|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 15:38:10 GMT -5
I commented on WWE elsewhere recently, and one reply mentioned the term “generational subjectivity”. I was talking about how each era contains fans that claim a previous era was better.
Quite a few WWE fans online seem to think the Attitude Era (late 90s onwards) was better than today. But during that era, when message boards were in their infancy, there were fans claiming 80s WWF was better. I don’t doubt that there were 80s fans claiming the territorial days of the 60s and 70s were better. And in the 60s, I could have imagined a wrestling fan saying, “This just isn’t as good as the wrestling I saw in the 30s and 40s.”
I *try* to appreciate each era of anything as being good and bad (I dislike the term Golden Age of Cinema, for instance). But as fair as I try to be, even I have been down the rabbit hole of claiming a previous era was superior. Really, I think every era has its good and bad points. Sure, there are some things that are better for me (I prefer the days when Marvel didn’t do 4,567,342 tie-in issues to whatever event they are publishing now). But I also feel some things were not better, there are a few Bronze Age Marvel titles that I didn’t like reading.
I started this post off with wrestling talk (and if you’re not watching wrestling, you truly are letting the best in life pass you by). I can imagine certain conservations taking place within comics fandom. Some today claim the 80s was better. But an 80s fan might say, “I miss those 60s comics, they were far superior.” And if there’s someone even older in the room, he might say, “Come on, those 60s comics paled in comparison to the comics I read in the 40s!”
So if I may borrow my friend’s “generational subjectivity” term, I think I shall try to aspire to just be as neutral as I can and appreciate the strengths of all eras. I mean, sure I can criticise Marvel for its countless wallet-draining crossovers, but then I can also talk about how I enjoyed the fairly recent WEST COAST AVENGERS title. And while I can shout from the rooftops about how much I enjoyed Bronze Age Spider-Man (not a fashionable thing to admit according to one online friend), I can also say that some Bronze Age Superman stuff, and I am a Superman fan, left me feeling cold when I read it.
My point, if I have one, is that for me personally, I want to not go down that rabbit hole of claiming a previous era of something was better, whether it be WWF/E, comics, soap operas or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 16:24:03 GMT -5
Hey driver1980 , I just wanted to say I'm really glad to see you back on here. I took a break as well, but have tried to pop back in from time to time. I really enjoyed your posts a lot from before, they were some of the ones I looked forward to back then. Regarding the theme you mentioned, it's an interesting one I think about a lot. Despite proclaiming all of my personal preference/sentimentality/perceived strengths and weaknesses of given eras, I don't truly believe any period is "objectively better" than any other. I've come to appreciate that conclusion much more later in life though. To paraphrase/apply a famous music quote towards the funny books: "there's two kinds of comic books, good comics and the other kind." If for example a kid reading Image comics in the 90's finds those the good ones, there's no "technical argument" from the fans of say George Perez art in the 80's, Neal Adams in the 70's, Kirby in the 60's, etc. that the 90's kid is wrong no matter how much they argue/meltdown/tease/grouse/whatever that really matters at the end of the day. What you described, focusing on considering the strengths of different eras, I've found more personally rewarding. Not that I mind or abstain from taking some good-natured shots at what I perceive are weaknesses at times (it wouldn't be much fun if we never debated or missed an entertaining snarky comment moment). But back to sentimentality...a lot of what you are describing gets back to "formative years" (though not exclusively of course, some folks find magic in earlier eras or even later). Our minds are still "clay" during those earlier years and much as we might think we are open-minded later on, once our tastes have formed, they will make it harder to appreciate that a different generation could have such different opinions (even if we know that "logically" it works that way). And also, it's very natural to look back at earlier times as "the good old days" even though in reality, they probably weren't as great as we now remember them but compared to how the world is now, the past seems so much more compelling in ways.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 16:42:53 GMT -5
Thank you for the welcome back!
