web stats

CSBG Archive

Comic Book Dictionary – 90s Good

Commenter Todd Lawrence reminded me of this concept when he was discussing Karl Kesel’s Daredevil run in an entry last week. Lawrence brings up a strong point – during the 1990s, there was a number of good comic books. However, there was also a special subset of comics that were what I am now defining as “90s Good.” There was such a high supply of awful comic books during the 1990s (I think the highest percentage of bad comics came from this time period) that some comics of the time, while not really being good comics on their own, are considered good comics when viewed through the context of the times.

To wit, anyone re-read James Robinson’s WildC.A.T.s run recently? It is not bad, but nor is it anything amazing. And it certainly pales dramatically to his Starman work (heck, even to his Firearm work). Yet his short run on WildC.A.T.s is remembered so fondly that it even gets a special mention in his Wikipedia entry – “Robinson also wrote a brief but very well remembered run on Wildcats.” It IS well remembered, but it is funny that they used that term, as I think that is a great way of looking at it, it is well REMEMBERED, but that is because it came out in a sea of utter crap, so Robinson’s pretty good run on WildC.A.T.s stands out so much that when we think back to that time, his run stands out as quite good.

So yeah, for those comics from the 90s that were pretty good but are remembered as better because they came out during the 90s I am going to refer to as “90s Good.”

56 Comments

Does this include the stuff that you thought was good back in the 1990s, because when you’re thirteen years old there is nothing more awesome than Wolverine, Psylocke and Jubilee killing lots of ninjas and then teaming up with some other dudes you don’t know (callow little geekling that you were) to fight a space babe with the jaw-droppingly badass name of Deathbird? Or is it just the stuff that’s reasonably good even if you’re not a grubby little adolescent who thinks stabbing people is cool?

(Also, the first two years of Generation X. Pretty good, even from a modern perspective)

(I think the highest percentage of bad comics came from this time period)

Nah, I disagree. Even from reading the stuff that’s reprinted the forties were worse, percentage-wise.

I’d have to say Generation X is pretty much the greatest example of “90′s Good” I can think of. I remembered having fond memories of them when they came out, but when I recently looked back them, they were honestly pretty awful by objective standards.

So, 90s Good comics are like the cartoons from the 80s?

I just checked my dictionary for 90s Good. There was a picture of Cerebus drawn by Todd MacFarlane.

Hmmm… I have to disagree here. I guess if you were just reading Marvel stuff, it may have been a bad decade. If you weren’t, there were an infinite number of gems.

Sandman, Death, Hellblazer, Shade, Doom Patrol, Preacher, The Invisibles, Eightball, Hate, Trailer Trash, Crap, Love And Rockets, Palookaville, Peepshow, Dirty Plotte, Acme Novelty Library, Nocturnal Emissions, Meat Cake, Drawn And Quarterly, Blab, Zero Zero, Taboo, Snake Eyes, Weirdo, Raw, Cerebus, Bone, Bacchus, Tyrant, Understanding Comics, From Hell, Cages, Strangehaven, Silly Daddy, King Cat, The Tale Of One Bad Rat, Starman, Scary Godmother, Enigma, Mr. Punch, Concrete, Hellboy, Sin City, 300, Madman, Atomic City Tales, THB, Stray Bullets, The Bog, Poot, King Of Persia, Hepcats, Strangers In Paradise, Biologic Show, Pickle, Supreme, JLA, The Flash, Astro City, Goldfish, Jinx, Swamp Thing, Stuck Rubber Baby, History Of Violence, The Big Book series, Sock Monkey, Batman: The Animated Series presents Mad Love, Kingdom Come, and Marvels.

The ’40s “were worse, percentage-wise”? Not sure I can sign off on that. Comics were a fledgling art form then. (Er, let me be more specific — not comic strips, but comic books, especially the super-hero variety.) So it’s not really fair to compare early dross to that of the ’90s, after the medium had had decades to mature and comics professionals should’ve known much better.

Kesel’s run is good period.

But it was better for being surrounded by what it was.

