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

[ang_hulk]

worse,they acted out the fact that they were for younglings and that it wasnt a respected genre.Now once the 80s rolled around things got a bit better but still,todays stuff is tops.

 

[Cyclops]

Yeah. Claremont has always written comics as if he were a "frustrated novelist" (the best description of his style I've ever seen) and it really gets hard to read sometimes. I have one issue of his run on Iron Fist with Byrne, and it is really really hard to read on account of both excessive and terrible dialogue.

 

[Elijya]

It's absolutely mind-boggling to me how you can't read stuff like the original Byrne/Claremont X-Men run, or ASM from issues 120 to 250 (with few exceptions), or Byrne's FF run, or Miller's DareDevil, or Wolfman/Perez's Teen Titans, etc...

And how you find the nice & tidy begining/middle/end format of today's 6 issue arc 1000 times better executed than an on-going soap opera that was the comic storytelling style of the 70's is beyond me.

And even though today's artists mat be better as far as ability to draw, I find they lack in the ability to tell a story with their art... something that yesteryear's artists were a lot better at.

And maybe it's just my jaded self speaking here, but with very few exceptions, today's creators appear to not care about their craft like they did in the 70's. Very few creators today properly research their stories... Busiek & Slott are two that come to mind that actually do their jobs properly.

You may be thinking of the wrong titles. When I talk about the books I enjoy now adays, I'm talking about Preacher, Ex Machina, Conan, 100 Bullets, Fear Agent, Invincible, Walking Dead, Noble Causes, Runaways, Fables, She-Hulk, Marvel Team-Up, Y-The Last Man, anything by Phil Hester or Warren Ellis, these're the books I'm thinking of when I can say without a doubt in my mind I'd prefer them ten times out of ten to things from 20-30 years ago, and they all meet your criteria of well crafted ongoing stories capable of subtlety and sub plots, and none are restricted to padded six issue arcs. Hell, Noble Causes IS a Soap Opera more quintessentially so than anything Claremont ever achieved even.

And hey, the runs you pointed out ARE some of the books I enjoyed from that Era. Frank's DD was great stuff, probably the best thing coming out of the time, outside of Roy Thomas' Conan. Those are two titles I do hold in equal regard to my favorite books of today.

 

[Elijya]

Talk Civil War to me, I´m completelly oblivious to it.

Ironman wants Superhero registration, Cap doesn´t.

Other than that, imagine that I don´t regularly buy neither Ironman or Cap and don´t plan to.

Would I miss HUGE lumps of plot like I did with Infinite Criss by sticking to the main title?

absolutely not, it's nowhere near as complex as IC, which was all over the place, covering just about everybody and everything in the DC universe. Civil War is much more down to earth, and you should more or less be able to jump right in. As of right now there are only three issues I would recommend to get you started: Civil War #1 and 2, and New Avengers: The Illuminati, which is the prologue to Civil War.

 

[Elijya]

The old stuff is great for what it is: harmless fun. It was a lot more carefree back then. Reading the Superman in the Fifties trade is such a trip because the stories are so awful that they're just laugh-out-loud fun. And I like that.
I think comparing the 50s and 60s books to today's books is like comparing apples to baby wolverines. Doesn't make sense.
The 80s stuff I've read is a lot better than what comes out today: Watchmen, DKR, etc.
The 90s get a bad rap because of all the gimmicky marketing bull**** that damn near ruined the industry, but we can't forget that the 90s saw the Sandman, Transmetropolitan, etc. More hit than miss for me.
The 00s aren't over yet, but they've been... interesting. Both companies have shown flashes of brilliance (DC's Crises, Marvel's 1602) and idiocy (DC cancelling Gotham Central, Marvel's Trouble and Spider-Man's unmasking). It'll be interesting to see how the decade ends.

TMOB, I find Claremont's X-Men to be unreadable. No one thinks in complete paragraphs like that. The stories themselves are okay, but the dialogues/monologues... ick

I think when we talk about the 80s, we're talking about the era in general. Watchmen, DKR, MAUS, V - those were the exceptions, the diamonds in the rough, and not in the least representative of what the rest of the industry was doing at the time at all.

It's always been my impression that when people talk about "the 90s" in comics, they're really more refering to about 89-96 or so. That was the gimmicky era, that was where the industry took a thousands ups and downs. The era that followed it was one of recovery and was so completely different I would never group them together. Transmet didn't start til late '97, Preacher didn't start til 95 - these books started at the end of the bad times, and wouldn't attain true notoriety until it was most certainly over and people truly began to seek quality over gimmicks. Likewise, Gaiman's Sandman started in 88, but it was a small-selling title for much of the time. You know how some comic stores may have dozens of copies of any given comic from between 1985 and 1995, because people bought multiple copies for "investment", artificially inflating those books' sales numbers to the 100s of thousands and flooding the market with those books rendering them basicly worthless? Not so with Sandman, that was a title people at the time glossed over, which makes a run of the series quite rare and one of the few titles of that time to be actually worth money. So again, I don't think it's a title that was reflective of the era it was published in.