Good points! Especially about formative years and our minds being “clay”. I try to appreciate, if I may use the WWE example, that some kids watching WWE for the first time today might really enjoy certain characters that I am a little cynical about (e.g. giants). I try to think that when I first began appreciating giants in the WWF, older fans at the time might well have been cynical. And you can just keep going backwards with that logic.
I’d also like to add something about the passage of time: I rewatched the 80s M.A.S.K. cartoon recently. Didn’t live up the memories of watching it when I was 7-8. Loved the toys, always will. Loved the comics (always more character-driven). But the episodes I rewatched are just extended toy commercials with interchangeable plots for the most part. Definitely didn’t live up to the memories, but if I chatted about it as a kid, I probably told people it was the best thing ever!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 13, 2022 18:03:35 GMT -5
I’d also like to add something about the passage of time: I rewatched the 80s M.A.S.K. cartoon recently. Didn’t live up the memories of watching it when I was 7-8. Loved the toys, always will. Loved the comics (always more character-driven). But the episodes I rewatched are just extended toy commercials with interchangeable plots for the most part. Definitely didn’t live up to the memories, but if I chatted about it as a kid, I probably told people it was the best thing ever! I'm not sure I agree with the theory of "generational subjectivity" at least not in any broad sense. Take your animation example: there were some cartoons from my childhood that some of my generation still hold in high regard and argue are better than shows from the decades to follow. From my POV, I thought a great number of cartoons from my childhood were pure garbage or just not worth getting past the opening credits--at the time they originally aired. Further, i've seen some cartoons released after my childhood years that were and remain markedly superior to almost every cartoon from "my" generation. I believe your theory really applies to those who really have their feet planted into a sort of "protective bias" block of cement, meaning they cannot--and will not--ever note even a single flaw about their generation's entertainment (I would name a certain YouTube channel that engages in this kind of argumentation often, but yeah, I will let that one go), and really resent anything that followed, especially if its a new version of one their old favorites they claim is not "right" or "speaking" to them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 18:40:23 GMT -5
I’d certainly go with “protective bias” as a term. I think I see it the most among wrestling fans (not saying they are more or less than other kinds of fans, only that I see it a lot). Some can’t see the positives - or even potential positives - of today’s WWE. They’ll talk about the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. Yet it’d be fun to take them back in time to the 60s and see a wrestling fan of that era say, “Well, I can’t get into this era, it was much better when George Hackenschmidt was wrestling in the early 1900s. Now, THAT was far better than the wrestling today.” That’s a wrestling example. The same could apply to comedy, comics, sci-fi, etc. I remember a friend saying there was no good sci-fi in the late 90s/early 2000s. Always subjective, but BABYLON 5 and the like received critical acclaim. That person I know said it was better in the 60s (he referenced THE OUTER LIMITS), but how many 60s viewers might have described the serials of the 30s and 40s as being better than TV sci-fi? So I think I can get on board with your “protective bias” theory. Me too. My era of DC superhero cartoons was the 1980s. Now, I think the best came later with the likes of BATMAN: TAS and JUSTICE LEAGUE. Despite enjoying the 80s DC cartoons for what they were at the time, there is no way I could confidently claim that they are superior to what came after.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 13, 2022 19:05:39 GMT -5
I've heard of something called " Generational Bias" , meaning your generation has the best of things. I frequently hear the basketball argument that Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan. The people of this generation think that everything and everyone is the best .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 19:57:29 GMT -5
I've heard of something called " Generational Bias" , meaning your generation has the best of things. I frequently hear the basketball argument that Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan. The people of this generation think that everything and everyone is the best . I think that term does characterize a common phenomenon, but even having grown up fully in the Jordan era, even I don't believe either of those two were better than Wilt the Stilt (nor Gretzky also from my youth over Orr).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:29:25 GMT -5
