|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Jun 15, 2024 19:32:55 GMT -5
My sweet spot was the late 70’s to the mid 80’s But the 90’s was very exciting. So many comic companies sprung up. I loved it.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. As much as I love comics of preceding decades, three of my all-time favorite series were born in the '90s-- James Robinson's Starman, John Ostrander's The Spectre, and Matt Wagner's Sandman Mystery Theatre. Grant Morrison's Invisibles (1st series) was an underrated gem as well.
Unfortunately, many people tend to eschew the '90's as a whole due to the heavy use of gimmick covers and frequently shallow storytelling, of which there was plenty-- but in that respect (storytelling), it's no different from other decades if you think about it. Overall, I don't think the '90s were any worse than preceding eras, just a different flavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jun 15, 2024 19:49:18 GMT -5
My sweet spot was the late 70’s to the mid 80’s But the 90’s was very exciting. So many comic companies sprung up. I loved it. I don't necessarily disagree with this. As much as I love comics of preceding decades, three of my all-time favorite series were born in the '90s-- James Robinson's Starman, John Ostrander's The Spectre, and Matt Wagner's Sandman Mystery Theatre. Grant Morrison's Invisibles (1st series) was an underrated gem as well. Unfortunately, many people tend to eschew the '90's as a whole due to the heavy use of gimmick covers and frequently shallow storytelling, of which there was plenty-- but in that respect (storytelling), it's no different from other decades if you think about it. Overall, I don't think the '90s were any worse than preceding eras, just a different flavor.
Every time this conversation comes up, I point to Sturgeon's Law. 90% of the output of any decades was drek (or simply pumped out to meet deadlines), it's the other 10% that makes the decade worthwhile. The 90s may seem like it has more dreck, but that's because there was a higher volume of books pumped out overall. It was still a 90/10 split, it's just the 90 of the 90s had a lot more books in it, but then so did the 10 of the 90s. The decade something was produced in has very little to do with its inherent quality or inherent lack thereof. Some trends or aesthetics of a given time frame may be more or less to some consumers tastes, but individual tastes has little to do with inherent quality or lack there of of the books themselves. This whole thread is about showcasing books you love and sharing them with others. If you love a book from the 90s, so that mofo off here proudly!  Same as books form any decade. It may not be one of my favorites, but that's not the point of this thread. But I might have to give some love to the 90s with future choices. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 16, 2024 8:32:27 GMT -5
I don't necessarily disagree with this. As much as I love comics of preceding decades, three of my all-time favorite series were born in the '90s-- James Robinson's Starman, John Ostrander's The Spectre, and Matt Wagner's Sandman Mystery Theatre. Grant Morrison's Invisibles (1st series) was an underrated gem as well. Unfortunately, many people tend to eschew the '90's as a whole due to the heavy use of gimmick covers and frequently shallow storytelling, of which there was plenty-- but in that respect (storytelling), it's no different from other decades if you think about it. Overall, I don't think the '90s were any worse than preceding eras, just a different flavor.
Every time this conversation comes up, I point to Sturgeon's Law. 90% of the output of any decades was drek (or simply pumped out to meet deadlines), it's the other 10% that makes the decade worthwhile. The 90s may seem like it has more dreck, but that's because there was a higher volume of books pumped out overall. It was still a 90/10 split, it's just the 90 of the 90s had a lot more books in it, but then so did the 10 of the 90s. The decade something was produced in has very little to do with its inherent quality or inherent lack thereof. Some trends or aesthetics of a given time frame may be more or less to some consumers tastes, but individual tastes has little to do with inherent quality or lack there of of the books themselves. This whole thread is about showcasing books you love and sharing them with others. If you love a book from the 90s, so that mofo off here proudly! Same as books form any decade. It may not be one of my favorites, but that's not the point of this thread. But I might have to give some love to the 90s with future choices. -M I wonder if this period ( 90-96) was then the most comic companies were springing up. There were companies like Dark Horse and Topp's that suddenly started doing superheroes. And here were some companies that had really amateurish art. People that really weren't ready for the pros were drawing books. Maybe the 40's and 50's were similar ? |
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Jun 16, 2024 10:25:33 GMT -5
Dog Moon (1996) Grateful Dead collaborator and lyricist Robert Hunter wrote a haunting love story that only Vertigo could publish back in the mi-90s. The story of a world where the recently dead await their Charon to take them to the beyond. In a weird Mad Max desolate landscape filled with Bosch like nightmares, two drivers of a truck collect the dead to take them to the next stop. One pick-up of a beautiful lady leads to an odd love story between the hero and his mysterious lady. Hunter, who's work with the Grateful Dead (Darkstar, Ripple, Truckin') has such beautiful imagery and only one person could bring his words to life, Tim Truman. Truman had long standing friendship with the band, so it was a slam dunk. Its beautifully painted by Truman in his style. Its an underrated beauty.  |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jun 16, 2024 10:35:57 GMT -5
Every time this conversation comes up, I point to Sturgeon's Law. 90% of the output of any decades was drek (or simply pumped out to meet deadlines), it's the other 10% that makes the decade worthwhile. The 90s may seem like it has more dreck, but that's because there was a higher volume of books pumped out overall. It was still a 90/10 split, it's just the 90 of the 90s had a lot more books in it, but then so did the 10 of the 90s. The decade something was produced in has very little to do with its inherent quality or inherent lack thereof. Some trends or aesthetics of a given time frame may be more or less to some consumers tastes, but individual tastes has little to do with inherent quality or lack there of of the books themselves. This whole thread is about showcasing books you love and sharing them with others. If you love a book from the 90s, so that mofo off here proudly! Same as books form any decade. It may not be one of my favorites, but that's not the point of this thread. But I might have to give some love to the 90s with future choices. -M I wonder if this period ( 90-96) was then the most comic companies were springing up. There were companies like Dark Horse and Topp's that suddenly started doing superheroes. And here were some companies that had really amateurish art. People that really weren't ready for the pros were drawing books. Maybe the 40's and 50's were similar ? There were people who weren't ready to be drawing books and whose art was amateurish in every decade. The percentages are pretty similar in each decade of that kind of stuff appearing, what varies is the volume. The early 90s had a lot of volume and because of the narrowing of genres and the direct market, everyone was focused on Marvel and DC and super-hero books and everything new got compared to them, but there have been lots of folks drawing super-heroes for which they weren't ready or weren't suited from the 30's on up. Just most comic fans have nostalgia blinders on when it comes to books before the 90s, mostly because they were kids and young adults when they first encountered those books and even when revisiting them let the experience of discovering and reading them as kids color their perspectives on those books. But there were not ready for prime time artists illustrating not ready for prime time scripts all through comics history. And lest people forget, many of the artists in the 9s were drawing in the styles they were either because it was asked of them by editorial, or those hiring were only hiring folks who drew in certain styles without actually saying that was what they were doing because they thought that was what would sell in that time's market. If you look at the work of those artists either before, after, or outside the 90s comic market, it is often very different and (to my eye) much more appealing and competent that what was on display in some of the books at the time. So not always a question of ability or readiness, but a factor of giving the client (the editors/publishers) what they wanted in commercial art. But then again, trying to capture the market often results in drek (see the huge volume of characters pumped out in the 40s trying to capture the success of Superman's market if you want to read some drek (and yes there were some great comics too produced in that vein-Captain Marvel anyone?-but that's the essence of Sturgeon's Law. The standout work make sit all worthwhile, but it exists in a sea of drek-drek is not just bad books but the tide of mediocrity that is pumped out just to be in the market but in now way shape or form would be confused with standout work to anyone except for the most slavish fan perspectives. But even drek has fans. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 16, 2024 11:00:39 GMT -5
The 90’s were particularly apart from the 70’s and 80’s. There were entire companies springing up and they needed artists to fill the need. The 70’s and 80’s has periods where good people got laid off for lack of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jun 16, 2024 11:17:19 GMT -5
The 90’s were particularly apart from the 70’s and 80’s. There were entire companies springing up and they needed artists to fill the need. The 70’s and 80’s has periods where good people got laid off for lack of work. There were new companies springing up in the 70s as well, and while work was scare at times there were still folks breaking in all the time, who worked cheaper than the vets and were grabbing that work, and producing at times, not ready for prime time stuff. Oft time fans forget that page rate rather than quality of work determined who got work, and also who was available with pencil, pen or brush when deadlines were looming and could get the job done quick rather than have it be good or be forced to do a reprint instead of the advertised story. Whether that was a young not ready for prime time player who worked cheap and was ready to be off to the races or farming stuff out to an overseas studio or artist (like Marvel & DC did with a lot of the Filipino artists in the 70s) who worked cheaper than the veterans who were available domestically and who ten got passed over for assignments because they were too expensive, not because there wasn't enough work for them. Through the 70s Dell and Gold Key's output alone was equivalent of most of the 90s new publisher output in terms of market share (add in Warren as well and Charlton and Archie and there was a bigger share of the comics market that wasn't Marvel/DC in the 70s than there was in the 90s), but again a lot of 70s fans forget how much of the market existed outside of Marvel and DC and tunnel vision on those two to make generalizations about the market of that decade. -M |
|
Same as books form any decade. It may not be one of my favorites, but that's not the point of this thread. But I might have to give some love to the 90s with future choices. 