I wonder how good Waid’s first Cap run now is as I haven’t read it since it first came out.

I remember that I felt it was the real turning point out of the horrors of the early 90s.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

October 14, 2007 at 7:20 pm

I don’t think Alan Moore’s Wildcats deserves the tag ’90′s Good’.
Perhaps the first issue of it, and maybe issue 25, but the rest was terrible – hell, I think Brandon Choi’s opening arc may have made for better comics.

Hmmm… I have to disagree here. I guess if you were just reading Marvel stuff, it may have been a bad decade. If you weren’t, there were an infinite number of gems.

Sandman, Death, Hellblazer, Shade, Doom Patrol, Preacher, The Invisibles, Eightball, Hate, Trailer Trash, Crap, Love And Rockets, Palookaville, Peepshow, Dirty Plotte, Acme Novelty Library, Nocturnal Emissions, Meat Cake, Drawn And Quarterly, Blab, Zero Zero, Taboo, Snake Eyes, Weirdo, Raw, Cerebus, Bone, Bacchus, Tyrant, Understanding Comics, From Hell, Cages, Strangehaven, Silly Daddy, King Cat, The Tale Of One Bad Rat, Starman, Scary Godmother, Enigma, Mr. Punch, Concrete, Hellboy, Sin City, 300, Madman, Atomic City Tales, THB, Stray Bullets, The Bog, Poot, King Of Persia, Hepcats, Strangers In Paradise, Biologic Show, Pickle, Supreme, JLA, The Flash, Astro City, Goldfish, Jinx, Swamp Thing, Stuck Rubber Baby, History Of Violence, The Big Book series, Sock Monkey, Batman: The Animated Series presents Mad Love, Kingdom Come, and Marvels.

Patrick, “worst decade, percentage-wise” is not the same thing as “there were not many good comics during the 90s.”

At one point, ONE HUNDRED BOOKS were being released in a single month from Marvel Comics. Toss in a similar number by DC (probably more, actually) then the plethora of Image Comics, and add to that all the indie comic publishers who saw the boom as a time to dump their junk on the market, and I think “the 90s were the worst decade, percentage-wise” holds up quite nicely.

The only other real contender is the previous boom, which MarkAndrew mentions, which was the 40s. And I think the 40s holds up better in comparison.

Brian, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Patrick’s list was about ‘percentages’. I saw it as proof that there was a lot of genuinely great stuff being printed in the ’90s- enough to discount the theory of ”90s good’, because the presence of books like Sandman and JLA in the marketplace was surely enough to expose the flaws of their lesser competitors- but that very little of it was being published by Marvel.

So the ”90s good’ tag really only applies to Marvel, where, yes, it seems really appropriate.

If Patrick’s point was just that there were good comics in the 90s, then there was no disagreement, as that’s stated in the piece.

I do not think pointing out a number of great indie books belies the fact that, due to an overflowing amount of bad books released in the 90s, there are some titles released in the 90s that seem good in our memory, but are only good in comparison to the general 90s comic culture – not just Marvel Comics (although yes, Marvel certainly seemed to bear the brunt of it).

Heck, the book I used to demonstrate the point was not even a Marvel book, but an Image one.

The fact that there were a lot of legitimately great comic books like Sandman and Acme Novelty Library does not mean that there were not other books, such as James Robinson’s WildC.A.T.s, that are remembered as being good because they stood out in a sea of awful books.

But it’s only really at Marvel- and, you’re right, Image- that the concept applies. I say this because there’s a lot of awful books in EVERY decade, and the difference between the ’90s and every other decade was only so noticable at Marvel and Image not because of the percentage of the bad comics, but because of the homogeneity of the bad comics.