 

[Kirk Langstrom]

I love the comics I grew up with, in the 70s and 80s, and if you really pushed me, that's what I would pick. I would choose Byrne/Claremont X-Men, Miller DD, early Perez Avengers, Byrne's FF and Spidey from around 120-200 over any of their later incarnations. The stories were more connected, the continuity tighter. The Night Gwen Stacy Died, Dark Phoenix Saga, God Loves Man Kills, Elektra, Korvac Saga, Days of Future Past. All mammoth stories that came out of that era.

BUT, that being said, I love what's coming out now. And I agree with Elijya that people approach it with a better appreciation/knowledge/application of the craft. And in my opinion, Marvel hasn't been this good since the 80s. And I think the comics industry as a whole, creatively if not financially, may be the healthiest it's ever been.

My own personal theory is that the era that you began reading will always be your favorite. It's what hooked you, and you have an emotional attachment. I've dutifully read all the early 60s Marvels, and some of them are a real chore. So I can understand younger guys feeling the same way about the 70s or 80s.

So to sum up: it's all good.

I think this pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

 

[32CAGE]

I love the comics I grew up with, in the 70s and 80s, and if you really pushed me, that's what I would pick. I would choose Byrne/Claremont X-Men, Miller DD, early Perez Avengers, Byrne's FF and Spidey from around 120-200 over any of their later incarnations. The stories were more connected, the continuity tighter. The Night Gwen Stacy Died, Dark Phoenix Saga, God Loves Man Kills, Elektra, Korvac Saga, Days of Future Past. All mammoth stories that came out of that era.

BUT, that being said, I love what's coming out now. And I agree with Elijya that people approach it with a better appreciation/knowledge/application of the craft. And in my opinion, Marvel hasn't been this good since the 80s. And I think the comics industry as a whole, creatively if not financially, may be the healthiest it's ever been.

My own personal theory is that the era that you began reading will always be your favorite. It's what hooked you, and you have an emotional attachment. I've dutifully read all the early 60s Marvels, and some of them are a real chore. So I can understand younger guys feeling the same way about the 70s or 80s.

So to sum up: it's all good.

I agree with your assessment. I am more moved by the comics if first grew up with in the 70's and 80's.

 

[herakles]

I agree that during the 90s sucked with all the varient, gold, chorminum covers. That was the main reason why I stopped reading for 8 years. With that said I think the 70s-80s where better as far as story but the technology was BAD in comparation to today! Today's storylines have promise like Young Avengers, Civil War, Black Panther, Winter Soldier arch from Cap AM, Ares mini, and the Ultimate line along with Sentry (even though I hate both!). I have fun reading my Tales to Astonish and JIM comics from time to time. I quess what I'm trying to say is that I'm 33 and I started reading when I was 9 in 1982 so of course I'd feel more attach to the era of the 80's than today.

 

[Zeu]

absolutely not, it's nowhere near as complex as IC, which was all over the place, covering just about everybody and everything in the DC universe. Civil War is much more down to earth, and you should more or less be able to jump right in. As of right now there are only three issues I would recommend to get you started: Civil War #1 and 2, and New Avengers: The Illuminati, which is the prologue to Civil War.

thanks, Elijya, I have to confess I am really tempted to start buying it.

 

[Elijya]

hey, like I said, all you need to do is pick up three issues that are already out, and then five more month to month as it's a sevn issue miniseries. That's it, nothing else needed, and it's pretty important to the Marvel Universe in general, so it's definitely something you should check out

 

[Zeu]

Coolness, already added it to my standing orders.

Now, time to scout eBay for back issues.

 

[GNR]

I just started reading monthlies last summer and from what I've read from that era,it's very hard to enjoy.

Unrealistic and over-the-top dialogue and paragraphs of thought balloons assuming the reader is a complete idiot.

.02 from a new schooler.

 

[Elijya]

yeah, the endless amounts of exposition irritate me

 

[Themanofbat]

But that over-the-top dialogue was mostly in comics from the 60's...

The 70's books had a lot less of that, in my opinion.

 

[Elijya]

yeah, there's been a steady progression of less and less through the years

 

[Themanofbat]

I remember a 2 issue story from around 1966 where Spidey battles the Lizard with his arm in a sling in a train yard, and both characters are struggling to fit with the confines of the word balloons...

 

[MyPokerShirt]

I haven't read a single issue of any new comic recently since I'd say about 2002

You should read some independent stuff. Go take a look at Icon, Vertigo and Image, Top Cow, Boom!Studios etc.