I’d also like to add something about the passage of time: I rewatched the 80s M.A.S.K. cartoon recently. Didn’t live up the memories of watching it when I was 7-8. Loved the toys, always will. Loved the comics (always more character-driven). But the episodes I rewatched are just extended toy commercials with interchangeable plots for the most part. Definitely didn’t live up to the memories, but if I chatted about it as a kid, I probably told people it was the best thing ever! I'm not sure I agree with the theory of "generational subjectivity" at least not in any broad sense. Take your animation example: there were some cartoons from my childhood that some of my generation still hold in high regard and argue are better than shows from the decades to follow. From my POV, I thought a great number of cartoons from my childhood were pure garbage or just not worth getting past the opening credits--at the time they originally aired. Further, i've seen some cartoons released after my childhood years that were and remain markedly superior to almost every cartoon from "my" generation. I believe your theory really applies to those who really have their feet planted into a sort of "protective bias" block of cement, meaning they cannot--and will not--ever note even a single flaw about their generation's entertainment (I would name a certain YouTube channel that engages in this kind of argumentation often, but yeah, I will let that one go), and really resent anything that followed, especially if its a new version of one their old favorites they claim is not "right" or "speaking" to them. The generational subjectivity to me is not about the exceptions or those who are completely rigid, it's the more dominant trends. More like a bell curve really. Survey a thousand people who are in their late 30's and early-mid 40's and are/were into cartoons/pop culture. If you think 80's era Transformers/G.I Joe/MOTU/ThunderCats/TMNT isn't going to dominate that poll, I'll have to disagree (and trust me, I'm on with that crowd on another forum). Yes, some of those same people aren't going to agree and 90's stuff like BTAS, X-Men, etc. hooked many an "older kid" along the way. But guess what...those glorious 90's shows? Now a bunch of younger folks, not just kids but a good number in their 20's find those same 90's shows pretty dated, I hear those comments all the time, and increasingly so. Generational indeed. My favorite DC cartoons are 60's and 70's. Despite the campiness and more limited production values, they are "better" to me than say Timmverse (which I like a lot as well) because they are more fun and and rewatchable to my tastes. They represent an era I like better. Despite the cruder animation by some technical standards, I prefer the Alex Toth style character designs of stuff like Super Friends, and the coloring of the backgrounds they used back then. And super-heroes tended to be a little kinder and less angsty, and that appeals to me more as well. It's generational...not a chance I can persuade any of my younger friends they'll feel the same "magic" I do when watching them. But a heckuva lot of people of a certain age still love these shows for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2022 20:36:53 GMT -5
One additional comment...on pretty much every guitar forum I'm on, 90% of hard rock guys over the age of 45 believe music died sometime between 1985 and 1992 and the 90's were an abomination to everything and things have only gotten worse. They're still complaining about grunge 30 years later, and don't even get them started with rap/hip-hop/electronic music. "Generational subjectivity" is an understatement.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 13, 2022 23:59:15 GMT -5
Tastes in entertainment are generally forged in your formative years, like much of your personality. That doesn't mean it doesn't or can't evolve; but, the memories of those times have so much emotion and context intertwined that perceptions of movies or tv, music or comics is tied to more things beyond the entertainment itself. The comics of our youths bring up strong memories, because they probably remind us of the context of first reading them. Issue #5 of Micronauts has a Captain & Tenille soundtrack in my head, because I was listening to a tape of them when I first read the book. Late 70s/early 80s comics remind me of having more financial independence, as I was earning my own money and able to make my own spending choices. Mid to late 80s comics reminds me of discovering the independent world and the variety to be had and the optimism for the medium.
I enjoy comics from many eras, though it is more for individual stories or creators than ongoing storylines or characters. There were periods when that was important, but not always.
In terms of wrestling, you become educated to a certain style, based on where and when you became a fan. I became a fan in the territorial era; but not really until the dawn of the 80s. In the 70s, we didn't get regular wrestling tv shows, in my area, and the closest promotion had its best days in the 60s and early 70s. By the time they did have some tv locally, they were pretty boring to watch. It was the Poffoc ICW, with wilder action and characters, that caught my interest. Cable tv introduced me to other styles; but, I found the key NWA promotions to present more of the action I preferred. I first saw the WWF in 1982, with Madison Square Garden matches on USA Network, about every 4-6 weeks. For the most part, the action was rather boring, with an emphasis on big guys and punching, kicking and bodyslams. I preferred more mat action, hold exchanges, and the odd highspot. The exception, for the WWF, of 1982, was any match with Bob Backlund, who was a tremendous technician, even if he was a bland promo. He was a believable promo, though, as he was the classic All-American sports hero. the other exception was Jimmy Snuka, because he was wild and spectacular, with the leaps and chops and constant action. the peak, for me, was when I saw Tiger Mask defend his WWF Jr Hwt title, on an MSG card. he was amazing, constantly moving, mat wrestling and flying around the ring, through the ropes and snapping right back inside. He was like a superhero-come-to-life.
I remained a fan until the 2000s, when WCW died and there wasn't much of an alternative to the WWE. They were at their best when they were competing with a strong rival and devolved into bad angles and stale matches when they lacked that creative spark. It had little to do with the Attitude Era vs what came after as much as the level of creativity while they were fighting tooth and nail with a strong rival, vs being the only game in town, more or less. I never really got into TNA, as they were too absorbed into being like the WWE, except for their X Division. The only issue there is too many young guys who did stunt moves for no good reason, other than a crowd pop. The move was spectacular; but, the match made no sense. Contrast with flyers like Tiger Mask or Ultimo Dragon; they had spectacular moves but knew when to use them for maximum impact in a match, while still having a story, with an ebb and a flow. That is why I grouse about a lot, but not all of modern wrestling, as it is more spot-oriented and less psychological in its approach. There are notable exceptions, like Bryan Danielson, who gets the psychology and can pull off spectacular moves (though his past injuries mean he is more careful about it).
The beauty of the territory days was the variety of each territory. the drawback was if your local was one of the bad promotions, like Detroit in the late 70s, Indianpolis or Kansas City. the Midwest had been a traditional hotbed for pro wrestling, but the promotions were taken over by wrestlers who did the same thing over and over and the audience drifted away. They didn't have cable to give them a better promotion. cable revealed how low rent some of them were, compared to the better promotions and the bad ones started dropping like flies. Bobby Heenan made the observation, which tends to hold true, that the promoters or bookers had about a 20 year run in them and that was it. After that, they were out of ideas and their promotions floundered. I think that rule is a bit true of other entertainment and certainly comics. Writers, artists and editors kind of have similar track records, where they have about 20 years of strong work, then a lot of coasting on the past. Not everyone, as Kirby was a genius for the better part of 40 years. Eisner grew as a storyteller. Others? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 5:30:59 GMT -5
One additional comment...on pretty much every guitar forum I'm on, 90% of hard rock guys over the age of 45 believe music died sometime between 1985 and 1992 and the 90's were an abomination to everything and things have only gotten worse. They're still complaining about grunge 30 years later, and don't even get them started with rap/hip-hop/electronic music. "Generational subjectivity" is an understatement. I’ve had similar debates about music. One guy I know said there was no good music of any kind in the 90s. What, nothing at all? Not one? I find that hard to believe. It gets back to what I said about not liking the term Golden Age of Hollywood. I saw a film called THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932). Great movie, one of my favourites. But I’ve seen 30s films that I did not enjoy. My brother-in-law once said modern films aren’t any good. Sure, there are some I don’t like, but then I think of the likes of CLOUD ATLAS and the latter two AVENGERS movies. Every era has its good and bad points.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Mar 14, 2022 6:52:06 GMT -5
Most of the people I know watch the latest movies and TV, and listen to the latest music. They might check out the occasional recommendation, or have a nostalgia kick for the pop culture they grew up with, but for the most part they keep up-to-date with the latest entertainment. For guys like us that are so deeply entrenched in our hobbies, I think it's only natural that we gravitate toward specific interests. They may be people who have broader tastes, but if you're interested in older films, books, music, etc., you're bound to develop a few niche interests along the way. And with so much material available from the past, who has time to keep up with the latest stuff? If you think it's better than the current stuff, then that's an honest opinion. If you're panning the current stuff all the time, then that's probably a waste of time. In my personal case, what's new and modern for me is stuff that happened 20 years ago. I do enjoy Netflix, though.
As an aside, the term Golden Age of Cinema refers to the peak of the studio system. I'm sure there are many people enamored with the era, but the name itself doesn't necessarily imply that that was the era where the best Hollywood films were made. When I was younger, a lot of people were fans of the American New Wave, or New Hollywood, that came after the Golden Age had died out. Just like there were wrestling fans weened on the Monday Night Wars after the territory era had ended. There were older NWA fans lamenting what WCW had turned itself into during the Monday Night Wars, just as I'm sure fans of the old Hollywood weren't exactly thrilled with the 70s filmmakers like Scorcese. But eventually the things you like pass you by. You might be a sports fan for life, I suppose, but even then people drift away from the teams they love.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 14, 2022 7:55:28 GMT -5
Your first exposure to anything, especially entertainment, in my opinion is what molds what you like. Or at least what some might consider your formative years. While I grew up in the 80's, the 90's were my more formative years, no matter when the material I consumed came from. I can think of AoA, Fine Young Cannibals, The Avengers (not the comic) The Three Stooges, Commodore 64, arcades (Rampage being one of my favorites) for a quarter, The Hardy Boys Casefiles, Metroid, Pink Floyd, and my first crush (who was much older than me) all as things I enjoyed in that decade, though very few of them actually being a product of said generation.
While I enjoy, for the sake of the actual OP, comics from most all decades, the 90's will be my favorite. I was just getting into comics and the fantastical feeling (and a little overwhelming) of so much material to read. So much history of so many characters to read was exhilarating. Now some months after getting into comics, I discovered back issues. And had that overwhelming, but fun feeling of even more comics to discover. But nothing will beat the familiarity of good old over the top 90's comics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 8:14:09 GMT -5
Some are making interesting points about familiarity and the things we grew up with tying into memories of other aspects of our lives. That is true.
For example, I really am not enamoured with the 1993-98 Superman period (and I’m a big Superman fan, he’s my favourite superhero). Not saying it was all bad, but nothing from 1994-96 was grabbing me. The late 90s had some good stuff (Superman VS Dominus and the like), but taken as a whole, not for me. However, I can associate other memories with those books. I was in my first real job in 1998, having left school in 1996. So when I think about the Superman stories from 1998-99, it kind of takes me back to the other good things that were occurring in my life, none of which had anything to do with comics.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 14, 2022 11:28:08 GMT -5
I can agree with a lot of the comments here. But I think the rapid evolvement of comics through the 90's and 2000's makes this a really tricky issue.
For instance, the coloring and printing in comics, now, is OBJECTIVELY better. There is no argument. The paper is better, the color is capable of more colors and subtlety, and the printing is as good as any magazine or book, in most cases.
BUT, when I look at old comics, or a book that reprints old comics by simply photographing the original printed pages, it's SO FAR REMOVED from modern comics that it is almost a different animal. In all honestly, when I read an old comic, I feel like I am reading a COMIC BOOK, and modern comics sometimes feel like something different. Slick, polished, respectable. Comics of old feel more visceral, raw, hand-made. Their disposable nature give them more of an immediacy, and a quality of being ethereal, precious, and, for lack of a better word, magical. The paper is softer, and less permanent. There are less layers of distance between the creators and reader, at least perceptibly. So, I see them as objectively inferior, but subjectively superior. I don't think this has as much to do with MY generational aspects or biases, but just something arising from the physical properties and production methods.
It reminds me of the well-worn sci-fi trope of people bitching about having to eat "synthetic meat" and how great it would be to eat a real cow.
I do agree that generational subjectivity plays a big part in my personal enjoyment of classic comics, however. I definitely read them through nostalgia-colored glasses. I mean, am I really on the edge of my seat to see how Superman is going to get out of this one? Not really. But a little part of me, the 12 year old part of me, is having a blast.
|
|