So, IMO, the reason certain Marvel and Image books stand out in retrospect as being ”90s good’ isn’t just because all the other books were bad, but because all the other books were bad in the EXACT SAME WAY. So Kesel’s Daredevil, for instance, stands out because it wanted to be “fun” and accessible in Marvel’s sea of grim’n’gritty books and incomprehensible continuity, while Robinson’s WildC.A.T.S stands out from the Image pack because it seemed to have a brain, as opposed to the company’s other titles. Now that Marvel releases a lot of ‘fun’ books and Image releases a lot of ‘smart’ titles, Kesel’s Daredevil and Robinson’s WildC.A.T.S wouldn’t stand out as much.

To me, this same theory doesn’t apply to DC and the indies, because there was more variety there to start with. It would have been harder to convince people something was good just because it’s tone was a little different. Does that make any sense?

Oh yeah, Rohan, I get what you’re saying – I just think the whole field can be considered one big field, while I understand that you think it is more clearly subdivided.

In reference to Patrick’s list, I’d actually put A History of Violence under “90′s Good” as well. It’s a pretty shallow, unremarkable crime comic that is only memorable because Josh Olsen and David Cronenberg used it as the framework for an amazing movie nearly a decade later. Of everything I’ve read that Paradox put out in the 90′s (admittedly not much if it,) A History of Violence was by far the weakest of them.

But it’s only really at Marvel- and, you’re right, Image- that the concept applies.

I disagee, there was a LOT of crap coming out of DC at the time too, although it wasn’t “Image-y.” Same with the indie market too, a bunch of dull uninspired autobiographic comics were coming out left and right. Sure there were some gems coming out from all companies, but the sheer glut of product everyone was putting out made sure that the gimmicky and flashy always outweighed the good.

I understand what you’re getting at, Brian, but it always gets my hackles up when people denigrate the ’90s. I actually think the highest percentage of GREAT comics came from that decade, but no one ever noticed because the great comics weren’t the hot ones.

Oh, and of course there was crap coming from DC. But they had dozens and dozens of BRILLIANT series coming out that decade. Probably the best decade any publisher has ever had.

Marvel, by contrast, probably had the worst decade of any publisher. FOOLKILLER certainly deserves to be called “brilliant,” but what else did Marvel produce that decade that deserved to be called even “pretty good?” Waid’s first CAPTAIN AMERICA run, MARVELS, um …

I understand what you’re getting at, Brian, but it always gets my hackles up when people denigrate the ’90s. I actually think the highest percentage of GREAT comics came from that decade, but no one ever noticed because the great comics weren’t the hot ones.

I think people are just really sensitive to the now almost standard, “Comics sucked in the 90s!” riff. That IS annoying, but just realize that I am definitely not saying that.

There were PLENTY of great comics in the 90s. Patrick named a bunch of them.

I still think everything else said in the above entry holds true, though.

Oh, and of course there was crap coming from DC. But they had dozens and dozens of BRILLIANT series coming out that decade. Probably the best decade any publisher has ever had.

I like, say, Sandman, Gregory, and Milligan’s Vertigo stuff as much as anyone… But I’d have trouble calling the nineties the best decade DC ever had.

Problem being the vastvastvast majority of DC’s good works were produced under the Vertigo and Paradox banner, with an occasional half dozen issues of Chase here… or, geez, I’m drawing a blank. There’s lots of mainstreamy superhero books that were well written in the DC 90s, and plenty that were well drawn…

But the two just didn’t bump into each other much.

If Paradox had really got off the ground then I’d be 95% likely to agree with you.

And I’d certainly argue that both Fanta and D & Q’s output in the nineties was better’n DC’s both in terms of average quality and in terms of overall GREAT works produced.

“I still think everything else said in the above entry holds true, though.”

Oh yeah, I’m not arguing that. I just wish that people would talk about all the really good stuff in the ’90s instead of the “’90s Good” stuff.

Uh, hope that sentence made sense.

Totally fair point, Apathy Boy.

“And I’d certainly argue that both Fanta and D & Q’s output in the nineties was better’n DC’s both in terms of average quality and in terms of overall GREAT works produced.”

