Was the late 90s/early 2000s the last 'normal' period for Marvel?

[Grim Ghost]

It was the last period before Marvel completely embraced the ideas of deconstruction of heroes which had come out of some of the edgier DC 80s stuff. Marvel had played around with these ideas before of course but they went full on into these ideas around Civil War and it never really ended after that. Not for every single book of course, but it kind of loomed over the entire line of books to one degree or another in many ways.

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on what kind of stuff you like. For someone like me who was already sick of deconstruction type stories at this time it was a bad thing. For others it was exciting and different. And if you came into comics around this time or later it would just seem the norm to you I imagine.

[jackolover]

Right on the ball, and pretty much how I feel. I like both equally and understand that not all eras are prefect, but at the moment I'm happy with the current state of affairs.

I admit it partly might be my own thing. I'm personally not quite as yearning for the nostalgia of yesteryear, the good ol' days, back in my day, EVERYTHING WAS BETTER ON MY EARTH, etc. This also applies to other forms of media beyond comics. The stuff of old is good too, but the stuff of new just as much validation. And I'm personally sick of this mentality of discounting the new stuff because of some sweet sugar-coated memories of childhood.

But as for the medium at hand, my relatively neutral attitude is also because I really do not spend much to buy comics. As mentioned probably dozens upon dozens of times and in my sig, I really only buy ONE comic: Ms. Marvel (And the team books she is on, which still just makes a total of three). As such I can't really sympathize, relate, or take any side in any various comments, observations, rantings from people who read current Marvel and bemoan how the stories of today aren't like the stories of then, or people who don't read current Marvel and lament how their stories are somehow "superior", or people who play doomsayer at how Marvel and the comics industry is dying, how Disney is ruining everything, how DC Rebirth is doing better and ignoring its own problems, how the movies are ruining the comics, how Marvel VS Capcom Infinite sucks because there are no X-Men, and the immeasurable amount of topics that pertain to comics, current issues, and lord knows what else.

Sorry for my rant, but that's just how I feel. I honestly at times feel like an anomaly and alone when it comes to being a comic book fan, and had to vent it out.

It's refreshing to hear this perspective from someone with a different opinion to me, who has been negative, myself. Good to hear from you Xalfrea.

[Huntsman Spider]

It was the last period before Marvel completely embraced the ideas of deconstruction of heroes which had come out of some of the edgier DC 80s stuff. Marvel had played around with these ideas before of course but they went full on into these ideas around Civil War and it never really ended after that. Not for every single book of course, but it kind of loomed over the entire line of books to one degree or another in many ways.

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing depends on what kind of stuff you like. For someone like me who was already sick of deconstruction type stories at this time it was a bad thing. For others it was exciting and different. And if you came into comics around this time or later it would just seem the norm to you I imagine.

I actually agree with your point on some levels. Yeah, the deconstructive mindset that Marvel wholly embraced in the 2000s did yield some excellent stories, but the problem was that everyone was trying to be deconstructive and nobody was in the mood to try to reconstruct the heroes and the setting except on the most superficial of terms, which obviously didn't last all that long. That was the missing part, really; after the (in)famous deconstructions of the 1980s --- Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns --- the comics industry went off the rails with darker and edgier "heroes" in increasingly bleaker and grimmer settings and mentalities, and eventually, some people like Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek had enough and started trying to reconstruct the superhero. Works like Kingdom Come from Waid and Astro City from Busiek aimed to show how the superhero could still be relevant and vital and essential in the modern age without having to tear down everything the concept stood on and for, and even aimed critiques at the so-called "90s anti-hero" for completely missing the point of what it meant to be a superhero. Come to think of it, we need a reconstructive period for this generation, too, and while Rebirth is pulling through on the DC side, hopefully Legacy will do the same for Marvel.

[JKtheMac]

This theory about deconstruction doesn't stand up. Deconstructing a character is about examining the premise of the character and seeing what makes them work. That is not a bad thing, that is how you make them work in a dramatic context. The problem comics have had since the late eighties until recently is a stagnation of dramatic impetus. Marvel fell into the trap of believing that serialised fiction is about heroes not changing.

[gurkle]

It's also hard to define what counts as a deconstructive run and what counts as a back-to-basics run.

