn? Both- started as an Antihero, became a Dark Hero.
The introduction of this concept was not only acceptable, but welcomed. Wolverine is probably one of the WORST characters in comics but if you threw his name on a My Name is Princess Boogerfinger comic book, dudes would line up in droves to buy it. X-Men wasn't a new thing in the 90's- but when the Comics Code stopped being a major concern, Wolverine was able to be a 'badass' and he carried the X-Men to success. The 90's also brought Ghost Rider back, which no one can say is a bad thing.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Deadpool and Cable were introduced and those guys aren't going anywhere any time soon- and have had major impacts in the current Marvel Universe. It's also worth mentioning that DC recently wasted no time in grabbing up WildC.A.T.S. because this was another comic with a lot of potential (that is still being wasted)
I'd like to pause right here and remind everyone how awesome the X-Men and Spider-man and even WildC.A.T.S. cartoons were in the 90's. I'd also like to remind everyone of the Hanna-Barbera Silver Age cartoons where Aquaman and Green Lantern were running around with little boys. You done yet, fanboys?
The 90's had some AMAZING events. Before this, events were a bit lackluster and most comics were unconnected little caper-stories that could stand alone. The 90's introduced major story arcs- and boy did they raise the bar.
Superman met his match at Doomsday, and quite honestly- it was a good comic book. Granted, his return wasn't so great... a lot more could have happened. But in all honesty, this event was so huge it was considered serious news. People were caught off guard when the news came out Supes was gonna die. And to be far, the way people saw things... a testament to how we felt about that classic restraint of what makes a 'real' hero. Of course, you couldn't be shocked... in '88 people voted on Jason Todd dying. Yes, WE killed Robin with a 900 number. Eat your heart out, Zsasz.
Bane broke the Bat. Yeah, that whole 'The Dark Knight Rises' that everyone went gaga over this past year? Based on a 90's story called Knightfall. This was a significant event in Batman comics, and I hate to say it- but Azrael made the Bat-suit look AWESOME.
It also had Kingdom Come, which I HIGHLY recommend to anyone who roleplays a caped superhero good-guy. This is an amazingly awesome comic that I can't recommend enough... and is also a significant inspiration to the upcoming game Injustice: Gods Among Us.
We also had the Age of Apocalypse, Infinity Gauntlet, Carnage, Rise of the Midnight Sons and WAY too many events in Marvel comics for me to even list. To this day, very few comic events can come close to the momentum and impact of those in the 90's. We should know this, they have a new event every month these days...
GUNS! Before, guns and superheroes went together like Micheal J. Fox and a canned carbonated beverage. For some odd reason, in the mind of some- blasting superheated death-rays is kosher, while firearms are the tools of evil incarnate (Meanwhile, the Geneva Convention outlaws the use of directed energy weapons...). What did this do? Well, I won't lie- some guys went way overboard and created pistols I couldn't mount on an MRAP and use effectively. But it also gave some heroes a chance to have an offensive capability AND a set of powers without having to choose between powers and combat efficiency. I won't get into a thing about guns being right or wrong- that's a political thing and I don't want that drama here. But let's face it, superheroes could only face-punch so many people before a smart villain decided to make something immune to face punches (like a good helmet or a booger on the nose).
SO what happened???
Well, it's simple. The 90's were a stage in growing up for a generation. Compare comics to video games. Video games were for kids when they came out, and we got hooked. We didn't let go. And with all the changes to the times, we carried them with us. Remember when fighting games were the best-sellers out there, and they all had some version of a Fatality? That was a stage. And just like every stage, we took from it and moved on. It wasn't a 'bad' time that should have never happened- it was different, it was a change, sort of like when you hit puberty- most people remember how awkward and interesting it was- and you're glad its past but just as glad it happened (I don't remember puberty, I was only 4 when I became a man).
So, before you launch into slamming the 90's, remember- we needed it to happen.
And seriously, the little boy thing was getting creepy.
Post edited by cybersoldier1981 on
0
Comments
And i recomend reading The Boys for anyone who likes/dislikes superhero comics. And kids, that comic isn't for you.
