|
Post by badwolf on Aug 16, 2019 9:06:12 GMT -5
Doug Moench & Kelley Jones' Batman was a run I really liked from that period. That started in 1995 so you may be right. As a fan of Jones' art during that period, I keep meaning to read that run in full, but other comics keep getting in the way. DC finally released the second volume of that run in hardcover recently.
Maybe they'll collect it in a larger omnibus later, like they did with Grant Morrison's run, but I prefer the smaller volumes if I can get them all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 9:42:56 GMT -5
I did not do much Comic Book Reading from 1989 to 2001 because of work and my dear friends brought me books that I should not missed anything at all. The only book that I read was JLA under the direction of Grant Morrison that I managed to have time to buy them from January 1997 onwards.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 16, 2019 10:01:12 GMT -5
While every decade has had its bad stuff, I think the 90's stand out because its bad stuff was so high profile. Even though comics are more than superheroes, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. were the titles their companies pushed the most which is why these characters had so many ancillary titles during this decade. Even if you agree with the adage that "90% of everything is crap" I would expect a certain level of quality from the big names even if those titles aren't considered the best of the best. Pick up a Batman, Spider-Man, Superman comic from any other decade and I think they put in a respectable showing (Superman, admittedly might be an exception given the fact that a lot of his 70's and 80's stuff was usually not very good but even then it wasn't shockingly bad) but walk into a comic shop in the 90's and you're going to have to dig through a lot of stuff like this: to get to the gems.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,336
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2019 10:37:30 GMT -5
The '90s were a logical extension of the rise of the Direct Market in the 1980s. It marked not only a change in target demographic, but also a total change in marketing/generating sales. Gradually, publishers got better and better at exploiting this new market through hype and solicitations in a way that never would have worked on the spinner rack. By the 1990s, we had the cult of Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, and Rob Liefeld, an onslaught of #1s, new costumes, and new characters assuming old mantles, (oh yes) and death. What couldn't compete in this brave new world of comicdom was solid writing. Time and again, excellent titles, imprints, and publishers fell by the wayside as impressionable fans were spending their money on multiple copies of X-Men #1 or whatever had a foil-embossed cover that month. There were some GREAT titles in the '90s, but unlike in previous decades (where great titles were the exception and usually not the rule) the market and publishers were forcibly working against quality titles. Bob Harrass, overseeing the best selling franchise of the decade, essentially forced out the writers who had made the X-titles what they were (Chris Claremont and Louise Simonson) in favor of hot artists Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld, who had no idea how to write a book, but their art sold books. It might also be worth noting that Marvel took its stock public in 1991, making them answerable to share-holders who wanted to see sales increase and didn't give a damn about telling a good story. One could argue that's exactly the attitude publishers had prior to Marvel's Silver Age Renaissance, but this time the Direct Market gave them more effective tools for increasing profit while minimizing content. Buy six copies of the same poorly written issue and never actually open it to read it. Irwin Donenfeld couldn't have pulled that off in the 1960s. And then, by the end of the 1990s, the market had become so oversaturated with low-quality crap and collectors' items that weren't becoming collectible that the entire industry crashed and is still struggling to find its way back to cultural relevancy nearly three decades later. So yes, there ARE good books published in the 1990s, but they are few and far between, and most were barely dodging cancellation the entire time. My review of Wizard: The Guide to Comics is actually an issue-by-issue analysis of the early 1990s comic book market, and it may help to shed some further light on this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 10:53:53 GMT -5
The '90s were a logical extension of the rise of the Direct Market in the 1980s. It marked not only a change in target demographic, but also a total change in marketing/generating sales. Gradually, publishers got better and better at exploiting this new market through hype and solicitations in a way that never would have worked on the spinner rack. By the 1990s, we had the cult of Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, and Rob Liefeld, an onslaught of #1s, new costumes, and new characters assuming old mantles, (oh yes) and death. What couldn't compete in this brave new world of comicdom was solid writing. Time and again, excellent titles, imprints, and publishers fell by the wayside as impressionable fans were spending their money on multiple copies of X-Men #1 or whatever had a foil-embossed cover that month. There were some GREAT titles in the '90s, but unlike in previous decades (where great titles were the exception and usually not the rule) the market and publishers were forcibly working against quality titles. Bob Harrass, overseeing the best selling franchise of the decade, essentially forced out the writers who had made the X-titles what they were (Chris Claremont and Louise Simonson) in favor of hot artists Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld, who had no idea how to write a book, but their art sold books. It might also be worth noting that Marvel took its stock public in 1991, making them answerable to share-holders who wanted to see sales increase and didn't give a damn about telling a good story. One could argue that's exactly the attitude publishers had prior to Marvel's Silver Age Renaissance, but this time the Direct Market gave them more effective tools for increasing profit while minimizing content. Buy six copies of the same poorly written issue and never actually open it to read it. Irwin Donenfeld couldn't have pulled that off in the 1960s. And then, by the end of the 1990s, the market had become so oversaturated with low-quality crap and collectors' items that weren't becoming collectible that the entire industry crashed and is still struggling to find its way back to cultural relevancy nearly three decades later. So yes, there ARE good books published in the 1990s, but they are few and far between, and most were barely dodging cancellation the entire time.My review of Wizard: The Guide to Comics is actually an issue-by-issue analysis of the early 1990s comic book market, and it may help to shed some further light on this. You're right, there were some good books published in the 90s. I'm sure you were thinking of Valiant's WWF Battlemania and Marvel Comics WCW Comic when you typed that.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 16, 2019 10:58:11 GMT -5
OP: Yes, so much of the comic book industry of the 1990s was terrible.
Aside from the obvious leaders in industry-destroying muck such as the work of 90s Image (and what its founders did while at Marvel), the simplistic, "balls to the wall" and/or overblown nature of so many titles, gimmicks, heavily borrowing from the less than thoughtful works of James Cameron, Stallone and Tim Burton's terrible Batman film, the 90s was excess sold as fresh and/or innovative. It was not.
I've mentioned works such as Marvels and Kingdom Come as the far and away greatest comic work of the 1990s and there's no reason to ever change or modify that belief, as they both built on what led to revolutions in the concept of superhero comics, while successfully treating many of its concepts in a realistic, relatable fashion that--I dare say--many most 90s comics consistently failed to match (instead replacing realistic with attitude and/or bludgeoning shock stunts) along with the largely over-produced/overblown superhero movies of this century.
Another rare gem from that decade was Zero Hour: Crisis in Time!--a logical, inventive follow-up / "answer" to some of the issues born out of Crisis on Infinite Earths. While Zero Hour: Crisis in Time! was not quite the monumental work that COIE naturally demanded, it was still a worthy, serious effort that stood out in the raging ocean of swollen hackwork that was the 1990s comic industry, with a focus on DC and Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 11:01:13 GMT -5
Expanding on my original post, I loved what Peter David did with the Hulk. He never repeated the same tale. I looked forward to each Hulk comic (and when revisiting them as an adult, I found them enjoyable). If I ever compile a list of my favourite runs, David's Hulk will be on the list.
I did like 2099. Sure, it may have been a flash in the pan. Doom 2099 fizzled out and lost its way a bit. I don't think Punisher 2099 and Hulk 2099 ran long enough to fizzle out. I like the themes in Spider-Man 2099. I like the origins of Ghost Rider 2099. X-Men 2099 hardly set my world alight, but I had some enjoyment out of it.
Whatever our likes/dislikes regarding the 90s, my post has once again attracted thoughtful, well-reasoned and great-to-read comments. Thanks, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 16, 2019 11:05:07 GMT -5
How bad could "Onslaught" be? (The 1996 X-Men event). I bought the omnibus to find out. Answer: Terrible. It was like a 1,000 page action sequence devoid of human pathos or wit. I can see why Marvel shelled out to get Grant Morrison to come on board and provide some fresh ideas shortly thereafter. Not that Marvel did much with the fifty-odd new characters Morrison introduced.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,336
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 16, 2019 11:15:48 GMT -5
How bad could "Onslaught" be? (The 1996 X-Men event). I bought the omnibus to find out. Answer: Terrible. It was like a 1,000 page action sequence devoid of human pathos or wit. It was also a replay of the X-Men/Micronauts storyline.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 16, 2019 11:17:53 GMT -5
How bad could "Onslaught" be? (The 1996 X-Men event). I bought the omnibus to find out. Answer: Terrible. It was like a 1,000 page action sequence devoid of human pathos or wit. It was also a replay of the X-Men/Micronauts storyline. In the broad strokes of "Evil Xavier" that is certainly true. It took out the hebephilia but then added in toxic doses of alternate reality characters.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Aug 16, 2019 11:36:31 GMT -5
Expanding on my original post, I loved what Peter David did with the Hulk. He never repeated the same tale. I looked forward to each Hulk comic (and when revisiting them as an adult, I found them enjoyable). If I ever compile a list of my favourite runs, David's Hulk will be on the list.
I've never been a fan of the Hulk, but I concede that Peter David's tenure is the only one I ever considered readable.
Cody Starbuck's lengthy essay captures a lot of my feelings on the subject. During the era there were many excellent comics coming out and I never had a shortage of things to read. But at the same time the Big Two had descended into an utter craphole of dreck (Vertigo being the shining exception), and there was a loss of the optimism of the 80's when it had seemed like comics were heading 'onwards and upwards' into mainstream acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 16, 2019 11:46:03 GMT -5
What couldn't compete in this brave new world of comicdom was solid writing. So yes, there ARE good books published in the 1990s, but they are few and far between, and most were barely dodging cancellation the entire time. This is just such an amazingly Big Two Superhero + early Image view that it's hard to know where to begin. This completely ignores the fact that much of the best writing in the history of comics came out of the 90s. Most of Sandman, Bone, Preacher, various runs on Hellblazer, Transmetropolitan, From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, much of Don Rosa's Duck work, etc. Most of those have become evergreen titles that people are still reading and discussing and many of which are being taught in university classes. We can add in Hellboy as another high quality evergreen title. Good books were no fewer nor farther between than at any other time in comic history. You can maybe argue that the best sellers were more dire than at most other points (though I'm not sure that's entirely true). But there were plenty of good books and many of them were plenty successful. And maintained that success in unprecedented ways.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 16, 2019 12:16:44 GMT -5
I have a theory that the reason serious comic fans hate the 90’s is because the hobby got invaded by outsiders and the publishers started to cater to them with foil covers and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 16, 2019 13:03:26 GMT -5
I have a theory that the reason serious comic fans hate the 90’s is because the hobby got invaded by outsiders and the publishers started to cater to them with foil covers and stuff. AKA "flooding the market with crap."
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 16, 2019 13:23:05 GMT -5
I have a theory that the reason serious comic fans hate the 90’s is because the hobby got invaded by outsiders and the publishers started to cater to them with foil covers and stuff. The foil covers wouldn't have been so bad if the interior content was as good or better than before rather than worse.
|
|