The Worst Moment In Comic Book History

[Aristotle]

Oh, easily the birth of Stan Lee.

 

[Mutagen]

*puts hands over ears*

I did NOT hear you say that! lalalalalala I am not listening!

 

[Adam3482009]

Oh, easily the birth of Stan Lee.

Heh. Then Superhero comics as we know it wouldn't exist. Is that a good thing!?

 

[Chris Wallace]

 

[[A]]

Oh, easily the birth of Stan Lee.

..obviously a DC guy

 

[The Geek Vault]

 

[Johann Krauss]

I always assumed the worst moment in comic book history was when people bought into the rants of a doctor named fredrick wertham, the guy who almost killed comics by playing off the fears and prejudices of american society.

THANK YOU! I can't believe no one else said this

 

[Chris Wallace]

With the exception of the founding of Image and Milestone, I'd have to say the worst moment in comic book history was between the years of 1992-1995 where we had different companies inventing their own super hero universes , the big boob bad girl era, and the gimmicks ( foil and card board covers, trading card inserts, etc. )

That was a blight on the industry, yes.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I always assumed the worst moment in comic book history was when people bought into the rants of a doctor named fredrick wertham, the guy who almost killed comics by playing off the fears and prejudices of american society.

The fallout from that was horrendous.

 

[random_havoc]

Impossible choice between OMD and Ultimates 3

 

[Aristotle]

That was a blight on the industry, yes.

Fortunately, it's over, and we aren't still plagued by ******s who buy five copies of the same issue for the different variant covers.

 

[Adam3482009]

I don't have a big problem with the whole variant cover thing. It's not like your required to pay for every single one. One could say that it symbolizes the marketing over the content (story quality, art quality, ect.). However, just cause the marketing department is trying to sell more copies doesn't necessarily mean bad stories/content (even though this was the case in the early '90's). It might blatantly symbolize a company's focus but it's only a symbol. Even without the alternate covers, this has remained the same for many years.

Anyway, here's a symbol of what caused me to quit collecting comics (retcons, bad stories, over repetition, disregarding the older readers, constant loose plot lines not being tied up, ect.).

Welcome to the retread issues ladies and gents! (This is when Howard Mackie began to have sole control over the already crappy Spider-Man titles)

 

[Infidel]

I would of said Civil War #2. Not only was it big put-on that you could tell was a big put-on, its soul purpose was to end the marriage and wasn't really about a story. They could of ended the marraige anyway, if they had a better way to do it, it would still be bad, but not nearly as bad. They promised the readers a big story and immediatly decided to just go one with their big event. The big 'event' was Spider-man. Not only can you attract new potential readers with a really daring story line, you don't have to make excuses about the books being bad because the marriage or the clone saga. Now they can't make excuses because it's a terrible book, and has nothing do with who presently is working on it.

On the other hand, you guys maybe right, OMD was even worse because its why CW2 was done (or not done). YOu can't really undo it (for us older readers anyway) because all we see is the ruination of the great character. Now he's a big idiot who will do anythign except think about what he's about to do and live up to the consequences.

You can tell the writers and artists really try on the new stuff, but it doesn't matter. 'Well gee, you guys did a story where everyone finds out who Spider-man is... then nothing happened. What do I care if Harry Osborn is alive again or there is some secret new goblin-like villian. I read an issue of it and everyone seemed like a washed-out version of their former selves. Parker and Osborn seemed to barely know each other. Ugh. I really thought Spider-man was the best character ever and man, did the destroy him. Who thought him being a back-stabbing weasel was a good plot line? Seriously. I don't think there's too much to debate that Civil War #2 and OMD ruined the character.

 

[Infidel]

1992 was an exciting year. There has to be competition, without which stuff won't thrive. Yeah, most of the Image stuff wasn't great, but it had it's moments and indie guys need a place to put their books out, which now they have.

 

[The Hill]

Hulk after WWH and Rulk.

