Did DC emerge from the '90s unscathed?

[Hybrid]

The '90s is widely seen as a dark age where comics took a serious decline in quality with bad stories, bad art, and over saturation of the market that nearly killed the industry. The then-new Image Comics was seen as the main source, and Marvel (of which the Image founders originated) jumped on that train to keep "modern". There was also a whole bunch of other creator-owned stuff that flooded things, and eventually fell by the wayside. However, I heard DC was actually still doing well during this time and never compromised.

The argument made is that while DC did have the "dark age" character types with Lobo and Azrael, however they were more of a commentary of them rather than a straight example. Many of their stories were still being written with the same level of quality as before, and in fact they had the Vertigo imprint that allowed for properly mature stories. The closest thing there was to them succumbing to the '90s era was when DC lost their second spot to Image, and they tried to make shocking stories to keep relevant, which is what gave us The Death of Superman and Knightfall... but those stories were still well-written and regarded as classics themselves. The whole "displaced by Image" thing eventually blew over anyways.

Plus, on the media end, you have Batman: The Animated Series being seen as among the greatest and most influential works ever, and this led to Superman: The Animated series, and the DCAU, so that definitely kept them in the spotlight. Lois and Clark was also pretty big as well on the live-action front.

Maybe there are bad stories of this era, but I think it's telling that Marvel had to declare bankruptcy and nearly died as a company, while DC remained just fine. It helps that DC had a stable home with Warner Bros., while Marvel had to hop between lesser companies, and it wasn't all the way until 2009 did they find their own home with Disney.

In fact, come to think of it, a number of fan-favorite characters debuted in this "dark age" such as:

• Superboy
• Impulse
• Harley Quinn (in BTAS)
• Bane
• Renee Montoya
• Spoiler
• Connor Hawke
• Cyborg Superman
• Doomsday
• Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner)
• Parallax

Heck, even the "dark age" archetypes Lobo and Azrael have their own large followings. Also, the Tim Drake version of Robin was huge, and he made his impact in the '90s after only debuting in the tail end of '89. That's definitely something.

But I'm not quite as versed with DC stuff, and this is just what I've observed. Is it true that DC for the most part made it through the '90s dark age without any real losses?

[Vordan]

For DC the 90s was one of their best eras. Kingdom Come, Morrison JLA, Waid Flash, etc. There was a ton of good stuff being put out by DC like Sandman and other Vertigo titles. The 90s bad rep was really mostly remembered for the excesses Marvel was committing which ended up leading to Marvel almost going bankrupt.

That’s not to say there weren’t bad DC titles. WW has that whole losing the mantle to Artemis. Hal Jordan went nuts and his fans were mad as hell. Batman was acting like a jerk until Tim Drake showed up. But overall I don’t think DC did too bad at all during the 90s.

[iron chimp]

I think it was trading card and other investments that really did it for marvel rather than speculator crash.

Speculators really killed the genuine indie us press that had been backbone of the comics shops in 70s and 80s as they were pushed off the shelves as marvel moved into their distribution and flooded the shelves.

But i think marvel could have survived had it not been for crippling debt they had racked up trying to expand into other media.

[Hybrid]

For DC the 90s was one of their best eras. Kingdom Come, Morrison JLA, Waid Flash, etc. There was a ton of good stuff being put out by DC like Sandman and other Vertigo titles. The 90s bad rep was really mostly remembered for the excesses Marvel was committing which ended up leading to Marvel almost going bankrupt.

That’s not to say there weren’t bad DC titles. WW has that whole losing the mantle to Artemis. Hal Jordan went nuts and his fans were mad as hell. Batman was acting like a jerk until Tim Drake showed up. But overall I don’t think DC did too bad at all during the 90s.

That's a good point. Plus, it's not just Marvel, but Image was the hot new kid on the block and they dominated the market (as said, they displaced DC for a time, something no company has done since). Some of their titles were good, such as Spawn and Savage Dragon. Others, not so much, with Youngblood being the worst. WildStorm is a universe with potential, but looking at the early issues, it didn't find its footing until other creators signed on. The whole company was a mess, and they contributed heavily to the era's badness. They may be good now, as the best indie company, but not then.

That said, I could argue that DC got its own dark age with the New 52 era. That embodied many hated elements of the dark age, from bad stories, art, characters getting derailed, and the whole continuity reset completely undoing Post-Crisis which didn't need to be undone. The continuity was fine, and it was only so Dan DiDio could get his nostalgia back for old stuff, at least I think, because I don't know why they felt the need for it.

I know a lot of people didn't like that. It made the universe smaller by getting rid of the legacy characters from old and new. The Justice Society was gone, as were the previous Blue Beetles, Wally West, and the two Batgirls Cass and Steph, and that sucks because I actively enjoyed reading both of them and I really hated Barbara being shoehorned into being Batgirl again... it's like if Dick became Robin. It was also anti-marriage in general. And don't even get me started on the Teen Titans. Cyborg was shoehorned into being a Justice League founder, which reeked of tokenism since they were pretending he was an A-lister all the sudden when he never even had a title. Oh, and the WildStorm integration was awful, and that's a shame because DC integrated other companies like Fawcett, Charleton, and Milestone just fine yet they completely missed with WildStorm.

So they may not have hit the dark age in the '90s, but they certainly did later on. I am of the opinion that Post-Crisis never should've been messed with.

[Adset]

That's a good point. Plus, it's not just Marvel, but Image was the hot new kid on the block and they dominated the market (as said, they displaced DC for a time, something no company has done since). Some of their titles were good, such as Spawn and Savage Dragon. Others, not so much, with Youngblood being the worst. WildStorm is a universe with potential, but looking at the early issues, it didn't find its footing until other creators signed on. The whole company was a mess, and they contributed heavily to the era's badness. They may be good now, as the best indie company, but not then.

That said, I could argue that DC got its own dark age with the New 52 era. That embodied many hated elements of the dark age, from bad stories, art, characters getting derailed, and the whole continuity reset completely undoing Post-Crisis which didn't need to be undone. The continuity was fine, and it was only so Dan DiDio could get his nostalgia back for old stuff, at least I think, because I don't know why they felt the need for it.

I know a lot of people didn't like that. It made the universe smaller by getting rid of the legacy characters from old and new. The Justice Society was gone, as were the previous Blue Beetles, Wally West, and the two Batgirls Cass and Steph, and that sucks because I actively enjoyed reading both of them and I really hated Barbara being shoehorned into being Batgirl again... it's like if Dick became Robin. It was also anti-marriage in general. And don't even get me started on the Teen Titans. Cyborg was shoehorned into being a Justice League founder, which reeked of tokenism since they were pretending he was an A-lister all the sudden when he never even had a title. Oh, and the WildStorm integration was awful, and that's a shame because DC integrated other companies like Fawcett, Charleton, and Milestone just fine yet they completely missed with WildStorm.

So they may not have hit the dark age in the '90s, but they certainly did later on. I am of the opinion that Post-Crisis never should've been messed with.

I want to subscribe to your newsletter, because I agree with every word of this.

[Masterff]

I dont understand the question.

I see the 90ies as best DC Era.

I have more problems with the CURRENT DC COMICS than with them.

I liked Roy with Lian,Superboy.....

[Hybrid]

I dont understand the question.

I see the 90ies as best DC Era.

I have more problems with the CURRENT DC COMICS than with them.

I liked Roy with Lian,Superboy.....

The '90s wasn't a bad era for DC but it was for comics in general, and I was wondering how true it was the '90s DC was just fine.

[Dr. Ellingham]

The argument made is that while DC did have the "dark age" character types with Lobo and Azrael, however they were more of a commentary of them rather than a straight example.

A part of it was the "kewel" and "extreme" nature of the 90s, sure, so DC did a lot of that.

But if you look back just prior to 1990, it was clear DC was having a mid-life crisis with its superhero line. After Crisis they tried to Marvel-ize their line, nerfing Superman and removing as much scale and fantasy as they could. They were after "grounded", "relatable". Doing it mostly poorly, too.

But by the time Image hit, DC had a real business crisis, being in 3rd place for the first time. So the extreme kewel stuff had to be applied to Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, etc. too.

But by 1999/2000? I think they got the ship back on track. In large part because they'd brought in writers that understood DC and its appeal. Especially writers like Mark Waid, James Robinson, Grant Morrison, and some new kid named Geoff Johns. And there were great books that "felt" like DC stories again - Flash, JLA, Kingdom Come, JSA, Starman, etc. And most of the faux extreme stuff was long gone.

[Ascended]

I don't think I'd say DC came out of the 90's *completely* unscathed, because a chunk of stuff did go off the rails during that time and there were tons of 90's characters who ended up collecting dust (like the Spawn rip off version of Manhunter, among many others).

But for DC the 90's were largely a golden time, with tons of great books from nearly every corner of DC, and all the crap we bitch about in the 90's; the excess, the giant guns and countless pouches, were rarely ever a issue with DC and more an issue with Marvel and Image.

The worst parts of the 90's didnt hit DC until 2011.

[Gaastra]

Well dc gets blamed for the comic crash a lot due to death of superman. They more or less started the "comics are collectors items and you will be rich if you buy all covers to the death of superman!"


Then there was image. After image pretty art pages beat out story. Avengers vol 2 (heroes reborn) half the issues are huge pin ups with little story. Marvel and dc both did this plus "extreme" heroes started showing up.

With that said both marvel and dc had some really great titles and stories in the 90s. Yeah there was crap but there really was some great stories also.

[iron chimp]

There had already been a speculator crash with indie books in the comic shops in 1980s so when DC and Marvel entered the shops too i guess it was inevitable they were create another boom and bust.

[scary harpy]

The 90s were the Age of GrimDark.

If you enjoyed The Dark Knight Returns, they you would enjoy the 90s. Every issue of almost every comic was The Darker Night Returns Again: The Series.

There was no joy. There was no light. There were still heroes in underwear.

Characters were crippled, ignored or killed; some were simply erased from existence.

Levity was forbidden. Extreme Violence was the norm. If the Watchmen were cool, then the 90s were cooler. Absolute Darkness makes for better stories apparently.

I found the 90s depressing. I don’t know if DC was scathed or unscathed by 90s. I don’t think the GrimDark is finished yet.