The famous example is Spider-Man's "Brand New Day," which was an old-fashioned, back-to-basics run in most ways, even bringing back thought balloons. I liked it overall, but many people didn't like it because it regressed Spider-Man, literally erasing all his character development since the '80s - and that's a legitimate reaction. But it just shows that bringing a character or franchise "back to normal" can seem like the exact opposite.

Even with something like Brubaker's Captain America: was it deconstructive because it broke so many rules of the franchise (bringing Bucky back, killing Steve) or reconstructive, since it was a return to traditional Cap adventures after his years in Marvel Knights?

I won't try to argue that there hasn't been an increase in characters acting like jerks or doing horrible things. This is real; Marvel's attempts to repeat the success of Civil War were obvious enough even before they got completely out of hand in the last couple of years.

But were the ongoings of the mid-00s really more deconstructive than the early '00s? I think it largely depends on which books we were reading and what we wanted out of them.

[LordLeviathan]

It's also hard to define what counts as a deconstructive run and what counts as a back-to-basics run.

The famous example is Spider-Man's "Brand New Day," which was an old-fashioned, back-to-basics run in most ways, even bringing back thought balloons. I liked it overall, but many people didn't like it because it regressed Spider-Man, literally erasing all his character development since the '80s - and that's a legitimate reaction. But it just shows that bringing a character or franchise "back to normal" can seem like the exact opposite.

Even with something like Brubaker's Captain America: was it deconstructive because it broke so many rules of the franchise (bringing Bucky back, killing Steve) or reconstructive, since it was a return to traditional Cap adventures after his years in Marvel Knights?

I won't try to argue that there hasn't been an increase in characters acting like jerks or doing horrible things. This is real; Marvel's attempts to repeat the success of Civil War were obvious enough even before they got completely out of hand in the last couple of years.

But were the ongoings of the mid-00s really more deconstructive than the early '00s? I think it largely depends on which books we were reading and what we wanted out of them.

Civil war came out in the right place at the right time. And that is something you can't predict analyze etc it just happens

[KingsLeadHat]

This theory about deconstruction doesn't stand up. Deconstructing a character is about examining the premise of the character and seeing what makes them work. That is not a bad thing, that is how you make them work in a dramatic context. The problem comics have had since the late eighties until recently is a stagnation of dramatic impetus. Marvel fell into the trap of believing that serialised fiction is about heroes not changing.

There certainly has to be gradual change, and a bit of the dreaded "illusion of change" when dealing with immortal, iconic characters that will never be allowed to get past 30 years old or so. Change is a tough concept to grasp sometimes when dealing with these characters given that. I think "layering" and adding to the core concept, without fundamentally changing the status quo, is usually the best method. Making Spider-Man Tony Stark, and writing Dr. Strange as if he was Tony Stark, is "bad change" from my perspective. It can be taken too far.

I think I bigger issue with Marvel since the late 80's, as you say, has been a stagnation of new ideas around the central core of Spider-Man, X-Men, Avengers, etc. You have an incredibly fertile period when you look back at the first twenty years of Marvel and a gradual decline of new ideas by the mid-80's and a lot of coasting since then. Not just characters, but story-line's from this period still cast a huge shadow over Marvel.

[Goggindowner]

This theory about deconstruction doesn't stand up. Deconstructing a character is about examining the premise of the character and seeing what makes them work. That is not a bad thing, that is how you make them work in a dramatic context. The problem comics have had since the late eighties until recently is a stagnation of dramatic impetus. Marvel fell into the trap of believing that serialised fiction is about heroes not changing.

I think the difference is that, overall, we aren't seeing the deconstruction of just the characters. We have seen the deconstruction of the entire concept of what a super hero is. And to the point the others have made, no one has really spent the time to put all those pieces back together and show the next generation that, in fact, these old ideals can still be relevant in a modern context.

Considering the state of the world, I think we need to be shown that these ideals are still viable now more than ever. Not every single title or every single character, but it needs to exist somewhere, and it needs to be put more at the center.

We have also left the era of heroes fighting villains. Since 2006, we have had Civil War, Secret Invasion, Fear Itself, Schism, Avengers vs X-Men, Inhumans vs X-Men, Civil War 2, and now Secret Empire. All events that, in one way or another, showcased the idea of heroes fighting against heroes. In that same time period, we have seen a surge of villains being turned into anti-heroes, thinning out the pool of classic, marketable threats. Deadpool, Magneto, Dr Doom, etc.

I can see this as a reflection of the world that we live in, where so much exists in the moral gray areas. Where people put their own agendas ahead of the greater good. Where so many people stand so divided that mending the gap seems impossible. But somewhere in there, there should be a core of characters standing above all that and trying to bring back the idea of sacrifice for the greater good.

Needless to say, I am not a big fan of today's "normal" at Marvel. But at the same time, Morrison's X-Men stands as one of my favorites, I loved X-Statix, and the Marvel Knights Captain America series was the first time I regularly read the character. So it's a bit of a mixed bag for me as to what "normal" is.

[phantom1592]

I see a lot of people tracing the problems back to Civil War, but I don't feel that's accurate. I blame Avengers Disassembled. That was a dark, bloody line in the sand that ended with a long beloved hero destroying her allies and everything she loved. Then shortly after that came House of M and the 'no more mutants' bit...

Civil War was a shining example of what went wrong with Marvel and Death of Captain America and One More Day came right out of it, but for me it all started Disassembled. That was the time frame where characters seemed to stop growing and changing... and just started being changed and retconned into whatever story the writer wanted to tell. Most of the time it was Bendis... but others had their hands in the mix too. Continuity was tossed out, Flash in the pan stories and writing for TPBs came in. Daredevil retread the same identity being revealed story from the 90's. Captain America agrees to Wolverine being on the Avengers 'to do what he couldn't', and yet... Also starts killing bad guys because it's convient (Despite having decades of a solid 'HEROES DO NOT KILL' mentality. X-men abandoned their belief system because... why not, they've had a bad time of it...' The stories got darker and bleaker and the silver lining vanished.

Say what we want about the late 90's... the Editors still held a firm leash. The characters and lives may have changed for the worst (armored Cap, Teen Tony) but it still felt like a forward momentum. Post-Disassembled, they read more like an alternate universe. It felt the same as if I was reading an 'Ultimate' Avengers/Spider-man/Daredevil then it did the continuing adventures of the characters from the 70's-90's...

[Venomous Mask]

It felt the same as if I was reading an 'Ultimate' Avengers/Spider-man/Daredevil then it did the continuing adventures of the characters from the 70's-90's...

I read a few times that some feel that the changes to the MU in the mid to late 2000s were the result of writers trying to take the dark, militaristic vision of the Ultimate universe and placing it on 616, ignoring the fact that that universe was specifically meant to tell stories that most people had hitherto would not have felt worked well in 616.

[Goggindowner]

Say what we want about the late 90's... the Editors still held a firm leash. The characters and lives may have changed for the worst (armored Cap, Teen Tony) but it still felt like a forward momentum. Post-Disassembled, they read more like an alternate universe. It felt the same as if I was reading an 'Ultimate' Avengers/Spider-man/Daredevil then it did the continuing adventures of the characters from the 70's-90's...

Even then, at least Ultimate Marvel wasn't stagnant and wrapped up in some idealized status quo. Characters changed and died. Dynamics shifted permanently. It was shaping up to be everything that the MU wasn't until they took the "anything can happen" mantra and pushed it well past the limit.

[Vegan Daddy]

Eh, very little has changed.

[phantom1592]

Even then, at least Ultimate Marvel wasn't stagnant and wrapped up in some idealized status quo. Characters changed and died. Dynamics shifted permanently. It was shaping up to be everything that the MU wasn't until they took the "anything can happen" mantra and pushed it well past the limit.

I REALLY don't see that as a good thing.

Original Marvel first of all had lots of shifting, changing and growing for 40 years before Bendis and the post-Disassembled storylines scuttled actual growth. The ultimate universe changed, died, and shifted too much too fast. It was the ADHD version of what the traditional Marvel universe was.

Ultimate Marvel? It had 9 mildly decent years. Between it's start in 2000 and Ultimatum in 2009. After that?? the only thing I've ever heard a positive thing about post 2009 was Miles Morales. Everything else that was new and edgy somehow turned to cannibalism and cheap deaths nobody cared about.

9 years for an entire comic universe before it turns into a garbage fire? With only 2 real books that were open ended (Spider-man and X-men), the rest were just short mini series. The Ultimates were heraled as being pretty amazing when it started... It got two 13 issues limited series before it fell apart in Ultimate's 3... Which while spread out over 7 years, is only 2 years worth of stories...

