|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 18, 2015 13:10:16 GMT -5
Anyone doing a DC version of this thread?  Maybe eventually, but I don't expect as hot a debate. I think it might come down to how you define DC. Because if Vertigo is included there's a good chance that I could vote for the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 17:49:33 GMT -5
Anyone doing a DC version of this thread? I think the 80's would probably rule that one with an iron fist. Nah...I'd go for the 70s again followed by the 80s. The 60s would be lingering behind... |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 18, 2015 17:54:20 GMT -5
Well, if we're going to debate it anyway, fine. I'll give it its own thread.
Let's give the Watchmen poll/debate a little more time before stealing its spotlight, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 18, 2015 19:01:51 GMT -5
UNLESS you're only a superhero reader. Then I'd agree the quality of Marvel product did improve from the '70s to the '80s. Most of the great '70s books were new titles in new genres, while the superhero books were, in general, stuck in a bit of a pleasant rut. Even sticking just to superheroes I don't see that the best of the 80s Marvel - usually, I take it, considered to be Claremont's X-Men, Miller's DD, & Simonson's Thor - is markedly superior to, say, Englehart's Avengers, Gerber's Defenders, or MacGregor's Black Panther. And if you leave out the bests tuff, the average Marvel superhero book in the 70s was still a fun read, while the bulk of Marvel's 80s stuff has never appealed to me in the least. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 18, 2015 19:07:04 GMT -5
I generally see an improvement in the superhero books from the '70s to the '80s. Like John Byrne's FF was a lot stronger than Thomas' or Wolfman's, Simonson's Thor was stronger than Wein's, Stern and Dematties Spider-man was stronger than Conway, the '80s chunk of the Byrne Claremont X-men was better than the parts in the '70s... etc.
Englehart's books are the exception, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Nov 18, 2015 21:07:24 GMT -5
I think Captain America and Iron Man really came into their own as series later on. Captain America seemed to jump all over the place as a comic, Marvel changing what to do with the character. Iron Man is one that seemed to get deeper into back story later on, really playing up the corporate angle of Stark Enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 19, 2015 0:02:38 GMT -5
I generally see an improvement in the superhero books from the '70s to the '80s. Like John Byrne's FF was a lot stronger than Thomas' or Wolfman's, Simonson's Thor was stronger than Wein's, Stern and Dematties Spider-man was stronger than Conway, the '80s chunk of the Byrne Claremont X-men was better than the parts in the '70s... etc. Englehart's books are the exception, of course. Well, the only thing I've read of those is the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, which seems all of a piece to me, with little if any difference between the 70s and 80s. Can't say much about the others, but I've always found Roger Stern a competent but not very innovative writer; deMatteis was a great letter-writer but I've never taken to his comics writing, though I'm still holding out hope for some of his independent work; and while I consider myself a fan of Simonson's artwork, his Thor has never appealed to me, for whatever reason. But more importantly, I think Alan Moore was doing so much with superheroes at DC and elsewhere in the 80s that even the best of 80s Marvel fades into insignificance in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 19, 2015 4:24:22 GMT -5
I generally see an improvement in the superhero books from the '70s to the '80s. Like John Byrne's FF was a lot stronger than Thomas' or Wolfman's, Simonson's Thor was stronger than Wein's, Stern and Dematties Spider-man was stronger than Conway, the '80s chunk of the Byrne Claremont X-men was better than the parts in the '70s... etc. Damn, you had to include DeMatties in an otherwise totally agreeable paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 19, 2015 4:44:15 GMT -5
Well, the only thing I've read of those is the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, which seems all of a piece to me, with little if any difference between the 70s and 80s. Can't say much about the others, but I've always found Roger Stern a competent but not very innovative writer; deMatteis was a great letter-writer but I've never taken to his comics writing, though I'm still holding out hope for some of his independent work; and while I consider myself a fan of Simonson's artwork, his Thor has never appealed to me, for whatever reason. But more importantly, I think Alan Moore was doing so much with superheroes at DC and elsewhere in the 80s that even the best of 80s Marvel fades into insignificance in comparison. Proteus, The Hellfire Club, Dark Phoenix, Days of Future Past… all that happened after X-Men #125, I don't recall any landmark before that inflection point. It's true that Stern was never about innovation, but in the slow evolution the genre saw, from the Golden Age to Watchmen and DKR, his ASM was as evolved as anything else out there. You could say that Simonson's Thor or Miller's DD were more groundbreaking, but they weren't superhero comics, strictly speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 19, 2015 4:47:41 GMT -5
I generally see an improvement in the superhero books from the '70s to the '80s. Like John Byrne's FF was a lot stronger than Thomas' or Wolfman's, Simonson's Thor was stronger than Wein's, Stern and Dematties Spider-man was stronger than Conway, the '80s chunk of the Byrne Claremont X-men was better than the parts in the '70s... etc. Englehart's books are the exception, of course. Well, the only thing I've read of those is the Claremont/Byrne X-Men, which seems all of a piece to me, with little if any difference between the 70s and 80s. Can't say much about the others, but I've always found Roger Stern a competent but not very innovative writer; deMatteis was a great letter-writer but I've never taken to his comics writing, though I'm still holding out hope for some of his independent work; and while I consider myself a fan of Simonson's artwork, his Thor has never appealed to me, for whatever reason. But more importantly, I think Alan Moore was doing so much with superheroes at DC and elsewhere in the 80s that even the best of 80s Marvel fades into insignificance in comparison. When you factor in all his random fill-in work, his factual articles, and his Night Raven prose stories, Moore probably did as much at Marvel UK between 1981 and 1984 as he did at DC between 1984 and 1987. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 19, 2015 16:54:20 GMT -5
I generally see an improvement in the superhero books from the '70s to the '80s. Like John Byrne's FF was a lot stronger than Thomas' or Wolfman's, Simonson's Thor was stronger than Wein's, Stern and Dematties Spider-man was stronger than Conway, the '80s chunk of the Byrne Claremont X-men was better than the parts in the '70s... etc. Damn, you had to include DeMatties in an otherwise totally agreeable paragraph. I'm a huge fan. He's good enough to be a '70s Marvel writer! |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 21, 2015 12:19:59 GMT -5
Damn, you had to include DeMatties in an otherwise totally agreeable paragraph. I'm a huge fan. He's good enough to be a '70s Marvel writer! I loved his run on The Defenders. |
|