Fantagraphics and Drawn and Quarterly produced the superior works, but I’m amazed by the sheer volume of not-superior-but-really-really-really-good stuff DC produced that decade. Blows my mind to think there was a time I could walk into a comic store and come out with THE SPECTRE, STARMAN, PREACHER, HITMAN, HOUSE OF SECRETS, and a bunch of other stuff every month.

I mean, we’re talking about a decade when stodgy ol’ DC produced STUCK RUBBER BABY!

Yeah, that’s true. I’m STILL shocked that DC published SRB, and we’re, what, a dozen years later? There were some really ballsy books from DC in the 90s.

And I’m a little bitter, really. It seems like there was an opportunity for DC to put out really good stuff, and that they did put out really good stuff for a while.. Then they got scared and kinda backed off.

Maybe I should be glad we got SRB (on the higher end) and Hitman (in the “regular” universe) out of the deal at all.

90s Good:

Fabien Nicieza’s Nomad

90′s Good:

Howard Mackie’s Ghost Rider.

90s Good:

Fabien Nicieza’s Nomad

That is such a great example.

That series does NOT hold up well. Time is kinder to Nicieza’s New Warriors, which is funny, because New Warriors was STEEPED in topical issues of the time.

Interestingly enough, Nomad and Ghost Rider were both Marvel titles. Just sayin’…

Well, in 90´s we got from Marvel PAD´s Hulk and X-Factor, Alan Davis´ Excalibur and Clan Destine, Harras´ Avengers, Waid´s Captain America, Busiek´s Marvels, Thunderbolts and Avengers, Kesel´s Daredevil (yeah, it´s good period, as Kesel´s Superboy is good period), Sachs and Violens, Deadpool, Heroes for Hire (if Ostrander´s Spectre counts as good then so does this), and so…

I think there is a thin line between good period and 90´s good. Maybe some of the books I listed may count as 90´s good to you but then try to be careful if you count books as Hitman or House of Secrets as good period.

The one reason I don’t think the term will catch on is that it’s too difficult to apply it to books outside of the 90s.

A lot of Steve Englehart’s run on West Coast Avengers would fit this description except that it came from the late 80s. If you describe it as “90s good”, a reader will think you’re mixing up your timeframe.

There are plenty of books in every period that were considered standouts at the time but seem rather unremarkable today.

Wow Brian, I think you are being glib.

It sounds like you are basically judging a whole decade based on your interpretation of a fan written commentary about 6 issues that came out on November 1994, give or take a couple of months.

I mean, did you consider the possibility that instead
of your “utter sea of crap” theory; the reason that fan remembers Robinson’s run is because he was the first writer to more thoroughly develope the history and back history of the WildStorm Universe. (…as well as introduce stuff that was later exploited by the likes of Alan Moore and Warren Ellis.)

In any case, I don’t subscribe to the theory that something might be remembered or considered good by default. If a song or a movie is remembered, it is because somehow it found a way to stand the test of time. When people talk about “When Harry Met Sally”, they don’t go… “Well you know, it was either that or Ghostbusters 2!”

In other words, you could have published a gazillion issues of the worst comic book in history; but if Watchmen happened to come out that month, then I would’ve considered it a good week.

And as far as the 90′s go… I didn’t bother to count how many comic books were published in that decade or figured out what the ratio of bad to good comics was.

I simply looked at CBR’s All-Time Top 50 Writers and realized that…

Sim did Cerebus.
Ostrander had the Spectre.
Robinson did Starman and Golden Age.
Rucka rocked with Queen & Country.
Gail Simone did the Pantheon’s Magical Mystery Tour.
Mignola had Hellboy.
Loeb did Smallville (but it was called Superman for All Seasons).
Byrne even had his Next Men.
Waid was hot with Kingdom Come and the Flash.
Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis; well, they became Morrison, Ellis and Ennis.
Busiek had Astro City.
Peter David did Aquaman.

Hell, even Mark Millar managed to not screw the pooch with his run in Superman the Animated Series and Aztek.

I bet that if you look at a typical Trade Paperback collection, you’ll find that a good chunk of it came from the 90′s.

To quote Bart Simpson… “The 90′s were awesome dude!”

