• 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ghostrider88
#1 Posted by GhostRider88 (603 posts) - - Show Bio

For me, it's between 1979-91 (basically the copper age). I'll read anything from then. I don't know why, I just love the feel of the artwork and stories back then, maybe because I grew up on it.

Avatar image for linsanel_doctor
#2 Edited by linsanel_Doctor (8630 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for rdclip
#3 Edited by RDClip (2792 posts) - - Show Bio

70's and 80's. Back then Marvel (and publishers in general) seemed to be okay with publishing more experimental books that went against the general grain of superhero comics. Characters like Shang Chi and Luke Cage would never be invented in the 90's or today. Even smaller characters and teams got long running books like Alpha Flight.

Add to that the super melodramatic Clairmont era of X-Men

Avatar image for mazahs117
#4 Posted by MAZAHS117 (12707 posts) - - Show Bio

80's, early 90's and some of the stuff in mid 00's

Avatar image for thatguywithheadphones
#5 Posted by thatguywithheadphones (19859 posts) - - Show Bio

Late 70s - mid 90s.

Avatar image for rabumalal
#6 Posted by RabumAlal (5172 posts) - - Show Bio

Current, obviously

Avatar image for asgardianbrony
#7 Posted by ASGARDIANBRONY (11629 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for krleavenger
#8 Posted by KrleAvenger (26075 posts) - - Show Bio

Everything Post-Heroes Return to Doom's Secret Wars.

So from the end of 1997 to the end of 2015.

Besides that I guess from the end of Silver Age (start of 70s) to the start of 90s.

Those 20 (less) year periods.

Avatar image for invain
#9 Posted by Invain (5148 posts) - - Show Bio

80s

Avatar image for mbcb2001
#10 Posted by MBCB2001 (1398 posts) - - Show Bio

70s, 90s and 2000s

:D

Avatar image for magnetic_eye
#11 Posted by magnetic_eye (1739 posts) - - Show Bio

60's - 70's - 80's mainly.

Some 90's to 00's but have dropped most Marvel titles these days except for a couple.

Avatar image for depinhom
#12 Posted by depinhom (13506 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't hate me. I like ANAD.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#13 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18326 posts) - - Show Bio

Then late 70's, all of the 80's, some of the 90's, and smatterings of the 2000+

Avatar image for larfleezy
#14 Posted by larfleezy (687 posts) - - Show Bio

2000s

Avatar image for deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3
#15 Posted by deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3 (12864 posts) - - Show Bio

80s

Avatar image for highaccuser
#16 Posted by HighAccuser (9696 posts) - - Show Bio

As somebody in his 20s, but whos read a fair share of 80s books from Marvel I'd say thats some of their best stories. And around the end of the 90s to Mid 2000s since thats the most books I've read despite your usual slumps like Bendis and ANAD

Avatar image for hyperion_x
#17 Posted by Hyperion_X (366 posts) - - Show Bio

Mid to late 90s, mid 2000s to now

Avatar image for jumpstart55
#18 Edited by jumpstart55 (11025 posts) - - Show Bio
  • 60s-80s.( My personal favorite era of Marvel by far) This was Marvel at its absolute Apex imo.
  • 2000-2008( Wasn't to shabby either)
Avatar image for thor_parker82
#19 Edited by Thor_Parker82 (16365 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerevarine_11 said:

As somebody in his 20s, but whos read a fair share of 80s books from Marvel I'd say thats some of their best stories. And around the end of the 90s to Mid 2000s since thats the most books I've read despite your usual slumps like Bendis and ANAD

I´ve read a considerable amount 80s books as well, a really good era.....is there any run (from that era) you would recommend me to read ??

Avatar image for highaccuser
#20 Posted by HighAccuser (9696 posts) - - Show Bio

@thor_parker82: 80's Thor books like Simonson for example, Claremont Xmen are most of the ones I've read. From DC I've read Justice League International, Morrisons Animal Man, and a few others

Avatar image for thor_parker82
#21 Posted by Thor_Parker82 (16365 posts) - - Show Bio

@thor_parker82: 80's Thor books like Simonson for example, Claremont Xmen are most of the ones I've read. From DC I've read Justice League International, Morrisons Animal Man, and a few others

I have read both haha............. any others besides those ??