There are some great comics out there.
Walking Dead
Powers
Invincible
Thats horror/drama, Detective book, Hero Book.
Good stuff. Seriously, take a look around. Y the last man, 100 bullets, the talent, runaways. If not, just buy some tpbs. i gave up in about 2002 and now im back. The industry's not in too bad a shape atm. Old stuff is classic but you just cannot relate and today's art, with its realism, is well worth it.

 

[MyPokerShirt]

absolutely not, it's nowhere near as complex as IC, which was all over the place, covering just about everybody and everything in the DC universe. Civil War is much more down to earth, and you should more or less be able to jump right in. As of right now there are only three issues I would recommend to get you started: Civil War #1 and 2, and New Avengers: The Illuminati, which is the prologue to Civil War.

well said. most details are in the accompanying books but civil war itself is 7issues of twists, fast action and ground-breaking TRULY marvel-changing stuff. At least thats whats happened so far and thats whats been promised...

 

[SLVRSR4]

I like some of the random 80's stuff like new mutants and found that Green lantern green arrow was some what edgy for it's time, but the cap is just plain I think cap is a great idea but the stuff he was fighting buck toothed japanese embarassing

 

[Sin Eater]

There isn't another period with as many definitive runs as the 70's and especially the 80's. Claremont and Byrne doing X-Men, David Michelinie and Bob Layton on Iron-Man, Walt on Thor, Byrne on Fantastic Four and Alpha Flight, Stern and Romita Jr. on Spider, Michelinie and McFarlane on Spidey, Miller and Daredevil and Dark Knight, The Watchmen, Peter David on Hulk, Roy Thomas and John Buscema on Conan, etc...

The stories were far more involved and gripping. Guys like Bendis are noticeably weaker writers than a number of writers from that era.

The art production today is superior, though. Not the artists, but the production. Dr. Martin's water colored dyes just can't compete with the coloring process today, but those old newsprint comics do have their charm.

 

[Cosmic Crackle!]

I think you'll always have a preference for the comics you grew up with which, in my case, was the 70s and early 80s. Yes, they might seem simpler and a bit campy in places but they were comics for kids and I was a kid. It seems superhero comics have backed themselves into a corner. They're trying to tell, basically, ridiculous stories about daft characters with silly powers to an audience that's grown up instead of always getting the new generation on board and letting older readers move onto more mature material (if they want to - I never did)

As far as art goes, I see fantastically rendered covers nowadays but, on the whole, woefully lacking interiors and writing that always claims to harken back to a classic time but never does. Every year also brings a new 'lets throw everything out and start again' series that just confuses everything.

So yes, for me, it'll always be a stackload of Essentials rather than what's new on the bookshelf (as far as Marvel goes, anyway).

 

[Ben Urich]

The only non-Watchmen superhero comic from the 80s worth reading is Miller's Daredevil. Everything else is just unreadable.

 

[Zeu]

The only non-Watchmen superhero comic from the 80s worth reading is Miller's Daredevil. Everything else is just unreadable.

Of course that is your own taste peaking.
Anyone is entitled to their tastes.
I for one have TONS of titles I absolutelly loved.

Marv Wolfman&George Perez´Teen Titans

Chris Clairmont&John Byrne&Terry Austin´s X.-Men

Doug Moench and Bill Sienkiewicz on Moonknight

One of my very first superheroine crushes was Dazzler, drawn by Frank Springer

John Byrne on Captain Amercia

John Romita Jr on Spider-man

Moore and Bissette on Swamp Thing

John Romita Jr. and David Michelinie in Ironman

John Buscema on Fantastic Four

John Buscema on Conan

Barry Windsor Smith in Conan

Perez in Black Widow

Byrne in Fantastic Four

Byrne in Superman

Perez in Wonder Woman

Bart Sears in Justice League of Europe

Adam Hughes in Justice League

John Buscema in Avengers

George Tuska on Luke Cage (Luke faces Dr. Doom, how cool was thath?)

Marshal Rogers in Batman

Bil Sienkiewicz in New Mutants (I still have Damielle´s huge mystical bear imprinted in my retina)

Marshal Rogers in Doc Strange

Billy Graham and his unbelievable Black Panther

Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner on Doc Strange (Lea was simply delicious!)


and on and on and on

 

[Elijya]

The only non-Watchmen superhero comic from the 80s worth reading is Miller's Daredevil. Everything else is just unreadable.

(psst, what about Miracle Man?)

 

[rigel7soldiers]

Captain America in the 80's was one of my favorite comics ever. Scourge of the Underworld, Serpent Society, John Walker killing a guy with a trident... it was all great.

However, the late seventies was bad, bad, bad. the year was 1977; the year of the Fever. That same fever that would go on to cause "Spider-Man vs. the Hypno-Hustler!"

also, for the record, I didn't care for Byrne on Superman. Wasn't he already doing everything for Marvel? I love Alpha Flight and all, but damn did he get around back then.