And playing by myself since Aug 2009
Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
There's also the way Liefeld's "art"work spread through the industry like a virus - Jim Lee and Todd McFarlane started drawing like Liefeld for a while, and last I saw John Romita Jr. still had a pronounced Liefeldan influence in his pencils.
All in all, it was indeed a dark time in the comics world, and one that seems to be behind us now (IMO, it was largely the success of Stracynski's and David's comics that helped the industry believe that "mature" doesn't necessarily equate to "blood and breasts"). It should not be ignored, any more than one ignores one's teenage years; just don't relive them, that's all.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
EDIT: Someone corrected me and said the sword gun is from the 2000s
Oh well. At least you have the Cable eye and pouch knuckles.
I started reading comics in the 90s as well. Aside from Groo, the one main comic I collected was New Mutants. I remember enjoying those enough to keep collecting. Then Liefeld took over. Grooaaannnnn... If I'm not mistaken this was the Bronze Age, and I remember comic books being pretty good. Good stories, good artwork, the works.
I stopped reading comic books for a long time, sometime around when the Iron Age came about. For me, it's flat-out the worst age in comic books. Everyone just wants to be the most badass with the most kills under his belt. Everything feels watered-down. Everything that I used to like about comics seems to have been pushed away to make room for more badassness.
Fast forward to a few years ago, when my brother told me I should read his Essential X-Men. Well, actually, let's skip back a little bit more, when I picked up some more recent comics (I'd been so far out of the loop I had no idea what to expect). I saw a lot of art. I saw a lot of blatantly-computer-generated art. Okay fine. So I flip through a book for five minutes and I'm done. "Wait... where did the text go?"
You get spreads where you'll only see three speech bubbles across three pages. What the hell?
Anyway, not being terribly impressed that I just got suckered out of five minutes of my time to read a glorified coloring book, my brother suggests I read the Essential X-Men book. Fine, whatever. One thing jumped out at me. Back in the day, you got a whole lot more story in one comic book than you do today. It's not just one big fight scene with really angry people and flashy splash pages and "clever" uses of borders. It had story, character development, the works. The art was simpler, yes, the colors weren't as flashy as what you could do today, but the story was there, and they were interesting to read.
I enjoyed that run of X-Men so much, I decided to revisit my favorite Super Hero, Spider-Man, and read from his first issue, Amazing Fantasy 15. The art jumped out at me for being patently very very old. But it had its charm. The stories were rushed but they had about 10 pages to stuff them in. But the stories were enjoyable. They had heart. You could tell that there was a definite art to creating a comic book back then.
I've continued reading these comic books up to around the whole original clone incident, and I have loved the series immensely (I've also been reading Incredible Hulk, my other favorite Super Hero (and sadly, the stories here aren't always great) and a bit of Iron Man). What did they do right? They packed a lot of action and character development and storytelling into those 22 pages of each issue. I mean, fill-packed to capacity compared to what you get in today's comics. Nowadays, you have to read about six issues of a comic book to get as much story out of two or three issues of Silver Age comics.
Interestingly, since I've recently gotten the bug to create a comic book, I've been poking around resources on the intertubes, and came upon a forum where an amateur comic book writer was asking if it was okay or if it was too much that he was asking his artists to do around 9 panels per page... Are you kidding me!? That should be like, standard! Anyway...
So, long story long, you don't have to have lived through the Silver Age to appreciate it. It is currently, by far, my favorite comic book era. I started with Bronze Age, survived Iron Age, I hate whatever this age is (I'll call it Phoning It In Age*), not familiar with Golden Age, and absolutely love Silver Age books.
So, you're not gonna convince me that I hate the Iron Age and love the Silver Age just because Rob Liefeld is a punkass. I don't give it a bad rap for a couple stupid decisions. I give it a bad rap because I just don't like the content. There's no nostalgia involved. It just had better comic books.
*I've been reading Invincible (currently on the third volume). Not gonna say I love the idea of planning story arcs for trade paperbacks. It's BS. You write a small piece of a story, don't flesh it out, nobody talks, there's little to no narration... I also hate the re-use of comic panels (at least they called themselves out for doing it). Seriously, if the picture doesn't change at all, or very, very little unimportant details change, just leave it in the one freaking panel and stick all your text in there. It'll leave you room for better storytelling, jerks!
So I don't have a hate for reboots, just a hate for bad reboots.
Before I get too deep into a response, I'd like to establish few terms and definitions we can use as a common framework for a discussion.
The Golden Age is generally considered to have started with the debut of Superman in 1938, then extends through the 40's and early 50's. The first appearance of many popular characters in comics and other mediums, Batman, Shazam, Wonder Woman, Flash, Captain America, the Shadow, The Phantom, etc. mark this age. The release of Wertham's release of Seduction of the Innocent in 1954, an attempt to lay the blame for juvenile delinquency to the violence and sex found in comics, led to a decrease in the popularity of the medium and the creation of the Comics Code Authority. This forced a shift in storytelling and launched a new era.
The first appearance of the modern Flash in Showcase #4 in 1956 initiated the Silver Age. This period saw the launch of Marvel comics and the debuts of The Fantastic Four in 1961, Spider-Man in 1962, and Uncanny X-men in 1963. This is generally considered an era of character driven storytelling operating within the confines of the Comics Code. The Comic Code limited storytelling elements such as the depiction of police, the supernatural, and asserted "Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals." Under these restrictions, superhero comics gained increasing popularity.
Comic historians debate the beginning of the Bronze Age of comics. Some say it began when Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams took over Green Lantern in 1970. Others point to the death of Gwen Stacy in 1973. A willingness to more realistically depict and describe social issues such as drug use defines this period. The successful handing of these topics lead to a loosening of the Comics Code and the re-appearance of supernatural books. Several unpopular and previously canceled books, reemerged at this time: The "All New! All Different!" Uncanny X-Men in 1975 and New Teen Titans in 1980. The success of Star Wars launched a slew of more science fiction related titles and characters such as Deathlock and Micronauts.
I started actively collecting comics around this time. Micronauts #1 was the first comic I ever sent away for to complete a collection.
The start of the Modern Age, or Iron Age, or Dark Age is also disputed. Many will point at DC's Crisis on Infinate Earths and Marvel's Secret Wars in 1985 ~ 86 to mark the era's beginnings.
I feel the Modern Age of Comics offers much to be thankful for. This is the age that pushed storytelling into some dark and provocative places with titles like Sandman, Watchmen, Marvels, Kingdom Come, The Golden Age, and Batman: the Dark Knight Returns. Peter David's work on Hulk and other works, however, reminded us that not all storytelling had to hide from the sun. The late 80's and 90's also saw the rise of creator owned and published books such as Strangers in Paradise, Bone, and the Image line. Direct distribution methods and collectors' marketplaces, comic shops, grew in popularity, as well.
However, beyond the "big guns, big pecs, big ****" mentality of the era, I lament the 90's for a switch from more chracter and story driven content, to event based material. This is the time when we start seeing multiple covers and press releases. "The Death of Superman" was a big, big deal and sold a lot of comics. The market seemed to value shock and ploys over well written and illustrated books. For every Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Peter David writing comics, dozens of hacks came out of he woodwork to try and cash in.
Overall, I believed the quality of many mainstream comics went into steep decline. Well written books got pushed aside for popular properties of lower quality. Many characters lost their depth in a rush to cash in on their popularity. The expansion of the different Punisher and X-men titles come to mind. Somehow, a cool look or a neat power suddenly replaced actual character development. It felt like everone suddenly needed to put on a suit of armor, not because it fit the character, but because it looked neat.
Case in point: the great stories of the animated X-men series? Those were adapted from comics published during the Bronze Age. Talk about a book who's quality crashed and burned in the 90's. I couldn't pick up an X-book until Morrison started on the series in 2001.