 

[Lane & Kent]

Bringing back supergirl and the other Kryptonians was just dumb, and creating them in the first place was a big mistake. Superman should always be the sole survivor of Krypton. The one and only living Kryptonian.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Bringing back supergirl and the other Kryptonians was just dumb, and creating them in the first place was a big mistake. Superman should always be the sole survivor of Krypton. The one and only living Kryptonian.

Im torn on this issue. He is still the last SON of Krypton. Where do you stand on Kandor?

 

[Lane & Kent]

Im torn on this issue. He is still the last SON of Krypton. Where do you stand on Kandor?

Tecnacly Kandor was/is a Kryptonian city so I'm against it.

 

[Lane & Kent]

I would of said Civil War #2. Not only was it big put-on that you could tell was a big put-on, its soul purpose was to end the marriage and wasn't really about a story. They could of ended the marraige anyway, if they had a better way to do it, it would still be bad, but not nearly as bad. They promised the readers a big story and immediatly decided to just go one with their big event. The big 'event' was Spider-man. Not only can you attract new potential readers with a really daring story line, you don't have to make excuses about the books being bad because the marriage or the clone saga. Now they can't make excuses because it's a terrible book, and has nothing do with who presently is working on it.

On the other hand, you guys maybe right, OMD was even worse because its why CW2 was done (or not done). YOu can't really undo it (for us older readers anyway) because all we see is the ruination of the great character. Now he's a big idiot who will do anythign except think about what he's about to do and live up to the consequences.

You can tell the writers and artists really try on the new stuff, but it doesn't matter. 'Well gee, you guys did a story where everyone finds out who Spider-man is... then nothing happened. What do I care if Harry Osborn is alive again or there is some secret new goblin-like villian. I read an issue of it and everyone seemed like a washed-out version of their former selves. Parker and Osborn seemed to barely know each other. Ugh. I really thought Spider-man was the best character ever and man, did the destroy him. Who thought him being a back-stabbing weasel was a good plot line? Seriously. I don't think there's too much to debate that Civil War #2 and OMD ruined the character.

Agreed, I stoped reading Spidey after Civil War #2

 

[Lane & Kent]

Superman:Red & Superman:Blue also sucked.

 

[Adam3482009]

Around the time Howard Mackie took over the Spider-Man books (the relaunch was a good idea after the mess these had become but the writing was horrible), John Byne became the artist on the Amazing Spider-man title (pictured in a post above). Out of the first few issues of this series sprung another half-baked idea of:

This new Spider-woman iis supposedly Jameson's neice?!!

She pretended to be Spider-Man for several issues (at the beginning of the relaunch) then decided to call herself Spider-woman.

Her origin was centered around recieving magical powers from a ceremony that was held by "the mastermind" Norman Osborne, which was a crappy storyline in the spider-man comics right before the relaunch.

The new Spider-woman (aged like 14-16) was Jonah Jameson’s niece that got her powers from a magical ceremony with Norman Osborn and then pretended to be Spider-man for a period of time when Peter had given up the webs. Then she starred in her own series for 18 issues with really crappy storylines. Some of which involved spider-legs growing out of her back.
I can't beleive John Byrne wrote this series so badly. I can't think of how he did it. I mean he's no Alan Moore but had at least been around the business for a long time and he had at least gained some popularity over in DC before this. No idea.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Edit

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Yeah, but if you've ever read Brian M. Bendis' Alias you'll know that he kind of redeems the character with a really great story called "The Underneath" in which Jessica investigates her disappearance and discovers something unexpected...
That's the story i always think of when somebody brings up Mattie Franklin...

 

[November Rain]

i bailed pretty much on collecting spidey back in 99, just like adam suggested


I liked the coming home arc but that's about it. Wow, it's been ten years since i bought a 616 spiderman comic

I haven't read enough comics to comment, i'd like to see what corp and mr x would say

 

[Bubastis]

I'm gonna say this once so that the english language can be done with it.

Marvel Apes.

OK. Now from now on, those words don't get paired up anymore, kay?
EDIT: Unless used in the context of this guy: