The 2010s have replaced the 1990s as the worst period for Marvel Comics?

[Anthony W]

The 2010s have replaced the 1990s as the worst period for Marvel Comics? Feeling mischievous

1990s Marvel: Terrible events.
2010s Marvel: Terrible events with even less downtime before the next one starts

1990s Marvel: Cover Gimmicks we had to give up.
2010s Marvel: Variants that are even more toxic and we are still doing them.

1990s: Bad art.
2010: Worse art.

1990s: Killing characters to boost sales then bringing in a replacement to boost sales. Bring back original to boost sales.
2010: Writing character out of character then replacing character to boost sales. When people ask for old character back get pissed and call them names.

1990s: Manga is interesting
2010s: We welcome our Manga Overlords

1990s: Wizard:The Guide To Comics covers up how crazy comic creators are.
2010s: Twitter reveals how crazy comic creators are.

1990s: X-titles are still good
2010s: Jubilee is a vampire and the original X-Men are back from the past...wait what?

1990s: What makes Marvel heroes special is how unique they are. DC is so lame with their legacy stuff.
2010: Legacies for everyone

1990s: Bob Harras/Joe Quesada
2010s: Joe Quesada/Axel Alonso

1990s: Bad writing
2010s: Worse writing

[nnelg]

The 90s weren't bad. The writing was good. But like every era some books are bad and some are good.

[Baron of Faltine]

The 90s weren't bad. The writing was good. But like every era some books are bad and some are good.

90s had the main issue of having a peculiar art style, that was a hit or miss most of the time, and did ot aged that well. Also if not reigned well most author spiralled completely out of control (but this is true all the times let be honest with ourselves) Also when stories were bad...were really really really bad.
Today quality had become more "meh" than "bleah" in sense that you got lot of mediocre stuff. Not exceptional not atrocious in most case. Just bland . Tha tos is possible worst than being very bad. People still remember she'll shocked "the crossing" and "teen tony" but she of the worst thing of this decade are so forgettable.

[nnelg]

The biggest issue with modern comics is the disregard for continuity. Without strong continuity then the stories start to become bad because of the lack of continuity.


The art good art did age well. It always does. Look at Lee, Kubert and Garney's art. All still looks great.

[davetvs]

The 2010s have replaced the 1990s as the worst period for Marvel Comics? Feeling mischievous


1990s: Killing characters to boost sales then bringing in a replacement to boost sales. Bring back original to boost sales.
2010: Writing character out of character then replacing character to boost sales. When people ask for old character back get pissed and call them names.

I think you meant "Quite obviously temporarily replacing major heroes with legacy versions in order to establish new characters, the way they had done multiple times before, then acting shocked, confused, and trying to double back when comic book fandom, known for racism, homophobia, and misogyny, reacted to these changes in a blatantly racist, homophobic, and misogynistic way."

The 2010s X-Books were mostly garbage, I'll give you that, but they've turned it around with the Krakoa era.

[Doom'nGloom]

2010s: Hickman is doing a Moonknight title.

What's wrong with a good writer writing a Moon Knight story? No offence but this sounds to me like comic book elitism that keeps less popular characters from gaining new fans.

[your_name_here]

No.

10 characters.

[LordUltimus]

I mean, the company isn't so bankrupt that they're forced to sell movie rights just to survive, so no.

[Mike_Murdock]

Hickman isn't doing a Moon Knight title in the 2010s; he's doing on in the 2020s. Hickman's Avengers run is in the 2010s (I also think Secret Wars is a great event), so I have to push back there. I'm also going to strongly disagree with the comment on the art. Leaving aside individual artists (although I'll point out that David Marquez and Esad Ribic are doing objectively beautiful art and I loved artists like Chris Samnee on Daredevil), the main fundamental difference is Marvel doesn't have a terrible house style. The problem with the 90s Rob Leifeld art style isn't just that Rob Leifeld was drawing it, it was that everyone else tried to draw it too.

I think the 90s has some things going for it (the X-Men didn't take a nose dive until after Onslaught and I actually like the late 90s Daredevil after Chichester left), but it's clearly a weaker decade than the 2010s.

[Alan2099]

Whether you liked the 90s style or not, you have to admit, it was larger than life and full of energy. So many modern artists want to give the character average joe body types and dress them up in tacticle clothes or extreme sports get-ups. They took the Super out of SuperHero.

[skyvolt2000]

The 90s.....

We saw new characters like New Warriors, Slapstick, New version of Deathlok, Deadpool, Darkhawk & Sleepwalker get books.

We saw Silver Sable, Prowler, Solo, Quasar, Nova, Wonder Man, Venom, She Hulk, Moon Knight and Foolkiller get books.

We saw Thor and Iron Man get replaced. Those replacements got their own books under their new names.

We saw Generation X & X-Force & Inhumans, Fantastic Force & Slingers get books.

We saw EVERY Marvel annual introduce a NEW character. Some are still around.

We saw Luke Cage, Nomad, Nightwatch, Prowler, Night Thrasher, War Machine, Black Panther and honorable mention to Falcon got books.

Had it not been for money issues we would have seen New Warriors boast 5 titles instead of 3.

Punisher had 3 books.

NO fits, No threats to creators & No toxic set of fans.

Now we fast forward to 2010.

How much PUSH BACK would we have seen to some of these? How many DID we see?

[Anthony W]

Hickman isn't doing a Moon Knight title in the 2010s; he's doing on in the 2020s. Hickman's Avengers run is in the 2010s (I also think Secret Wars is a great event), so I have to push back there. I'm also going to strongly disagree with the comment on the art. Leaving aside individual artists (although I'll point out that David Marquez and Esad Ribic are doing objectively beautiful art and I loved artists like Chris Samnee on Daredevil), the main fundamental difference is Marvel doesn't have a terrible house style. The problem with the 90s Rob Leifeld art style isn't just that Rob Leifeld was drawing it, it was that everyone else tried to draw it too.

I think the 90s has some things going for it (the X-Men didn't take a nose dive until after Onslaught and I actually like the late 90s Daredevil after Chichester left), but it's clearly a weaker decade than the 2010s.

Ugh, I was so hungry for a Hickman joke that I made a mistake so obvious that even a blind man could catch it....and one did! It's been changed....

1990s: X-titles are still good
2010s: Jubilee is a vampire and the original X-Men are back from the past...wait what?

[Mystrx]

Yeah I'd have to agree with you on most of those points.

[gurkle]

Every era has its strong and weak points. The '90s was by no means as bad as its reputation, either the early '90s boom (which had lots of fun comics) or the post-bankruptcy era (which brought us some entertaining "neoclassical" comics like Thunderbolts and Avengers).

I liked a lot of things from the Alonso era, like Waid's Daredevil, Vision, even All-New X-Men before they ran that idea into the ground.

The weaknesses of the Alonso era are maybe more obvious for two reasons:
1) The constant events, which were almost never any good and destroyed the flow of any comic that had to tie in. Yes, even compared to the '90s.
2) The mandate to downplay the X-Men and play up the Inhumans, which led to this embarrassing situation where everyone could tell, but no one could admit, that creative choices were being dictated by management.

But I still find less to enjoy in the Cebulski era so far than in the Alonso era. And even this era has its good points. They always do.

[Noodle]

1990s: Manga is interesting
2010s: We welcome our Manga Overlords

I can't stand the "Manga is outselling comics" talking head point. It implies that in order for one to succeed the other has to fail, as if there is a finite audience that's incapable of just reading both.