Are late 70s and 80s comics better or worse than comics of the 00s??

[echostation]

I haven't read a single issue of any new comic recently since I'd say about 2002, really it's been that long, the only thing I ever do sometimes to catch up in general is to read some of the spoiler summaries that are so well given here on these forums... I used to read much older comics

I was wondering for all of you out there who are big marvel fans, do you think comics of the mid 70s and the 80s are much better or much worse than comics of say the past 4-5 years? The only ones I ever read were from way back when and I thoroughly enjoyed them but I don't know how good or bad current comics are.

I'm purposely leaving the 90s out of this cuz i feel that's a separate topic...

[U.S War Machine]

The old classic comics to me are better than the modern

[Anubis]

I find most of the stuff from the 60's on through to the 70's unreadable. Lord knows i've tried. It's just from a different time. The 80's is really when things started to mature more. Guys like Grant Morrison, Frank Miller, and Alan Moore started to pop up and really revolutionize the industry. Are comics better now than they were in the 70's and 80's? I don't know. The decade isn't over. Though there have been some truely great work produced. I'd have to say it's much more sophisticated.

And the 90's wasn't all that bad either. The 90's produced some incredible stuff. James Robinson's Starman. Neil Gaimen's Sandman. The Thunderbolts, Planetary, Golden Age, etc, etc.

[Phaedrus45]

What I love about the comics from the 70's and 80's is the paper quality. For me, it just looks better. Everything now is so damn glossy. Plus, when you have comics on disk, the older ones don't look as cheesy.

Now, for content, it really depends on preference, I guess. But, take comics, like She-Hulk. The first series is really hard to read, and a person can easily make an argument that Slott's She-Hulk is much, much better reading material. (BTW, just out this week, Essential She-Hulk Vol. 1!)

In fact, some of the comics I loved as a kid just don't hold up anymore. They are either corny or simply a 2 dimensional story without anything special to make it worthy of remembering.

[Artistsean]

It depends, sometimes the stories are real good and powerful. Real meaningful, but then again sometimes you get the Rocket Racer and that Disco villian, or a comic about Peter playing a game o football with the life of the Watcher in the balance.

To me it depends on how the company is running the comics. They have written the basic plot and had the artists decide most of it, then they did it were the art was way more important and you would get splash page after splash page and all action and the story came second (happened alot during the 90s) recently I think they have made writing more important than the art (not a bad way to go, but the art is important too)

[XBRoughneck]

Haven't followed comics to closely recently, but the 80s artist were pretty sharp.

Frizetta, John Byrne, George Perez, Frank Miller....

Very good era IMO for comic art.

[XBRoughneck]

Haven't followed comics to closely recently, but the 80s artist were pretty sharp.

Frizetta, John Byrne, George Perez, Frank Miller....

Very good era IMO for comic art.

[Silicon Surfer]

As others have said it is a matter of personal preference. For me the 60's 70's and early 80's were far better than the comics of today. Yes the science was frequently bad but people then weren't as scientifically sophisticated as they are in today's internet age. the storytelling ability was on the average far better than it is today. There were consistency problems due to deadlines and the inability to confer with anyone fast enough but still many things stayed the same about a character no matter how many times the writers changed. Too many writers today feel that they can do whatever they feel like without regard to the fact that they are writing in a shared universe with a continuity than came before them and that another writer will have to deal with after they are gone. As a result characters do the sorts of inconsistant things that we consistantly argue about here.

[gildea]

To be honest i would guess in twenty years time people will probably look at the science in our comics and have a good giggle.

[Wilderbeast]

golden age stuff was boring and dated. today's stuff is waaaay highr quality and better carachters.

[Themanofbat]

Originally Posted by Wilderbeast

golden age stuff was boring and dated. today's stuff is waaaay highr quality and better carachters.

Maybe it's boring because YOU'RE boring.

[WOLVERINE25TH]

I loved comics from mid 70s-mid 90s. Late 90s they became hit or miss, and today Marvel's B-stuff is much better than it's A stuff.