We're talking the longevity of Malibu or Valiant Comics. Lots of change without a solid foundation doesn't work. As DC is finding out with the rapid fire reboots...

[WebLurker]

The famous example is Spider-Man's "Brand New Day," which was an old-fashioned, back-to-basics run in most ways, even bringing back thought balloons. I liked it overall, but many people didn't like it because it regressed Spider-Man, literally erasing all his character development since the '80s - and that's a legitimate reaction. But it just shows that bringing a character or franchise "back to normal" can seem like the exact opposite.

Yeah, it showed that "normal" means different things to different people. BND took the Spider-Man/Mary Jane relationship out of the equation. The Marvel higher ups may have seen that as getting back to normal, but, if you're like me (who came into the franchise post-marriage and through stuff that had them together in some capacity, that relationship is part of the definition of what makes "normal" Spider-Man. And the debate goes on to this day.

[jackolover]

I think the difference is that, overall, we aren't seeing the deconstruction of just the characters. We have seen the deconstruction of the entire concept of what a super hero is. And to the point the others have made, no one has really spent the time to put all those pieces back together and show the next generation that, in fact, these old ideals can still be relevant in a modern context.

Considering the state of the world, I think we need to be shown that these ideals are still viable now more than ever. Not every single title or every single character, but it needs to exist somewhere, and it needs to be put more at the center.

We have also left the era of heroes fighting villains. Since 2006, we have had Civil War, Secret Invasion, Fear Itself, Schism, Avengers vs X-Men, Inhumans vs X-Men, Civil War 2, and now Secret Empire. All events that, in one way or another, showcased the idea of heroes fighting against heroes. In that same time period, we have seen a surge of villains being turned into anti-heroes, thinning out the pool of classic, marketable threats. Deadpool, Magneto, Dr Doom, etc.

I can see this as a reflection of the world that we live in, where so much exists in the moral gray areas. Where people put their own agendas ahead of the greater good. Where so many people stand so divided that mending the gap seems impossible. But somewhere in there, there should be a core of characters standing above all that and trying to bring back the idea of sacrifice for the greater good.

Needless to say, I am not a big fan of today's "normal" at Marvel. But at the same time, Morrison's X-Men stands as one of my favorites, I loved X-Statix, and the Marvel Knights Captain America series was the first time I regularly read the character. So it's a bit of a mixed bag for me as to what "normal" is.

Have we given up on the "Hero"?

By this I refer us to the actions of big countries, and whether they have been honourable in how they attack other nations, or, put embargoes on them to make them obey? Is this heroic? Can we point to our leaders and feel what they do is ethical anymore. If we can't; if we despise how our leaders behave, how our institutions behave, how are we going to see super heroes in the world? What would super heroes do in similar circumstances to our leaders since 1990? It is very hard to imagine super heroes in this context of our recent times.

There should be a basis to which we can reconcile behaviour as honorable in modern situations. Too much is being ignored and overlooked for political reasons. Sam Wilson seems to be trying to push against the tide coming in, because his values go against the values of our leaders. How can Sam Wilson be a hero when he tries to save people and is criticised for his attempts on every front? We want there to be heroes, but, how can we envision them when our value of heroism is so cynical, that if a hero pops his head up he is embarrassed to do so. So our real hero is Hydra Cap. This clown of a character that soothes all the cynicism of the population with lies, drugs and hypnotism. This is who we are handed now. He works too. People love him, follow him. Sam Wilson is thrown on the waste pile.

I have a theory of civilisation. Reality shows will progress to the point we will sacrifice, (as in, stab them in the chest), fellow humans as a source of entertainment, like the Aztecs. And when reality shows get to that, that will be the end. We are not far from it at this point. Heroism is sacrificed in that world, because cynicism has killed it progressively. The Darkhold in Secret Empire approaches the apocalyptic world of this Aztec scenario, and is being shown to us as a normal state of civilisation.

The need for there to be super heroes created today is very strong, under the corruption of so much war mongering heading into the 21st Century so far. 2018, and I wonder where our super heroes will flourish and by what definition? Can we turn around the disrespect we have for our own leaders, and see them as honorable once again? Otherwise, what do we base our heroes on, in this modern Homeland Security world? It's like if terrorists dictate our behaviour, we spiral down to the lowest common denominator. An eye for an eye.