Avatar image for gonnagetthat
#22 Posted by GonnaGetThat (148 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerevarine_11 said:

As somebody in his 20s, but whos read a fair share of 80s books from Marvel I'd say thats some of their best stories. And around the end of the 90s to Mid 2000s since thats the most books I've read despite your usual slumps like Bendis and ANAD

I´ve read a considerable amount 80s books as well, a really good era.....is there any run (from that era) you would recommend me to read ??

I can recommend a lot from that era.

  • X-Men by Chris Claremont (1975-1991)
  • Fantastic Four by John Byrne (1980-1986)
  • Amazing Spider-Man by Roger Stern
  • Amazing Spider-Man by Tom DeFalco
  • Daredevil by Frank Miller
  • New Mutants by Chris Claremont
  • Iron Man by John Byrne
  • Iron Fist by Chris Claremont and John Byrne
  • X-Factor by Louise Simonson
  • Iron Man by Dennis O'Neill (Personally I'm not a big fan of this one, but it does seem to get a lot of praise)

I also here a lot of great things about Roger Stern's Avengers, but I have not personally read it yet.

For DC most of my experience is post crisis, so with them I only go back to 1986-1987, but I would definitely recommend Superman by John Byrne and Batman by Jim Starlin.

Avatar image for thor_parker82
#23 Posted by Thor_Parker82 (16365 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for stormshadow_x
#24 Posted by StormShadow_X (16766 posts) - - Show Bio

80s to early 2000's

Avatar image for combo-man
#25 Posted by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

All time favorite era has to be 1987-2000, basically the eras when Tom DeFalco and later Bob Harras were Editor in chief. lots of new ideas and risks taken, but at the same time preserving the classic Marvel look and feel. a nice balance of the radically new and the comfortably traditional.

I also liked the earlier and more antiquated new wave look and vibe of the Jim Shooter era.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#26 Posted by Kevd4wg (12798 posts) - - Show Bio

Like Krle said, Post-Heroes Reborn - Doom's Secret Wars. I can't stand how campy comics were pre-1980(very few comics I can read before this time frame) and the 90's have some rough points where they were over 90's afield.

Avatar image for purpleperson
#27 Posted by PurplePerson (908 posts) - - Show Bio

Early to mid-80s, closely followed by early to mid-00s.

Avatar image for deactivated-5be6b2c7f1487
#28 Posted by deactivated-5be6b2c7f1487 (54 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for veshark
#29 Posted by Veshark (10499 posts) - - Show Bio

Early to late 2000s with the launch of the Ultimate Universe, and the rise of the Avengers franchise with runs like Brubaker on Cap, Fraction on Iron Man, and JMS on Thor. The X-Men were also on a roll from Morrison, to Whedon, then from Messiah Complex down to Second Coming. I loved this era of more grounded and human stories from Marvel, it really made the universe distinct from DC.

I also really enjoyed the later NOW era with books like Hickman's Avengers up to Secret Wars, as well as Remender on Uncanny Avengers. And of course, the classic Silver Age comics from the Lee-Kirby-Ditko-era still hold up, in my opinion.

The weakest Marvel era remains the 90s, in my opinion. DC just blows them out of the water in that decade with stuff like Kingdom Come, Morrison on JLA, Dixon/Rucka/Brubaker on the Bat-books, Robinson's Starman and Johns on JSA etc.

Avatar image for combo-man
#30 Edited by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark:

DC may have blown Marvel out of the water in the 90s, but Marvel still put out great comics in the 90s, way better than the movie-esque stuff they put out in the 2000s IMO. and X-Men was not on a roll in the 2000s, unless you mean rolling rapidly down a mountain towards a ditch. lol

Avatar image for veshark
#31 Posted by Veshark (10499 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark:

DC may have blown Marvel out of the water in the 90s, but Marvel still put out great comics in the 90s, way better than the movie-esque stuff they put out in the 2000s. and X-Men was not on a roll in the 2000s, unless you mean rolling rapidly down a mountain towards a ditch. lol

I can name Waid on Captain America, Busiek's Marvels, Peter David on Hulk, some Spider-Man stuff, and the Marvel Knights books. What other great Marvel comics came out in the 90s that would come close to 90s DC comics or 2000s Marvel comics? Maximum Carnage and the Clone Saga? The five thousand Venom and Punisher and X-Force miniseries that nobody asked for? Oh, and don't forget Heroes Reborn.