If I had to pick my favorite age, I would go Bronze. I find very few books as good as O'Neil and Adam's run on Green Arrow/Green Lantern, Frank Miller's Daredevil, Chris Clarmont's X-men from that period, and I think Alan Moore's "For the Man Who Has Everything" as one of the finest comics ever written. I enjoy character driven stories that are willing to address realistic issues with heores who face true consequences. With that in mind, The Modern Age would follow as my second favorite.
It's my thought, however, each age offers something of value, often hidden among a ton of junk.
a
For a reason that... It wasn't really less ridiculous than the Silver Age.
Mainstream comics of both periods were total extremes. No real characterisation except being nice and heroic for the Silver Age characters, but also no real characterisation for the Iron Age heroes except being extreme and edgy for the sake of being extreme and edgy.
To the point when those characters became silly - nineties remakes of the Punisher and Ghost Rider were plain hilarious.
It was like everybody tried to be Moore or Miller, except not every writer had their level of skill in writing.
Can't say if I really like any of the nineties heroes except maybe Spawn. And Lobo - and he is the Iron Age parody made on a purpose.
All my characters are made realistic, one of them is rather gritty and my villain is plain psychopath (no wonder, as he's based on TF Prime version of Megatron and the Ultimate version of Magneto), but the Iron Age is simply too exaggerated for my taste.
For me the Bronze Age and the modern period are the best compromises between being too silly and too gritty. Extremities are always leading to shallow and one-dimensional characters.
Ironically, both of the really gritty Marvel characters, the Punisher and the Ghost Rider, are the Bronze Age creations (and a basis for his later more serious incarnations, the Marvel comic books Megatron is Bronze Age as well).
There was however good thing in the Iron Age - putting this comic code idiocy to rest for good.
Story arcs were two-edged sword for me. Yes. It allowed for more complicated storytelling but if you missed few issues you were lost in the dark. On of the reasons why I liked Marvel's Transformers more than X-Men was because TF story arcs weren't that long and needlessly complicated.
Regarding the Comics Code, while I agree it was stupid and based on stupidity itself, you're kinda saying the equivalent of "Movies that aren't rated R can't be good."
There were plenty of good Silver Age stories that I've read. You don't have to be all about murder and sex and drugs in order to have a good story.
I don't look, to comics for real life drama and angst, I look to them for fun pure and simple. When I think of 90s comics, I think of darkness. dark leather clad assassins.
In the 90s too many heroes not only WOULD kill their enemies, but WANTED to kill them. I'll watch the news for that.
There was a light heartedness that left comics during that time, and personally, negatively affected my interest in the meduim.
Some will say comics grew up in the 90s. I say you always lose your innocence when you grow up, I'll take Steve Rogers Captain America over The Winter Soldier version all day long.
YMMV of course.
You're a lunatic with a mad man's dream of a milk proof robot!
___________________________________________________
Within the pen and paper role-playing games, especially with regards to RuneQuest, the phrase "antiprogressive" is replaced with grognard, which is French for "old soldier" which is based on a French verb "to grumble".
Kingdom Come, by the way, was good but Astro City was better.
A Prootwaddle is one of the weirder player-character races in "The Fantasy Trip", Steve Jackson's first published role-playing game.
So very, very true. Hell, even Miller couldn't write like Miller by the mid 90's.
a
Thought the first the Spidey movies were not great, but good fun, Tobey was ****, and 3 shouldn't have happened the way it did, while Amazing should have been an abortion who's sequel needs to be stopped, and not because of the comics, but because the movie itself, within its own context and universe was awful on top of being unnecessary.
I loved Ang Lee's Hulk including hulk poodles, up to the third act (lightning fight, and who's your daddy), thought Norton's was great too.
I can't stand Spawn as he's depicted, but the story is actually pretty interesting if you skip the comic, hate McFarlen when he gets too McFarlen'd but his style does have it's place. I don't mind Liefeld in his entirety, despite not being able to draw, but the man really has no business in comics, although he did give the world the concept of Deadpool and Cable who are, in the hands of good writers, actually really good characters, just most writers aren't very good.
I love Kon El, but hate Conner Kent. I love Wally West but hate Kid Flash. I love Barry Allen but he was a bad character until he died. Same with Jason Todd. Guy Gardner was awful until Kyle Raynor took over, and Hal Jordan was worse until he came back.
Amalgam was awesome, and JSA was consistently the best book on the shelves for near a decade pre and post hiatus.
And I love huge boobies.
There are some good things that came out of the 90s that are often overshadowed by the bad, and some of the worst is usually the fault of ascended fanboys who became artists and writers playing out their faptasy, Bendis and Morrison being the worst offenders.
I like some Silver and Golden Age stories but the writing and dialogue were terrible, and sadly once dialogue and writing got better it was at the hands of post-pubescent nerds who finally got their chance to fangasm all over the pages, or at the whims of senile should-be-retirees who weren't all that good to begin with like Claremont.
The worst decisions usually came at the hands of fan demand or feedback, particular when fans were behind the helm, with the exception of killing Jason Todd.
Every age has its flaws and fans that are willing to overlook them, and just because there's an entire base devoted to ****ty B-movies doesn't make them good. Preference is preference, but objectively, the time period in which something was created doesn't impact the quality of the product, nor does nostalgia.
My biggest problem with the majority of the Golden/Silver/Dark/Dork/Iron/Bronze/Modern Age stuff is that it completely loses what made it good in favor of what made it allegedly "iconic," but in reality is just flanderization (for lack of a better term), i.e. for the 90s it became about pouches and huge guns rather than more grounded less idyllic characters. In reality, the first "90s" characters were created in the 60s - Spidey and the X-men are quintessential 90s fare - and then there's Batman in the 40s - gun toting, murdering, pouch covered, shadow loving, navel gazing, angst ridden sociopath.
It's funny that I just started reading Ender's Game on my way home (I know, I'm ashamed of myself) and I was reading the Introduction in which Card says "I learned to separate the story from the writing."
The greatest wrong in the comic code isn't the abolishon of sex and unneeded violence, but limitations like "oh no, you can't write villains not being completely corrupted and likeable and you can't depict any flaws in heroes".
This is the thing that made it so wrong. Such limitation basically abolishes any believable storytelling.
Reason why I liked Decepticons in Marvel comics was because they were one of the few mainstream comic books villainous organisations with valid reason for doing things. Their ideals - saving their home planet, making it dominant in the galaxy and making their own species powerful - weren't wrong. After all, Megatron started as a freedom fighter. It was execution of those ideals what made them into villains. But at least it made them more believable and not every Decepticon had to be a completely evil scoundrel.
Same was about Magneto and the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Their concerns were valid, their way of acting - not.
But such factions never could be written into mainstream Silver Age comics.
I like paladin type heroes, but typical Silver Age setting isn't even good for depicting them.
Both Optimus Prime and Steve Rogers are more interesting in a believable setting, when they have not only to fight villains, but also to keep their ideals despite living in less-than-ideal world.
In terms of his personal ideals Marvel comics Optimus is clearly a Silver Age guy. If he was thrown into Silver Age world he would be really boring (a good example - official G1 Transformers cartoon, where he's indeed shallow and boring). What makes this character working is his personal struggle to keep those ideals despite fighting in an extremely brutal war, when even his own subordinates are giving him pretty valid questions - "why to bother with pussyfooting around humans, when our own world is dying, bad guys are clearly winning this war and our ranks are thinner with every battle? Shouldn't we do anything to win, by any means necessary?"
Same is about Charles Xavier when he's fighting to keep his dream despite all odds and doubts.
Same goes about well written Superman stories.
Those characters are that good mostly because of this personal struggle.
But in the Silver Age? No struggle, no tension. It's all about "we're the good guys, let's smash some evil".
Same accusation goes also for badly written Iron Age stories - no struggle, no tension. "I'm right, they're wrong, let's slaughter them."
The only interesting Punisher stories aren't about him murdering criminals, but about how morally wrong he's as a person, despite fighting evil guys.
I like more realism not because I have so much hate for lawful good guys, but because believable environment simply makes them into much better characters.
Like the example I made a while ago, how Shocker's suit's vibrations make him strong and allows him to deflect blows. It makes zero sensebut I find that kind of stuff stupidly wonderful. I don't care if bad guys aren't believable.
Amazing Spider-Man was great. I love that it's not just about Spider-Man, but Peter Parker as well, in his never-ending run of bad luck. From girlfriends to money to his aunt to growing extra arms to being cloned, he goes through some pretty tragic stuff. Some of that stuff happened during the bronze age, but I don't believe all of it did (and in that time I believe they were still working under the Comics Code). There was definitely personal struggle with him. One part that sticks out in my mind is when Peter almost completely lost it and was going to actually kill Green Goblin.
That said, the "realism" that was brought back by the bronze age doesn't affect how much I like comic books. We're obviously on two sides of the fence on this one.
Just picked this up, didn't know they had a trade about it. How many times has this story been told? Was this just a one-off to rewrite what was told in Amazing Spider-Man?
I don't think it was the writing itself that was terrible, because I thoroughly enjoy it. I think the style of the writing just isn't up your alley. I like the way most of the writing is done. The one exception is Roy Thomas, who talks at the characters in the story. It's completely cornball. And when they try to get poetic. Dislike.
Anyway, maybe its not up my alley, I'll concede that, but at the same time some of my favorite heroes are the upright cape types. Christopher Reeve was amazing as Superman for me because he was able to deliver some truly Golden Age lines of dialogue with conviction and you felt it. I feel the same about Captain America, and that particular tone is something thats been pretty consistent throughout his appearances for some reason.
I think what bothers me is when the character has no voice of his own. To me, that's part of bad writing. Its not specifically what the character says, but whether or not they should be saying it. So I agree with you on Roy Thomas there. From my brief exposure to his stuff, yeah, all his characters sound alike, and they're all melodramatic, like they're rehearsing a play or soap-opera.
Honestly, I don't know. I like funny, I like corny, I like a lot of the plot ideas, but it bugs me when something is supposed to be epic and comes off limp, or when something is supposed to be wacky and comes off desperate. Heck, I love Adam West Batman.
I'm going to skip the Golden Age, as I've had no real interactions with that era.
The Silver Age had a lot of good ideas, and it may have been a good idea to start with a code... Although it severely limited some storyline potential, a lot of good ideas started out here.
Although I do admit that some of the dialogue of the stories in this era do seem a little too... cheezy isn't the word... it would be more straightforward that I would say. Not that's a bad thing. Its just that this era does have a hard time keeping my attention. Some of these heroes do well in the later eras though.
The Bronze Age is more my cup of soup though. In fact, when I write superhero fanfics with my original toons, I'm told that this is where I usually end up. A dash of realism, with the possibility of something good happening at the end of the day. And sometimes it has an ending that can have a bad result for the hero. I'm thinking of the New Mutants, and their original run. Although sometimes, it does seem like it's missing something.
The Iron Age is a mixed bag for me. I loved a lot that this era had to provide. The Flash was really well done when Wally came up. And the spinoff series, Impulse is definitely a must read. And I am reminded of a debate between the New Warriors when they had to decided on pursuing a foreign Yakuza leader in Japan, and the team stepped back because they were concerned because of the politics of the matter. The art styles in this era was really well done.
The weakness here is sometimes some writers started with the shock and awe. That's good once in a while, but too much of it can leave readers miffed. And then there is the balance between action scenes, character development and storyline, primarily in some of the more "nitty and gritty" tittles. Too much action scenes, wanting to show the different angles of how a hero (or antihero depending the case) was fighting. Darkhawk comes to mind here. The background story with him, his unbribable judge of a mother who was not going to let a criminal get away with murder, nevermind, attempting to murder her, by blowing up her car, and instead, one of her younger sons, of a set of twins nearly dies in the explosion, as he started the car... And the writers and artists were more interested in showing over 3/4 of the entire storyline (About 6-8 issues) being badass action scenes... I put down the title, as I felt
The Modern Age is another mixed bag. Although they are trying to go back and amalgamate a lot of the different eras... this is actually feeling a little weak because a lot of people in the comic book industry (Particularly the top brass) is letting their nostalgia get the better of them. There are a lot of interesting storylines going on, but there are some definite clear things that are rather weak.
