90s Appreciation

[MajorHoy]

. . . after having already been exposed to most of the A-list characters via TV, coloring books, and underoos...

That just sounds so . . . wrong!

[Dataweaver]

The 1990s were a mixed bag for DC Comics (but all eras are), but one lasting legacy of that era is this very website. Comic Book Resources is the *direct* legacy of KINGDOM COME. Had DC not published that miniseries, this web community might have never come into being as we know it.

True enough. I’ve commented elsewhere that perhaps the easiest way to fit a “90s Earth” into Morrison’s Multiverse would be to go to Earth-22 (assuming it’s still the Kingdom Come Earth) and travel back in time slightly more than a decade, prior to the infamous Joker-in-Metropolis incident. True, you wouldn’t get the late 90s JSA; but in many ways, the JSA was more of a 2000s thing than a 90s thing.

[Buried Alien]

True enough. I’ve commented elsewhere that perhaps the easiest way to fit a “90s Earth” into Morrison’s Multiverse would be to go to Earth-22 (assuming it’s still the Kingdom Come Earth) and travel back in time slightly more than a decade, prior to the infamous Joker-in-Metropolis incident. True, you wouldn’t get the late 90s JSA; but in many ways, the JSA was more of a 2000s thing than a 90s thing.

I feel that KINGDOM COME is the most important thing to come out of DC Comics during the 1990s; it might have been as era-defining for the 1990s as COIE, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and WATCHMEN were for the 1980s.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[resipsaloquitur]

Remember two things about the 90s:

1. It got progressively better. Early 90s was weak and DC tore down a lot of stuff. (Superman died, Batman broke, Wonder Woman was fired, Hal went nuts.) It led to a lot of rebuilding which gave us the Superman family, refined Batbooks, Kyle, etc. Still, early 90s looks a lot worse than late 90s.

2. It was all about the legacies. I feel like the early post-Crisis DCU and the Nu52 both suffer from a lack of generational families of superheroes. We have one generation of heroes, and that's it. What I liked about the 90s is that it gave the DCU a very real sense of being a multigenerational family. Look at the Flashes: Jay was the elder statesman; Barry was the dead-but-not-forgotten father figure; Wally was the current guy making it his own; Bart was the up-and-coming trainee. The JSA were the guys who started it all, the JLA were the current team, and Young Justice were the generation to come.

I know that in the Nu52, DC wants to have a singular notion of who characters like the Flash are (and, for whatever reason, long-dead Barry and Hal were Johns' fan favorites and had to be brought back). Still, something like this



is really not hard to understand.

There's a DC Universe Secret Files from the Year 2000 which gives you a great sense of what the 90s DCU morphed into, with terrific overviews of the Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern "families" along with the JLA, JSA, Titans, and Young Justice. It really was a DCU where it felt like everything both old and new had a place. If you find it in a dollar bin, it's worth getting for the historical value.

A final note: I really liked Blackest Night, but did anyone else feel like it was a giant stab at the 90s? Johns killed off Damage, Kendra, Garth (who really became popular in the 90s)...I forget who else, but I felt like a lot of 90s folks were offed there.

[SJNeal]

That just sounds so . . . wrong!

But it felt so right!

[Tupiaz]

The Legends of the Dark Knight had several good runs. Prey (and Terror), Gothic, Venom, Faces and Blades.

First off, when and how do you consider the era of the 90s to have begun and ended? I’m going to start with the assumption of 1990–2000 — though I’m open to arguments for earlier starting points and/or later ending points. Which titles that came before the start of this era do you consider to be precursors, and which titles that were published after the end of this era do you consider to be successors? (As I see it, eras rarely have sharp dividing lines: there’s usually a period of overlap between two consecutive eras.)

When you are talking about the 90's you are talking about a decade a time frame. So it is from 1990 to 1999. If you wanna talk about a special ages then you have to define what that ages is other wise it makes no sense. You are here letting people creating their own definition with of the 90's and will get answers that answer it differently which isn't useful.

To give an example:

I consider Tim Drake to be part of the 90s crowd, even though he was technically introduced in the late 80s. For that matter, I tend to include Batman: Year One and everything that followed from it as part of the 90s era, even though it stretch back almost to 1985. Likewise, the Superman of the 90s was introduced in John Byrne’s Man of Steel at roughly the same time. Wally West’s Flash was another hero who existed as far back as the mid-80s (he literally became the Flash in the final pages of the Crisis) but really came into his own in the 90s.

It would be like saying the Berlin wall fell in the 90's. It is absurd.

The 90's began, for me, with the DEATH OF SUPERMAN in 92. I can't think of a single story that rocked the paradigms of the business, inspired so many imitators, got such pop culture feedback, encapsulated the fan base at the time (with the speculator boom), and summed up an era of comics by itself at the beginning of the era.

It ended when Marvel put Grant Morrison on X-Men. The flagship title of the decade, undergoing a seismic shift in scope, direction, and aesthetic.

Image was more important but for the business of comics. The Death of Super man had nothing to do with the speculator boom old comics selling for a lot of money had. That speculators then bought Death of Superman because the thought they would get rich is another story. Lastly speculators and fans aren't the same thing. Expanding to speculators doesn't help making good comics (quite the contrary as we learned).

Image seemed exciting at first, until you actually read an issue (Spawn excepted maybe). To me, the '90s major stories were deliberately designed to appeal to the speculator leeches ('Hey, Superman DIES in this issue, that'll send my grandkids through college in a few decades!!' Jesus). Hologram covers (still around I know), swimsuit covers etc?? Nah, count me out.

The only reason we don't get a swimsuit covers is because it would make to much bad press and negativity. If they (mainly the big two but others have lots of variant covers, Avatar with Crossed comes to mind) could sell a swimsuit cover they would release it. The public may have changed but the companies haven't. The still wanna make money.

[Dataweaver]

Nobody mentioned any Marvel stuff because this is the DC Comics forum, and the subject matter is about DC Comics in the 90s. I clarified that in my second post to this thread.

As the guy who started the thread, I explicitly asked for peoples’ interpretations of when the era in question began and ended; that was a deliberate choice on my part. If you want to go with “1990—1999”, fine; and if you don’t see any sense in alternate definitions, I respectfully suggest that you’re being a bit too literal in your approach to it. I’ve been hoping to get different answers, because I’m not aiming to establish the One True Answer but rather to get peoples’ opinions.

As for the Berlin Wall snipe: it’s more like saying that we’re talking about the post-Cold War era, which was mostly the 90s but also included the very tail end of the 80s (beginning with the collapse of the Soviet Union) and ended on September 11, 2001. I never claimed that “A Lonely Place of Dying” was published in the 90s; only that Tim Drake came into his own in the 90s, and was part of the DCU that was established (piecemeal) in the wake of the Crisis and was the mainstay of DC publications throughout the decade of the 90s.

[Tupiaz]

Nobody mentioned any Marvel stuff because this is the DC Comics forum, and the subject matter is about DC Comics in the 90s. I clarified that in my second post to this thread.

As the guy who started the thread, I explicitly asked for peoples’ interpretations of when the era in question began and ended; that was a deliberate choice on my part. If you want to go with “1990—1999”, fine; and if you don’t see any sense in alternate definitions, I respectfully suggest that you’re being a bit too literal in your approach to it. I’ve been hoping to get different answers, because I’m not aiming to establish the One True Answer but rather to get peoples’ opinions.

As for the Berlin Wall snipe: it’s more like saying that we’re talking about the post-Cold War era, which was mostly the 90s but also included the very tail end of the 80s (beginning with the collapse of the Soviet Union) and ended on September 11, 2001. I never claimed that “A Lonely Place of Dying” was published in the 90s; only that Tim Drake came into his own in the 90s, and was part of the DCU that was established (piecemeal) in the wake of the Crisis and was the mainstay of DC publications throughout the decade of the 90s.

As you can see I edited the Marvel characters simply forgot it was the DC forum.

If you want to go all the way back to Year one then you also want to include Watchmen, TDKR ect. and draw a line all the way up til 2001. That would include too many different styles and trends in the history of comics. In the mid 80's comics get a wider approach and becomes more adult. However this trends ends about 91-92. Here comics begin to behave like a teenager. Thinking violence, grim and dark is mature. One of the reason Image was created was because the limitation of violence for Todd McFarlane in his Spider-man story. He wanted to show Juggernaut got his eye stuck out. Marvel didn't wanted this and there was a black image with a sound effect (if I remember correctly).

At the same time comics had gotten very popular because of the specular consumers. Partly because old comics was selling a lot but also because comics had gotten a wilder audience because of Books like Watchmen and TDKR. This market the big two exploited to the max (a trend which has come back in an alarming rate). In the 90's comics was a lot more about the cover than about the content. In the 80's it was more about the content and less about the package. The 80's also had titles like Animal Man, Swamp Thing and Doom Patrol which later would be put in the Vertigo line. One of the few good things created in the 90's. The Vertigo line was of cause an answer to Image and a way for DC to still earn money even though the creators was working directly for DC (unless it was a DC owned character published under the Vertigo banner). Marvel had tried to start publishing creator owned comics under the epic line since 1982 without any real success. The epic line had to close in 94 because of the comic book bubble burst. The most popular characters also started to get media attention beginning in 89 with Batman (later on Spawn, Punisher with Dolph Lundgren and an unreleased but recorded Fantastic Four movie) there was also made animated series with B: TAS and Marvels animated universe. These animation was the first to have a more serious tone topping with the Spawn TV show. There was a lot more media attention for comics in the 90's than there was in the 80's.