[Elijya]

Originally Posted by Anubis

I find most of the stuff from the 60's on through to the 70's unreadable. Lord knows i've tried. It's just from a different time. The 80's is really when things started to mature more. Guys like Grant Morrison, Frank Miller, and Alan Moore started to pop up and really revolutionize the industry. Are comics better now than they were in the 70's and 80's? I don't know. The decade isn't over. Though there have been some truely great work produced. I'd have to say it's much more sophisticated.

And the 90's wasn't all that bad either. The 90's produced some incredible stuff. James Robinson's Starman. Neil Gaimen's Sandman. The Thunderbolts, Planetary, Golden Age, etc, etc.

^ ditto

I appreciate the old stuff, sure, but there's very little of it I can actually read. Today's comics are 100% enjoyment for me, though. The execution is just 1,000 times better and more exciting.

[TheCorpulent1]

Older stuff tends to be very campy, from what I've seen. It's hard for me to read. I've tried numerous times to read the old Journey Into Mystery stuff for fanboyism's sake, but I can only get through about 3 or 4 issues at a time. Modern stuff I can read for hours and hours nonstop.

[Kool-Aid]

There's some stuff that's good that was done in the 70s and 80s, but I like more of whats done now.

[vindrow]

The comics of the 70's and 80's to me are much better than what we have now.

[Super Mark]

I can't say the classics are better. But I can say that I like them better!
The comics of the 80s contained lots of action. Much of the new stuff I see contains lots of violence.

To me, there is a difference between action and violence.
Pulp Fiction contained violence. Star Wars contained action.

Not saying one is better, just what I prefer for fun.

[Fred_Fury]

The writing was better in the 80's, but the art is so much better now.

[Fading]

I can't speak on the 70's, was born in 83 and closest comic shop is 30 miles away. I read and collected some while growing up but they were the current late 80's and 90's comics, tho I have read up and know the backstories now .

Anyway I'm biased personally, I think the 80's-90's had the right formula, but worse art work. The hero's sometimes were a bit over the top and cliche in the 80's IMO, but the overall stories were great and more origional. I have tons of comics and can pick up almost any of them from the 80-90's and it be a great read, same with some of the older ones I got a few years ago. Few of the ones to have come out in the past 6 years have really caught my attention enough to care. I like the Ultimate Hulk vs. Wolverine, the new Civil War line's potential, tho we'll have ot see if CW is worth it. Most of it just feel like rehashing of old stories. Not to count I've noticed the movies have influenced the comics in a bad way, like they were embarrased of their comic book counterparts so they changed things like costumes to fit the movies (especially in X-men atleast for awhile with the black leather uniforms).

[XFanTim]

Originally Posted by Wilderbeast

golden age stuff was boring and dated. today's stuff is waaaay highr quality and better carachters.

You do know that "Golden Age" refers to the 40's, not the 70's, right?

[Cyclops]

They cared more about the product in the 60s and 70s, and perhaps even into the 80s. Can you honestly say that about so many books these days? Millar just uses his comicbooks to write big action sequences and push his political views on people. Bendis just writes to boost his ego. JMS writes to leave his mark on characters, not to add to their legacies. And the editors and other higher-ups care more about lining their pockets than producing quality work.

What made Marvel truly special in the first place was that Stan, Jack, Steve and company made comics with a very personal flair to them. They cared not only about making money but about giving the readers a truly satisfying experience. And I cannot say that about the comics of today.

[Anubis]

Well, Marvel comics maybe.

[Cyclops]

And this is the Marvel Comics forum, hence the question applies to Marvel Comics.

[Anubis]

The question says comcis, not Marvel comics. You'd be within your right to bring up indy stuff, or Darkhorse.

[Cyclops]

So then it should be in the Misc. Comics Forum, not the Marvel Comics forum. If it's in the Marvel Comics Forum, it's safe to assume that it's asking about Marvel Comics. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the title since it's under the Marvel Comics banner.