First off there's the Shock and Awe that's a more common tactic. For example, DC and Marvel are killing off a major character per storyline in order to make "heroes more realistic"... But it seems more like trying to propogate some sort of Soap Opera... Character drama is very good, but we are losing some of the symbolism of some heroes. (Superman commenting on how he is going to relinquish his American citizenship amongst those, instead of trying like Captain America seeing all the bad of the governments, and fighting through the developpement of that.)
Another problem is the political correctness of it all. A lot of people are wanting more minorities in comic books, but I do have to question when it is proper inclusion, or nothing but mere tokenism. And I'm not talking "Oh look, end of Avengers cartoon Black panther looks like he's dying, racist tokenism rage!" no... that's not tokenism... Lets face it. Storm was never a character that used her gender or her race (Or her genes in the case of the X-men...) for an excuse for behaviour. It built on her, particularly when she was depowered, and lead the X-men. Two prime examples of tokenism in comics has to do with the infamous Alan Scott homosexual debacle. That was done around the same time as Northstar's wedding, for attracting attention. (Yes, with Obsidian vanishing from the New 52, but it was done more to please that audience by saying they aren't losing a gay character...) another example of such politically correct tokenism is Lightspeed of Power Pack. She was chosen as lesbian (note lesbian, not bisexual... She isn't showing interest in guys anymore...) simply because of her rainbow tail. No longer a symbol of youth, innocence and romanticism, it was turned into a token symbol for homosexuality.
This political correctness is something that the modern comics seem to have a lot in them, And it feels like writers don't let the story write themselves as much.
I enjoy things from all eras. It just depends on my mood. And of course there are issues with each generation. Yes, there are some writers that just need someone to tell them no, when they take things too far. Bendhis isn't a bad writer, in my opinion... he just needs an editor to tell him not to cut loose, cause he seems to like the Tomino Approach, as I like to call it.
And then there are writers who should be told no, and drop the idea... Dan Slott comes to mind, with his "inferior" Spider-man... *shudders*
This oh god this its like the've went from one extreem to another I was browsing some old spider man reprints I have and it struck me just how much text was on each page, there was just to much to be fair that reading it detracted from the art flick forward to the here and now and its the reverse by and large theres to much art (not all of it all that good either) and not anuff text take Thunderbolts 7 (cause its right here in front of me)
1st page very wordy but just a recap (and god do i hate recaps so skip)
2nd page 4 pannels 10 words 5 of which establish where the scene is set
3rd page woohoo actual speach bubbles with more than a handful of words those dose little to progress the story
4th big **** single page pannel 7 words 2 of which are a kinda tittle like thing susspect that its actualy serving as a add for another marvel title to be honest.
after this it dose give some more story but real so far the hole thunderbolts comic has been a massive let down (especially when compared to previous incarnations) given the current cast I was expecting something a bit more 90s but with added story instead its beenthus far pretty lame and is also doing the one thing that really really bugs the hell out of me which is when the characters don't match up across books in this case venom where in this book even with the help of punisher, deadpool, and electra they couldn't even injure the red hulk let alone take him down. Across in his own book he wipes teh floor with the U-Foes all by him self (admit idly his possible host to not so nutured symbiont/ demoniacally possessed/ potential air to hell self) maybe there story's are set at wildly different points in the characters life but if they are I do so wish they would establish that. I know maybe they could use some of the empty space in the book to establish just when events are happening.
Um sorry turned into a rant ill go back to my corner now
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7047-Comics-in-The-90s-What-Happened
a
This was really, really good. Thanks for sharing.
Even though I grew up with 90s comics, this video showed me things I didn't realize.
It's like I know what they're talking about, but never put the Big Picture together.
More action at Champions Online Comics @ http://co-comics.webs.com