As far as the Soviet Union goes it didn't collapse before 91 and the collapse of the Soviet began in 82 when Gorbachov took office (however the second cold war didn't ended until 85). Gorbachov realised there wasn't any money left and the society in general was suffering having used all the money on military equipment and the space race. The fall of the Berlin wall was more a reason that the Soviet Union collapse as early as it did rather the other way around. Anyway as said before it seems more like you want to define an ages rather than a decade.

I have yet to see how comics changed after 9/11. Marvel did release a story where you see all of the Heroes mourning the terror attack (even Doctor Doom - that is the most clear memory I have of that comic; Doom with tears in his eyes). Marvel had changed more they relaunched/rebooted their series in the end of 98 start of 99. Marvel here also created the Marvel Knight imprint to targeting teenagers later with the Max imprint for R rated books which started in november 2001 also breaking the Comic Code (no evidence I have seen link 9/11 with the Max imprint). DC had a few stories but nothing major.

[Buried Alien]

As far as the Soviet Union goes it didn't collapse before 91 and the collapse of the Soviet began in 82 when Gorbachov took office (however the second cold war didn't ended until 85). Gorbachov realised there wasn't any money left and the society in general was suffering having used all the money on military equipment and the space race. The fall of the Berlin wall was more a reason that the Soviet Union collapse as early as it did rather the other way around.

Slight history correction: Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Soviet Union in 1985. Leonid Brezhnev died in 1982, but before Gorbachev, two more Soviet General Secretaries served: Yuri Andropov (1982-1984) and Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Tupiaz]

Slight history correction: Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Soviet Union in 1985. Leonid Brezhnev died in 1982, but before Gorbachev, two more Soviet General Secretaries served: Yuri Andropov (1982-1984) and Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985).

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Ahh yes I forgot about the Andropov and Chemeko and just remembered that Brezhnev died in 1982 and that Gorbatorv took office the same year. The start of the collapse is of cause moved to 1985 which also fitting much better with the second cold war ended in 85. Doesn't change to much though.

[Big Al]

Let's see . . . there was Zero Hour, then I stopped buying comic books for about fifteen years . . .

I just re-read zero hour.

it was not a well executed concept at all.

[Dataweaver]

There have been worse ones. Flashpoint, for instance.

[resipsaloquitur]

OK, if we need to specifically define the era, I'd say "the 90s" went from 1993 to 2004. 1993 represents the aftermath of "The Death of Superman" and was the period when DC started introducing "legacy" and "family" characters, as exemplified by the introduction of Superboy, Steel, and the Eradicator. (Yeah, the Eradicator predates 1993, but not as a replacement Superman.)

2004, if I'm not mistaken, is when Green Lantern: Rebirth was published. To me, that was the start of the period when DC wanted to start moving the 90s characters out of the spotlight and start revitalizing classic properties. So, Kyle was out and Hal was back in.

[MajorHoy]

OK, if we need to specifically define the era, I'd say "the 90s" went from 1993 to 2004. 1993 represents the aftermath of "The Death of Superman" and was the period when DC started introducing "legacy" and "family" characters, as exemplified by the introduction of Superboy, Steel, and the Eradicator. (Yeah, the Eradicator predates 1993, but not as a replacement Superman.)

Supergirl and Batgirl didn't qualify as "legacy" and "family" characters? Having Jason Todd become the second Robin and Dick Grayson drop his Robin identity to become Nightwing didn't count, either?

Or how about

a series that started in 1984?

Or, and don't forget

from 1974

and

from 1975

[resipsaloquitur]

No, fine--those counted as "family" concepts within the DCU. I think the distinction was that there wasn't much of a generational aspect to those earlier portrayals, and the "families" tended to be limited to the Superman and Batman books. (Yes, Diana had Donna, Arthur had Garth, but I don't think it was as widespread as the 90s were.) Superboy wasn't a character in his own right yet, just an earlier, past version of Superman. The idea in the 90s is that you had a generational range of characters, from the elder Golden Agers who were still around to the younger teen characters who were up and coming. Nu52, that's been pretty much shortened to the Silver Age characters.