Peter Davids run on X-Factor is a great example for me. Last time I read those back issues from it didn’t strike me as this great comic or as funny as I remember it but at the time it was the best thing the X titles had going for them. Compared to X-Force, Uncanny X-Men, and possibly X-Men(I didn’t have a sub. to X-Men) it was the A+ work.

That said I understand were your coming from but I won’t use the phrase “90s good”.

I certainly wasn’t going for a per centage tally of what was good in the 90′s compared to other decades. I suppose what I was attempting to draw attention to is that creator driven series were at their zenith in that decade.

It was corporate owned characters that didn’t fare as well. Outside of a three month fixation with the 2099 line and Marvels, I didn’t read any comics by them between Miller’s second Daredevil run and Morrison’s first X-Men issue. Ravage 2099 aside, my view of the 90′s is pretty rosy.

The work done by smaller companies, self publishers, and boutique labels such as DC’s Vertigo and Paradox, and Legend at Dark Horse in the 90′s were amazing in quantity and quality. I felt that much of the work listed by me was superior to nearly everything that was revered in the 1980′s, up to and including the Golden Year of 1986.

Strangely, about 75% of what I have read over the last 18 months has been stuff from 1940. The try anything mentality of comics publishers that year is incredible. The books are roughly done affairs, but the sheer force of charm and inventiveness at the start of a new genre is pretty exciting. DC’s output is still almost exclusively about characters originated between 1938 and 1941.

Joe Kelly’s Deadpool, first year.

I don’t think Alan Moore’s Wildcats deserves the tag ’90’s Good’.
Perhaps the first issue of it, and maybe issue 25, but the rest was terrible – hell, I think Brandon Choi’s opening arc may have made for better comics.

Nah – Alan Moore’s Wildcats was good. Maybe not “Alan Moore good” but still good

Alright,

Operation: Galactic Storm was 90s good.

Ha ha, I love Operation Galactic Storm! Another Marvel book that I’d argue surpasses “90′s good” into “just plain damn good” is Marvel’s HELLSTORM series by Raphael Neives, Len Kaminski, and Warren Ellis. Great, great book.

I thought Operation Galactic Storm was weak. But, YMMV.

I think that the point of the article holds up even with the list provided. If a publisher is putting out 100+ books a month, and we come up with a dozen titles that we all agree are “good period” not “good for the period” then that is still a small percentage.

This may be the decade that gave us Sandman, PAD’s Hulk, and Cerebus. But, it is also the same decade that gave us Knightfall, Acts of Vengeance, and Team Youngblood.

Theno

It’s hard for me to separate “90s Good” from books I enjoy because I got into comics during the 90s. I followed X-Men and Spider-Man during the mid-90s and really, a lot of those books are a mess. But there are some I enjoyed at the time, so I still think they’re all right, even if I haven’t looked at them a while. Similarly I’d hate to think that the Busiek-Perez Avengers and Busiek-Chen Iron Man were “90s Good” because they followed The Crossing and Heroes Reborn, but they were pretty old school takes on the concepts (which is what the titles needed at the time, I suppose).

On the other hand, I’ll concede that the animated style DC books are “90s Good” considering how muddled the Batman and Superman books were for a good long while. Not to say some of the issues aren’t incredible and still hold up magnificently, but I’d be kidding myself if they didn’t have that “breath of fresh air” feeling for many.

Have a good day.
John Cage

Taken out of context, anything can be made to look however one wishes. Only when seen as a whole can a thing be properly judged.

As a whole, the 90′s were not a good period for comics. There’s no real denying it. There was so much more bad than good, a lot of the good gets lost in the mix. Kinda like modern rap music.

I’d imagine that many of those “good for the 90′s” comics might not see print today. I’m so glad we’ve (generally speaking) improved what sees print. Towards the end of the decade, I think I was down to less than ten titles per month.