I don't know what you mean by the movie-esque stuff in the 2000s, given that the MCU wasn't even established until 2008, and was hardly an influence on the comics until much later, when the Avengers came out in 2012. I don't think Fox's X-Men/Fantastic Four films or Sony's Spider-Man films had much of an influence on the comics, barring Morrison's New X-Men's costumes and maybe organic webbing, which are superficial changes at best.

And the X-Men under Morrison, Whedon, and Brubaker-Fraction were some of the best comics in the franchise. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but general critical consensus agrees that these were some of the most progressive and innovative X-Men comics in a long time. Certainly better than Claremont's increasingly dull 90s X-books or the string of dumb 90s crossovers like the Onslaught Saga or Age of Apocalypse. I don't know if you've read those comics, but I don't see how you could disagree.

Avatar image for combo-man
#32 Edited by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

I can name Waid on Captain America, Busiek's Marvels, Peter David on Hulk, some Spider-Man stuff, and the Marvel Knights books. What other great Marvel comics came out in the 90s that would come close to 90s DC comics or 2000s

Well you're already making the case for me with the stuff you're mentioning and there was more stuff than that.

Busiek and Perez on Avengers.

David Michelinie Mark Bagley on Amazing Spider-Man

JM Dematteis and Sal Buscema on Spectacular Spider-Man (this had the excellent Harry Osborn saga.)

Sensational She-Hulk by Steve Gerber and Bryan Hitch. this has to be one of the best comics not just in the 90s but ever, just so groundbreaking and original, and funny.

Thunderbolts by Busiek and Bagley. it was great to have a new team on the block and the unique concept made it all the more interesting.

Howard Mackie and Javier Saltares new version of Ghost Rider (which has now went on to become the definitive version of the character.)

Web Of Spider-Man was great because the art looked so traditional, if you were a Spidey fan from the 60s/70s and were alienated by the new stuff you could just buy this. same thing with Tom DeFalco's run on Thor.

@veshark said:

I don't know what you mean by the movie-esque stuff in the 2000s,

I just mean the more photo realistic art and the writers drawing more inspiration from movies, Nick Fury looking like Samuel L Jackson in the Ultimates etc.

@veshark said:

And the X-Men under Morrison, Whedon, and Brubaker-Fraction were some of the best comics in the franchise. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but general critical consensus agrees that these were some of the most progressive and innovative X-Men comics in a long time. Certainly better than Claremont's increasingly dull 90s X-books or the string of dumb 90s crossovers like the Onslaught Saga or Age of Apocalypse. I don't know if you've read those comics, but I don't see how you could disagree.

after the 80s and 90s X-Men was no longer just another Marvel comic, it was an established franchise and cultural phenomenon in the same vein as Star Wars, Transformers, Gi Joe. and as such any change to the formula or the visuals was going to be a disaster no matter who attempted it.

when the X-Men movie came out in 2000 Marvel was faced with a choice, option 1 break from the past and embrace the future, take risks. option 2 stay true to a proven franchise and try to restore X-Men to it's former glory. they chose option 1 and it was a huge mistake. there's a reason X-Men from the classic era of the 80s and 90s is iconic, and X-Men from the 2000s is not.

now the quality decline in X-Men comics didn't actually begin in the 2000s it began in the later half of the 90s but even though the books had been noticeably declining, they were still recognizable.

and obviously it goes without saying that the X-titles in the 90s were better and more productive.

things that were introduced in 90s X-Men

  • Weapon X Project
  • Gambit
  • Gambit and Rogue's romance
  • X-Force
  • Cable
  • Deadpool
  • Domino
  • Ninja Psylocke
  • Bishop
  • AOA alternate universe
  • The Acolytes
  • Stryfe
  • Havok & Polaris version of X-Factor
  • Albert & Elsie Dee
  • Jim Lee's iconic look for the team

Avatar image for veshark
#33 Edited by Veshark (10499 posts) - - Show Bio

@combo-man

Not really. My point wasn't that there weren't any good Marvel comics in the 90s, my point was that DC did a better job in that decade (A point that you yourself conceded in your own post, for the record). I'll grant you Busiek's Avengers, but I've already mentioned Spider-Man in my original post and even then, 90s Spidey is balanced out by a lot of bad comics. Gerber's She-Hulk, Mackie's Ghost Rider, and Busiek's Thunderbolts are all passable books, but hardly worth mentioning; you can't really argue anyone citing those titles as examples of "great comics of the 90s." At best, they're an underrated footnote.

We've touched on this in our last conversation, but your point on "photorealistic art" seems to be more of your personal artistic tastes, rather than any legitimate criticism of the Marvel books of the early 2000s. Just because the Marvel comics of that era tend to lean to a more realistic art-style doesn't make them bad comics. And just because the 90s had more traditional superhero art doesn't make them better comics, either. It's a subjective claim. You just seem to be looking at 90s Marvel comics with rose-tinted nostalgia.

That's a pretty ironic argument for the X-Men. For a franchise that's about the future, and the next-generation, and evolution...you don't think that Marvel should be progressive and try to push the franchise to take risks? If Marvel stuck with your tried-and-true formula, all we would get is more nonsensical crossovers like Onslaught. There's a reason why Morrison's New X-Men and Whedon's Astonishing X-Men resonated with fans: it's because they did what the best superhero comics do, put new spins on familiar concepts, while pushing the franchise towards new heights. A third of the things you listed didn't even hit their creative stride until the 2000s (Cable, Deadpool, the rest of X-Force), the second third are hardly great creations (Stryfe, AoA, Albert and Elsie Dee, really?), and the last third are just things that have no bearing on the quality of the comics themselves (Jim Lee's designs).

I'll grant you that the 90s definitely brought some iconic X-Men like Gambit and Psylocke, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that this era was the creative peak of the franchise. It was definitely at its most-popular, but I've gone back to read a lot of these 90s X-books, and y'know what--they're really not that good. Claremont and Lee's X-Men? Nicieza and Lobdell? Really hasn't aged well. Popular doesn't always mean good.

Like I said, your opinion just seems marred by nostalgia. Again, you're of course entitled to your own likes, but your opinion of modern Marvel basically boils down to you disliking any form of change or progress.

Avatar image for combo-man
#34 Edited by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

@combo-man

My point wasn't that there weren't any good Marvel comics in the 90s, my point was that DC did a better job in that decade

That's also my opinion. and I think DC was better than Marvel in the 2000s too. but where you and I part ways is you consider the the 90s a weak time for Marvel, that's what I disagree with. I don't see how it could be considered weak, with so much memorable stuff being from that era.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

90s Spidey is balanced out by a lot of bad comics.

Yeah but it was also the original Peter and MJ years as a married couple, very important. as well as the Harry Osborn saga, the return of the Sinister Six, the bulk of the Venom & Carnage stories, and the return of Chameleon as a major villain. not to mention bringing the original Green Goblin back. I don't think anything from the 2000s comes close to any of that.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

Gerber's She-Hulk, Mackie's Ghost Rider, and Busiek's Thunderbolts are all passable books, but hardly worth mentioning; you can't really argue anyone citing those titles as examples of "great comics of the 90s." At best, they're an underrated footnote.

I'll pretend I didn't hear that. lol, seriously though 90s She-Hulk is groundbreaking, having She-Hulk actually being aware that she is a comic book character, and having her interact with the comic's editor and complaining about the new penciler or whatever was just brilliant. the only reason "critics" don't laud it as a great comic is because they're mostly ignorant of anything pre 2000.

Ghost Rider also groundbreaking, first Marvel comic to be printed on black pages which became a common thing in your fav era of the 2000s. well it all started in 1990 with Ghost Rider.

Thunderbolts was just an original concept, to have villains posing as heroes and starting to like the hero life better. of course it helped that from an artwork point of view it was probably the best work of Mark Bagley's career.

so yeah with all due respect these are not just footnotes.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

that's a pretty ironic argument for the X-Men. For a franchise that's about the future, and the next-generation, and evolution...you don't think that Marvel should be progressive and try to push the franchise to take risks? If Marvel stuck with your tried-and-true formula, all we would get is more nonsensical crossovers like Onslaught. There's a reason why Morrison's New X-Men and Whedon's Astonishing X-Men resonated with fans: it's because they did what the best superhero comics do, put new spins on familiar concepts, while pushing the franchise towards new heights.

Well I'm a fan, it didn't resonate with me. but I don't blame Marvel for making the decision to take a risk, I would have probably done the same thing if I was in their shoes. especially when you consider the time. it was right at the beginning of a new century everyone was under pressure to reinvent.

but it didn't work that's why Whedon's run which is kind of a loveletter to the early Claremont years was basically an admission that Morrison's attempt to reinvent X-Men was a failure. and Marvel tried to put things right by even bringing back Claremont, as well as old school artists like Alan Davis and Chris Bachalo.

and Mike Carey also wrote the book in a very 90s style, the old suspenseful something big is gonna happen DTA. a classic Lobdell and Nicieza formula. but imo it was a day late and a dollar short.

more importantly it was a vanilla era, I mean obviously I understand that X-Men comics from 2004-2009 were not as bad as I might sometimes make it sound, but it also wasn't great or even good. very few memorable moments, and very few memorable characters introduced.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

A third of the things you listed didn't even hit their creative stride until the 2000s

now who's being subjective?

@veshark said:

@combo-man

the second third are hardly great creations (Stryfe, AoA, Albert and Elsie Dee, really?), and the last third are just things that have no bearing on the quality of the comics themselves (Jim Lee's designs).

well Stryfe is an important character in Cable's biography.

Albert and Elsie Dee? that could be just me, but they're a notable part of the Larry Hama Wolverine run.

AoA is loved by most fans, a very popular story.

Of course Jim Lee's designs are important, maybe it shouldn't be? but in the superhero genre costumes are a big deal, and Jim Lee hit a home run with his designs.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

I've gone back to read a lot of these 90s X-books, and y'know what--they're really not that good. Claremont and Lee's X-Men? Nicieza and Lobdell? Really hasn't aged well. Popular doesn't always mean good.

Like I said, your opinion just seems marred by nostalgia. Again, you're of course entitled to your own likes, but your opinion of modern Marvel basically boils down to you disliking any form of change or progress.

I'm not a Star Wars guy but I think I now understand what it's like for fans of the original trilogy when they hear younger fans say that "the prequels are better than the originals."

As for nostalgia yeah I do have an emotional connection to 80s and 90s X-Men, why would I waste my time talking about them if I didn't care about them? but that doesn't mean it's "rose tinted" there were things I didn't like about 90s comics then that I still don't like now. not a fan of most X-Men comics from 1996-2000 either. also not a fan of the Clone Saga, and many other stories, characters, ideas from the 80s-90s.

Avatar image for veshark
#35 Posted by Veshark (10499 posts) - - Show Bio

@combo-man

My two original points about Marvel in the 90s were that 1) DC is the superior publisher in that decade--again, a point that you conceded in your original post and that 2) The 90s were Marvel's weakest decade. Again, nowhere in my original post did I state that 90s Marvel was devoid of good comics. All I'm saying is that for all the "memorable" comics Marvel might have produced in the 90s, a solid majority of their books remain some of the most reviled comics of the era (e.g. Clone Saga, Onslaught, Heroes Reborn etc.), and cherry-picking a few notable exceptions to the rule isn't really a good counterargument to my point.

You're really not saying anything new about Spider-Man, either. Again, I've said that some of the Spider-Man comics of the early 90s were good; I enjoy a decent number of those. But you also had the Clone Saga, a chaotic near-nonsensical story that nobody could follow and ended up with Osborn being resurrected for no apparent reason. Maximum Carnage, an absolute chore to read, with plot threads that went nowhere and a terrible characterization of Peter Parker. The Gathering of Five, which I can't even begin to explain. The Final Chapter, a horrible retcon of Aunt May's death where it was revealed the woman she was actually killed was an actress infused with her DNA or some such other nonsense. All I'm saying is I don't see how you can call the 90s to be Spider-Man's best decade, when a majority of the most-hated stories in the history of this character were published in this era.

She-Hulk has been breaking the fourth wall before Gerber's run, she's done it from her debut issue by John Byrne, which came out in early 1989. You can't really claim that for the 90s. If that's the only claim to fame for Gerber's run, I'm not surprised it's not often acknowledged. As for Ghost Rider, a printing method that has nothing to do with the actual content of the book means it was a good 90s comic? I don't even know if your claim was true, but while I enjoy the Ketch issues, I would never call them memorable or influential comics. Thunderbolts had a neat concept, but the actual book by Busiek was really nothing spectacular--quality-wise it's not that much better from any Marvel comic from any other era. I enjoyed it, especially the Graviton issues by Nicieza, but I would never list that as an example of great 90s comics. I also think Bagley grew as an artist in the 2000s and did better work on Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man, but that's just me.

Not really. Morrison's New X-Men book was consistently at the top of the charts, selling just as well as Millar's Ultimate X-Men book, so obviously there was commercial appeal as well as critical acclaim. Not to mention that Whedon has consistently stated in interviews that he loved Morrison's New X-Men work, and built off a lot of the ideas that Morrison established (Genosha, Cassandra Nova, making Emma Frost a central character of the cast etc.), so I don't see how you can argue that Morrison's run was a "failure." If you want to list the 21st century X-Men concepts that have their roots in Morrison's New X-Men...

  • The concept of secondary mutations
  • Emma Frost's iconic diamond form, Beast's iconic feline form
  • The genocide of Genosha
  • Quentin Quire, Xorn, Cassandra Nova
  • Weapon Plus (including Fantomex!)
  • The emphasis of the Xavier Institute as an actual school

If you asked the average X-fan what the best X-books of the 2000s were, which ones do you think most would name? What's the general consensus? Morrison on New X-Men and Whedon on Astonishing X-Men? Or the 2000s books from the 90s writers you name-dropped like Claremont and Carey? Your claim that the 2000s was an "unmemorable era" is also entirely unfounded, and you've provided zero supporting evidence for your empty claims. Besides all the Morrison concepts I already mentioned, you're just gonna ignore everything else? The final "death" of Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde's sacrifice to save the planet, Scarlet Witch depowering 90% of the mutant population, Messiah Complex being the first critically-acclaimed crossover event in years, the evolution of mutants from the next step of mankind to an endangered species that shifted the metaphor from minorities to immigrants. If anything, the 2000s did more notable changes in the status quo that any decade of the franchise's history.

I don't see how the things I listed are entirely subjective. You're really going to argue that Cable, Deadpool, Domino, and the rest of X-Force didn't become much more interesting in the 2000s? With the exception of Joe Kelly on Deadpool, none of those characters/concepts became great comics until the 2000s. Most of the 90s stuff with Cable and X-Force were generic, forgettable "extreme" comics. Stryfe is a terrible character, a holdover from confusing crossover events and labyrinth X-history that no one can understand, so to use him as an example of a great comic-book character is not a good argument. No one remembers Albert and Elsie Dee. AoA is not a great story. Fans like it because of the novel premise of a status quo change, and it has a cool Blink-Sabretooth relationship, but the story is a sludge to get through. I'd argue that it's not popular because it's a well-written comic, but because it tried something different at the time. As for Jim Lee's designs, I love them as much as the next X-fan, but that doesn't mean that the actual comic was good. Like I said, I've been rereading the X-Men Blue/Gold stuff and honestly, these are some middle-of-the-road comics that are very dated, even for the 90s.

I'm not super-familiar with Star Wars, but I'm pretty sure no one says the prequels are better than the originals, not even newer fans. But alright.

I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing for anymore? Do you just disagree with my statement that the 90s were not a great decade for Marvel? Or are you still trying to argue that the 90s Marvel comics were better than the 2000s "movie-esque" comics?

Avatar image for benjamin_poindexter
#36 Posted by Benjamin_Poindexter (947 posts) - - Show Bio

80's. Frank Miller Daredevil & Chris Claremont X-Men are damn hard to beat.

Avatar image for brucerogers
#37 Posted by BruceRogers (17448 posts) - - Show Bio

The 80s and the 2000s.

Avatar image for havenless
#38 Posted by Havenless (3106 posts) - - Show Bio

Pretty much X-Factor #70 up to Onslaught: Marvel Universe.

When the X-Men ran the comic book industry.

Avatar image for michaelbn
#39 Posted by Michaelbn (2404 posts) - - Show Bio

Late 70's, 80's, till mid 90's and early 2000's. We had only a few good stories and fewer great stories past mid 2000's.

Avatar image for theinsufferable
#40 Posted by TheInsufferable (2713 posts) - - Show Bio

Mostly 80s.

Avatar image for jb681131
#41 Posted by jb681131 (3120 posts) - - Show Bio

Frank Miller & Klaus Janson on Daredevil. I have never read any better written run. And nobody can argue that.

Avatar image for yassassin
#42 Posted by Yassassin (7701 posts) - - Show Bio

The 80s to the late 90s was almost perfect for most characters.

Avatar image for stormshadow_x
#43 Posted by StormShadow_X (16766 posts) - - Show Bio

When the Avengers were the B team of the universe

Avatar image for combo-man
#44 Edited by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

@combo-man

All I'm saying is that for all the "memorable" comics Marvel might have produced in the 90s, a solid majority of their books remain some of the most reviled comics of the era (e.g. Clone Saga, Onslaught, Heroes Reborn etc.), and cherry-picking a few notable exceptions to the rule isn't really a good counterargument to my point.

This is where we disagree though, imo most comics in the 90s (as well as almost every other decade) are standard enjoyable stuff, with a few infamous exceptions.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

All I'm saying is I don't see how you can call the 90s to be Spider-Man's best decade, when a majority of the most-hated stories in the history of this character were published in this era.

I didn't say that the 90s was Spidey's best overall decade, I like almost every decade for Spider-man's comics. if I had to choose an era that was probably his best then it would be the 60s. though I hesitate even saying that because I loved them all from 60s-90s.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

She-Hulk has been breaking the fourth wall before Gerber's run, she's done it from her debut issue by John Byrne, which came out in early 1989. You can't really claim that for the 90s.

well I mean the entire 1989-1994 volume. Gerber and Hitch are just the names that stick in my head from it. obviously all of the writers and artists were great, Byrne, Starkings, Wright, Milgrom, Simonson. it was a group effort. and most of the 60 issue volume was published in the 90s. I think 50 issues or so are from the 90s.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

I've been rereading the X-Men Blue/Gold stuff and honestly, these are some middle-of-the-road comics that are very dated, even for the 90s.

You and I are just on different planets when it comes to X-Men. I'm a fan of the 1975-1995 era everything after has ranged from mediocre to terrible imo. there's obviously no common ground on this.

@veshark said:

@combo-man

I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing for anymore? Do you just disagree with my statement that the 90s were not a great decade for Marvel? Or are you still trying to argue that the 90s Marvel comics were better than the 2000s "movie-esque" comics?

when it comes to the 90s I think there was enough great stuff for me to consider it a great or at least a good era. definitely not particularly weak imo.

when I think of Marvel from the 2000s, I just didn't like it. other than Winter Soldier, I didn't like any of the new or newish characters introduced. Ronin, Sentry, Penance, etc.

and as you know I wasn't a fan of much of the art. or the events like Civil War, Secret Invasion, Avengers Disassembled, etc.

didn't like many of the creative decisions whether it was Spider-Man unmasking, OMD, or "killing off" Hawkeye and Vision, the lineup of the New Avengers, etc.

just one man's opinion.

Avatar image for veshark
#45 Edited by Veshark (10499 posts) - - Show Bio

@combo-man

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I don't think Marvel was as bad as, say, Image in the 90s, but I much prefer what DC was doing in that decade. 90s X-Men was alright to me, but I also prefer what came after.

I wasn't a unanimous fan of everything Marvel did in the 2000s either, obviously OMD was as convoluted a retcon as some of the 90s Spider-Man stories, and the string of mediocre events were exhausting, but me personally, the good outweighs the bad. Like I said in my first post, some of my all-time favorite stories came out of this era. Ultimate Marvel, Brubaker on Cap etc. are still the gold standard of Marvel books for me.

Avatar image for combo-man
#46 Posted by Combo-Man (248 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark:

Yeah I liked Brubaker's Cap run too, also enjoyed Ultimate Spider-Man, it was done well, had a huge Impact, and Bagley's art is always great.

Avatar image for au_141
#47 Posted by Au_141 (1042 posts) - - Show Bio

Almost everything after Dark Reign leading up to and ending Secret Wars 2015. However, the worst period Marvel begins immediately afterwards

Avatar image for supermanthor
#48 Posted by Supermanthor (20041 posts) - - Show Bio

Reading these I realize one thing

Marvel now after avengers flim basically takes the huge sci find apporch again

While 2000s was grounded years for marvel

2010s are huge sci-fi era and weird era

I like both tho

It's just 90s are little turf for me

And DC always put good books in each decade

Image and dark horse good too

Avatar image for antithetical
#49 Posted by antithetical (1641 posts) - - Show Bio

For me it would be mid 70s through the 80s, maybe culminating with the [i]very[/i] early 90s.

Avatar image for apex_pretador
#50 Edited by APEX_pretador (20907 posts) - - Show Bio

Annihilation erap