|
|
Post by String on Mar 15, 2016 19:28:26 GMT -5
I've heard nothing but good things about Jenkins and Lee's Inhuman mini-series. But as with Marvel's current efforts with them, I can't get past my usual perception of them being nominal guest-stars in the MU (for example in the summer annuals). So my interest in them has always been faint.
I have more appreciation for Kesel's DD run than I do for Bendis' run. I've tried reading various issues of Bendis' run but I only find his usual quirks and flaws that are typical of his style of writing that I don't like. So in the end, being a DD fan, I highly doubt that I will ever read his entire run.
What is Bloodstone? Is that related to Ulysses Bloodstone? If it's by DnA, then I'll liable to check that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2016 21:34:23 GMT -5
I've heard nothing but good things about Jenkins and Lee's Inhuman mini-series. But as with Marvel's current efforts with them, I can't get past my usual perception of them being nominal guest-stars in the MU (for example in the summer annuals). So my interest in them has always been faint. I have more appreciation for Kesel's DD run than I do for Bendis' run. I've tried reading various issues of Bendis' run but I only find his usual quirks and flaws that are typical of his style of writing that I don't like. So in the end, being a DD fan, I highly doubt that I will ever read his entire run. What is Bloodstone? Is that related to Ulysses Bloodstone? If it's by DnA, then I'll liable to check that out. It introduces Ulysses' daughter Elsa who has inherited the Bloodstone. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Mar 15, 2016 21:55:38 GMT -5
Mark Waid on Captain America and Fantastic Four
Kurt Busiek with Marvels, Untold Tales of Spider-Man and Avengers
Ed Brubaker on Captain America
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 16, 2016 19:22:56 GMT -5
My favorite periods for Marvel Comics are:
1951-1954
1963-1968
1971-1978
2001-2005
2012-current.
The last four are the times when editorial backs off and lets the talent write/draw. (1951-1954 because the talent pool for artists was at it's peak.)
So I think there's been a lot of great stuff since the turn of the century. The '90s... less so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 16, 2016 19:59:22 GMT -5
My favorite periods for Marvel Comics are: 1951-1954 1963-1968 1971-1978 2001-2005 2012-current. The last four are the times when editorial backs off and lets the talent write/draw. (1951-1954 because the talent pool for artists was at it's peak.) So I think there's been a lot of great stuff since the turn of the century. The '90s... less so. To me, Marvel was only an interesting company from 1961 thru 1987 when Shooter left The late 70's/early 80's was probably it's "Golden Era" |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 16, 2016 22:02:26 GMT -5
I will unabashedly defend the late 90's X-Men books (well UXM and X-Men at least). Davis and Seagle were doing some really fun stuff with the books.  |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Mar 16, 2016 22:22:09 GMT -5
Though I can't speak for what he's done for the guy in his own title, Dan Slott wrote an issue of She-Hulk focusing on Spider-Man that became an instant classic as soon as I finished reading it.
It's from She-Hulk 4 and it may even have been based on the strength of this story that Slott was handed the keys to the Spider-Kingdom. It's one of those tales that makes you wonder why no one ever told it before - Spider-Man is given the chance to take JJJ to court for years of slander. He's on the verge of winning when something very logical and Parkeresque occurs... |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Mar 17, 2016 0:16:41 GMT -5
Slott's Spider-Man/ Human Torch mini series is a can't miss one too. The last issue is the best use of Spidey's marriage ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 17, 2016 2:47:01 GMT -5
My favorite periods for Marvel Comics are: 1951-1954 1963-1968 1971-1978 2001-2005 2012-current. The last four are the times when editorial backs off and lets the talent write/draw. (1951-1954 because the talent pool for artists was at it's peak.) So I think there's been a lot of great stuff since the turn of the century. The '90s... less so. To me, Marvel was only an interesting company from 1961 thru 1987 when Shooter left The late 70's/early 80's was probably it's "Golden Era" Much as I've liked a lot of Marvel stuff since then, generally speaking I'd have to agree. The Marvel universe as a cohesive whole pretty much fell apart after that point, too, which was rather a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 17, 2016 14:26:39 GMT -5
Though I can't speak for what he's done for the guy in his own title, Dan Slott wrote an issue of She-Hulk focusing on Spider-Man that became an instant classic as soon as I finished reading it.
It's from She-Hulk 4 and it may even have been based on the strength of this story that Slott was handed the keys to the Spider-Kingdom. It's one of those tales that makes you wonder why no one ever told it before - Spider-Man is given the chance to take JJJ to court for years of slander. He's on the verge of winning when something very logical and Parkeresque occurs... Fully agreed! Slott's She-Hulk was the most fun I'd had reading a comic in a long, long while. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 17, 2016 19:58:06 GMT -5
My favorite periods for Marvel Comics are: 1951-1954 1963-1968 1971-1978 2001-2005 2012-current. The last four are the times when editorial backs off and lets the talent write/draw. (1951-1954 because the talent pool for artists was at it's peak.) So I think there's been a lot of great stuff since the turn of the century. The '90s... less so. To me, Marvel was only an interesting company from 1961 thru 1987 when Shooter left The late 70's/early 80's was probably it's "Golden Era" I... I liked Coyote. I liked Born Again. I like Bill Seinciwicz The rest of it... I should have nostalgia for that stuff, I guess, but there really wasn't much subtext, intelligence, depth, or personal visions in the mainstream Marvel books from that period. I can see why stuff from that era appeals to people who are about long term plotting and character development, but I'm basically interested in comics as revolutionary art form. So from my point of view most of the work from that period feels like predictable corporate product, with the worst production values since the mid-forties. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 17, 2016 20:48:17 GMT -5
The rest of it... I should have nostalgia for that stuff, I guess, but there really wasn't much subtext, intelligence, depth, or personal visions in the mainstream Marvel books from that period. I can see why stuff from that era appeals to people who are about long term plotting and character development, but I'm basically interested in comics as revolutionary art form. So from my point of view most of the work from that period feels like predictable corporate product, with the worst production values since the mid-forties. I only mention that period because a lot of the Marvel books that I read growing up were from that particular time frame, so it's only natural for me to be nostalgic for it, even if I wasn't around then. But yes I agree with you, comics are a great art form, that are unfortunately being sullied by the corporations who think they know "what people want". Marvel going "corporate" was wrong, especially when New World acquired them, thinking that they had "bought Superman" |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 17, 2016 21:13:45 GMT -5
My favorite periods for Marvel Comics are: 1951-1954 1963-1968 1971-1978 2001-2005 2012-current. The last four are the times when editorial backs off and lets the talent write/draw. (1951-1954 because the talent pool for artists was at it's peak.) So I think there's been a lot of great stuff since the turn of the century. The '90s... less so. The post-2000 stuff still seems much too subject to editorial direction to me - the annual, all-encompassing MU-wide "events", the changes to the personae of characters like Doctor Strange, for example. A few interviews with creators - Richard Corben, for example - confirm this impression. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 17, 2016 21:26:34 GMT -5
The post-2000 stuff still seems much too subject to editorial direction to me - the annual, all-encompassing MU-wide "events", the changes to the personae of characters like Doctor Strange, for example. A few interviews with creators - Richard Corben, for example - confirm this impression. That's why I have so little interest in 90's Marvel books, with a few exceptions, because that's the exact point in time where all that event centric stuff snowballed into the chaotic mess we have now |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 1:30:57 GMT -5
My Favorite Periods of Marvel Comics
1951 to 1959
1961 to 1981
1962 to 1968
1974 to 1980
|
|