Oops. Almost forgot — I saw someone mention Joe Kelly’s Deadpool, which is as far away from “90s Good” as you can get. The first twenty-five issues are absolutely brilliant story-telling and my favorite long-form comic arc. It’s an incredible run and on par with the best work being put out today. It deserves to be collected in an omnibus. Kelly and Ed McGuinness, Pete Woods and Walter McDaniel (whatever happened to him?), did a phenomenal job. It’s not 90s Good. It’s just good.

Have a good day.
John Cage

I have to throw in with everyone who’s said that what you’re really talking about here is something much closer to “Marvel/Image ’90s good.” A roaring diarrheal ocean of dreck poured forth from these publishers in the first half or so of the decade, but much of the rest of the industry was healthy, and even thriving — the throngs of high school sophomores and emotionally challenged boy-men who bought all the X-crap and Liefeld books inadvertently subsidized comics that were actually good, as their disposable income allowed shops the luxury of ordering books that might only sell a few copies. Most superhero comics may have been shit — they sure looked like shit, which is why I mostly avoided them — but a whole lot of everything else….

“But, it is also the same decade that gave us Knightfall, Acts of Vengeance, and Team Youngblood.”
Knightfall was good.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

October 15, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Nah – Alan Moore’s Wildcats was good. Maybe not “Alan Moore good” but still good

It was a plot driven story that ignored any characterisation, and relied on the reader not noticing that TAO was manipulating anyone, even though they mentioned it every time he did.
He also makes fun of people who read image comics several times during in the run.
It’s really not good at all (I think he gave up when he realised they weren’t going to give him a decent artist).
Add in a crossover that made changes to the characters, changes Moore had no interest in exploring at all, and you’ve got a pretty bad book all up.

Not too mention Spawn/Wildcats, which I read last night.
It made me kinda hate Alan Moore.
Sure he’s given me a lot of good reading, but after reading that… I kinda hate him.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

October 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Though speaking of Moore and Spawn, I’d say those issues of Spawn where he got Moore, Gaiman, Sim, Miller and Morrison to guest write were 90′s good – they seemed spectacular at the time, but are really just okay when re-read.

Despite many great works, I would vote for the 90s as being the low point of comics but, if you disagree, which decade was worse? There have been a couple votes for the 40s but every decade put out enough crap for claim to being worst.

Personally I’d rank the decades as:

70s, 60s, 80s, 50s (due to Comic Code), 40s, 90s

(leaving out the 30s and 00s as less than ten years of solid work.)

How off am I?

I recently got hold of Waid’s Cap run expecting something amazing and it just did nothing for me. I guess that was 90s Good.

It probably didn’t hurt that it came after Gru’s run, which certainly wasn’t bad, but lost its way towards the end. And, again, it’s that ‘back to basics’ approach that was so attractive to jaded Marvel readers at that point in the ’90s.
Having said that, I should add that I’ve loved most of what I’ve read of Waid and Kesel, so if I ever got around to reading their respective Captain America and Daredevil runs in their entirety, I’d probably love them. It’s worth noting that the same sort of charge has been levelled against Miller’s Daredevil- it’s only so well remembered and regarded because it brought about such a welcome change in tone- so they’re in good company.

I would argue that Knightfall is one of the low points of the Batman canon. It is also one of the worst examples of foreshadowing. Showing the bomb under the table before the room explodes is foreshadowing, hinting that a bomb is under the table is subtle foreshadowing. Pointing big neon signs at the bomb throughout the play is still foreshadowing, but it is bad foreshadowing.

DC took two years building up Bane and Azrael specifically for Knightfall. Why? Because the point of the story was to explain to the reader why Dick became Nightwing while Wally became Flash. The point was to explain that only Bruce could be Batman. (Much like the multitude of similiar stories that Marvel did in the 80s.) But, DC was obviously worried that the fanbase would like Dick as Batman, so they created Jean Paul to be a “bad” Batman (and by “bad” I don’t mean poor replacement, I mean poorly written.)

I love year+ long storylines. I like to pretend that when Colossus lost his little sister in what appeared to be a one-off filler story that Claremont had Inferno planned from that moment and the rest was all foreshadowing and build up. But, while I think Claremont succeeded in making Illyana a character that the readers cared about and were emotionally invested in by the time Inferno started; I think that DC failed to make Bane and Azarel anything but flash-in-the-pan characters.

Take a look at the DCAU. Which Bane do we get there? The intelligent, calculating mastermind from Knightfall, or the dumb brick from Batman & Robin? Which story, therefore, has more lasting power?

And, how many issues did we get after the fact that went out of their way to explain the OOC actions taken in the story?

Knightfall failed me on multiple levels. I consider it poorly done. I consider it poorly thought out. I consider it to be an event intended to explain a continuity issue rather than intended to tell a good story.

I don’t think of Knightfall as good, or even 90s good. I consider the whole thing to be an example of what made the 90s so bad. A huge “event” that told a poorly done story with flashy artwork, special covers, and that sold like hotcakes.

I guess Knightfall could be considered, “Colbert Good.” It sold well so, as he would say, “The market has spoken,” and it must be good, or else it wouldn’t have sold.

Theno

Well, Knightfall was one of three seperate chapters in the AzBats saga, as I’m sure you’re aware, and I’d argue that- taken in isolation- it’s actually pretty good. Things might go downhill a little or a lot when Bruce’s back is magically cured, or when Azrael’s tenure in the suit starts to drag on a little bit, but that wasn’t part of Knightfall.

Knightfall was a gripping story (at least, it was when I was five- I may have to re-read it before I keep singing its praises) with an engrossing build-up and a pretty satisfying pay-off. Bruce’s gradual decline due to his own obsessive behaviour was well written, IMO, and made more sense than Bane being able to beat him on his own merits. It was also very cool to see the rogue’s gallery trotted out in a story that actually made sense (I’m looking at you, Hush).

And “flashy artwork?” My copies of Knightfall featured art from master storytellers Jim Aparo, Graham Nolan and Norm Breyfogle. Only one of them was even close to ‘flashy’, especially at that point in time. I dug the covers, too, but Kelley Jones is definitely a take-him-or-leave-him sort of artist, so I’ll concede that.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

October 17, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Read the Denny O’Neil novelisation of Knightfall.

Much better than the comic.

I saw someone mention Joe Kelly’s Deadpool, which is as far away from “90s Good” as you can get… It’s not 90s Good. It’s just good.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. I read it and enjoyed it at the time, but now that I’m not thirteen it doesn’t really hold up. The jokes are really juvenile and basic, and the characters are pretty monotonous.

does anyone remember a comic series about a conan-esque character named ‘Gru’ he had a dog, and swords, and that’s all i remember. not sure who the author was.

if you’ve ever seen a T-shirt with Gru on it for sale… could you please email me with the tip? it’s my Christmas mission to find one for my brother.

Len Kaminski and Ron Wagner on the first 7 issues of ‘Morbius the Living Vampire’ (1992-93). Wagner hung around for another 6 issues or so, but the series progressively became less and less readable after Kaminski left.

Also: David Quinn’s 20-or-so issue run on ‘Doctor Strange’ around the same time.

Interestingly, IIRC, Doctor Strange #60 (1993) was the first Marvel book to ever use computer coloring.

I don’t know why I remember these things…

It’s been awhile since my love affair with marvel, but recently when passing by a comic book store I decided to have a look. The last real comics I ever purchased were a special edition Xmen (some kinda vacation “art” book) and the death of superman.
I mention this, in order to give you a basis for my following statement.

These newer comics seem to have lost the “edge” and maturity of previous years and have instead become clones of the ever increasing anime market (ie: blanked faces and snot bubbles?). I watched the characters evolve and even age, and now suddenly they look like 12yr old kids playing dress up …. wth!!?

Please understand that there are still some out there that I view as good, in regards to my personal taste, but I just cant help thinking that there is a growing trend of pushing forward entertainment without substance in regards to comics and/or cartoons.

I guess you could say that this current batch of comics make the mid 90′s seem like a golden age.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives