[Comics] Are We in the New 90s?

[Yora]

And then there's the whole thing with all the crossovers. From what I understand, all the stories take place in the same reality at the same time and are often interwoven. If you like batman, you don't really get to read batman stories, but have all other types of people moving in and out of the stories, and batman also appears in other stories that are not strictly batman-stories. It feels like you don't get to pick one, but only get the whole huge bloated package.

[Fragenstein]

I just came here to say that I'm really digging the current Earth-2 run. Actually, to the point where I want to have Solomon Grundy's love-child. It's like he decided to run for mayor of Silent Hill, and won.

[Aotrs Commander]

And then there's the whole thing with all the crossovers. From what I understand, all the stories take place in the same reality at the same time and are often interwoven. If you like batman, you don't really get to read batman stories, but have all other types of people moving in and out of the stories, and batman also appears in other stories that are not strictly batman-stories. It feels like you don't get to pick one, but only get the whole huge bloated package.

While too many crossovers are a massive pain - and I will certainly contend that Marvel is especially well into that territory - having the whole of the universe to draw from, and the characters interacting in same (with different villains and occasional team-ups) I think is a big thing. I have always loathed the whole "one superhero in the whole world" concept - it always has seemed stupid to me - and I think that the Marvel and DC universes together make for a richer tapestry to set stories on.

WHEN that aspect is not being overplayed as it is in current times, with all these ridiculous events.

Especially as I no longer even have a local comic store, so until my monthly order arrives, I have no idea about these things and I have given up bothering to trace the back-issue from ebay or somewhere or waiting another six months for the trade (as I did the last time).

Having Spidey or the FF show up to help the X-Men - on occasion - is fracking AWSEOME (indeed, were it not for the great stories during the Age of Heroes stuff Marvel did, I might have already given up). But it also, like every other literary tool, it must not be over-used, and further, the stories should be contained in one comic's run (e.g. X-Men-having-guest- stars), rather than half and half in two or umpteen titles, which tends to mean it's more a marketing ploy than a reason for a good story.

[Jayngfet]

Makes sense. We know for a fact that the American comic industry is in the deep doodoo.

Capebooks are just not the way to go, but it's not just a matter of generic variety, it's also the distribution system. I don't know about Young Monica's Gang, but I know for a fact that One Piece isn't slave to Diamond's tyrannical monopoly on the direct market, and thus doesn't suffer from it like the Big Two's books do.

Plus, you know. One Piece doesn't cater exclusively to an ancient and withered fanbase the way DC and Marvel do, although I may be wrong.

As we've mostly agreed, the problem isn't capebooks. The problem is that capebooks keep trying to appeal to collectors and to generate fake controversy. Not to mention the shoddy distribution.

On the first thing, look at Green Lantern issue 12 or 13. The one with the all black, ultra recognizable death of superman homage. Green Lantern wasn't even dead but they took the opprotunity to try to tell any lazy collectors "This is important, give us your money".

On the second. Look at Alan Scott. Hell, to use an example from this week, look at Shining Knight. This wasn't DC trying to be progressive and brave and making a new character with issues being tackled in real life. This was DC screwing over fans of a specific character with a lazy retcon, in a way that has no in story consequences but is expected to generate some kind of media buzz.

On the last, I'll just point this out again. Archie's Double Digest regularly outsells every single non event book.

[GloatingSwine]

As we've mostly agreed, the problem isn't capebooks. The problem is that capebooks keep trying to appeal to collectors and to generate fake controversy. Not to mention the shoddy distribution.

Hardly. The big two realised donkeys years ago that actual comic sales are basically pointless compared to the enormous quantity of money to be had licensing their IP out to movies and other media.

I very much doubt Marvel will get as much out of every comic they sell for the next decade, no matter what collector cheese they try, as they have out of the Avengers movie alone, for instance.

That's another reason why they care more about reconisable status quo than actual storytelling, because they care more about the viability of the franchise arrangements than the product itself.

[Jayngfet]

Hardly. The big two realised donkeys years ago that actual comic sales are basically pointless compared to the enormous quantity of money to be had licensing their IP out to movies and other media.

I very much doubt Marvel will get as much out of every comic they sell for the next decade, no matter what collector cheese they try, as they have out of the Avengers movie alone, for instance.

That's another reason why they care more about recognizable status quo than actual storytelling, because they care more about the viability of the franchise arrangements than the product itself.

You seem to be implying the status quo isn't older than the movie industry, or at least as old. I mean I highly doubt the reason One More Day came about was to match the movies. I mean sure, the movies play a hand but things reverting to the status quo doesn't have all that much to do with movies so much as it has to do with the fact that a lot of comics editorial hates change with a passion, so long as it changes a thing they liked.

I mean, Green Arrow has never resembled the TV Series. The last retcon didn't do it and the current run has him look and act completely differently. The X-Men didn't suddenly pump up Banshee to importance again when First Class came out.

Nah, it's the "hates change" bit that's screwing over the industry. I mean if you haven't, read Green Lantern/Green Arrow, the whole two year run with the two of them together. That was a series that changed things, beyond the two characters suddenly being buddies. It changed things, it brought the characters down to earth and had them really look at how they viewed the world at a fundamental level. Not to mention taking Speedy in a new direction and introducing John Stewart.

Stories that try to be that powerful are few and far between nowadays. I mean the only thing that even tried was ...Simon Baz? Maybe?

I mean, how can you expect the world to care about a medium when the bulk of the people working in it aren't writing like they care all that much about the world?

[BlackDragonKing]

I don't think it's a very popular opinion to have, but I sort of think the retcons, tonal shifts, reboots and general continuity ****ery is the comic book time problem reaching critical mass as time goes on. These characters enduring from as early as the '40s combined with every other character that has been introduced is, I think, part of the problem, because as someone said earlier, the new writers grew up with the same characters as the old ones but have very different ideas about what to do with them, whether it makes sense with what came before or not.

I believe Joe Quesada commented in defense of ending the spider-marriage, "next you'll want [Peter] to grow old and die!"

Most fans considered this an insane oversimplification of their defense for Peter getting to be an actual adult, but hearing that, I thought, "...Well, yeah, kinda."

Would things like One More Day happen if Peter Parker started to get old, raised a family, and then after let's say 25 or so years of stories retired and let his daughter haver her own storyline as Spider-Girl? We wouldn't be extremely vague on how old exactly Bruce Wayne is or how long he and the Joker have been at a stalemate if Bruce was eventually forced by advancing age to retire, letting **** Grayson take over as the new Batman, who would in turn fight a mostly different rogues gallery as Bruce's enemies ended up too old or dead to keep breaking out of Arkham.

It's sort of pointless to think about this now, because introducing the concept organically is impossible with how comics work, but I think that continuity and tonal consistency might be a lot easier if comic book characters had specific lifetimes and you weren't allowed a limitless snap-back to maintain the things you like and change something you didn't. It wouldn't be a conga line of conflicting ideas for generations of writers over how a character "should" work, but instead the writers tugging the legacy of the character one way or another.

I don't know if that'd help much, but I'd certainly rather Peter Parker be rocking the grey hair and living an easier life with his wife as a new Spider-Whatever takes up the mantle than see Satan banish him back to his high-school lifestyle without giving him his youth back.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, I read the last issues of Uncanny X-Men and X-Men Legacy today. And I think I can safely say, for the X-Men at least; no, we are not in the new 90s, because even at their lowest ebb, the 1990s X-Men never made me not sorry that a series was ending.

In fact, out of the five X-titles I was getting only one appears to be not being cancelled, and frankly, if this is how it's going to go on... Well, I'm not sorry at all. (And I'm only going to give Astonishing until adjectiveless X-Men ends to not suck before I give up with that, too.)

It's so banal (Legacy) or outright bad (Uncanny - seriously the last few issues were total character derailement mixed with deus ex machina and a rather spiteful way of trying to get back to statues quo by removing all the positive character development, and leaving all the negatives in), I'm seriously considering going through my collection and then ditching the ones I don't like, they're that uninteresting.

I think M-day has buggered the X-Men completely narratively, because they've pretty much erased (or converted) their entir rogue's gallery; which might be why they're spending so much time fighting each other or the other heroes and not the bad guys. (And all the new bad guys they keep trying to use are all weird, crappy aliens or demons or something.)

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't know if that'd help much, but I'd certainly rather Peter Parker be rocking the grey hair and living an easier life with his wife as a new Spider-Whatever takes up the mantle than see Satan banish him back to his high-school lifestyle without giving him his youth back.

This is also exactly what I want.

I understand though, that heroes would not be as iconic as they are today if they died 20 years ago.

So I suggest an alternate time line where heroes age.

[Metahuman1]

above is more or less what I suggested. Although the idea of some characters just being timeless characters isn't impossible to work with.

As has been pointed out, the characters in the Archie Comics line are exactly the same as they were in the 1960's, and there outselling the capes.

[ThiagoMartell]

This is also exactly what I want.

I understand though, that heroes would not be as iconic as they are today if they died 20 years ago.

So I suggest an alternate time line where heroes age.

Spider-Girl and Ultimate Comics Spider-Man

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not a marketing guru, nor a comic book company (duh ) but my biggest problem is not that they don't age, I am fine with that. But to me it seems the reboots and rewrites tend to have three big problems:

1. They do it to the wrong characters
2. They do them in the wrong way
3. They do it way too often (especially DC).

A typical example of (1) is Barbara Gordon. If they had miraculously cured her say the first three years after the Crying Joke, people would have been extatic. As it is now, not only did DC piss off the diehard fans of the two new Batgirls (made them stop fighting eachother to unleash on DC, even) but they pissed off a HUGE group of disabled (especially paraplegic of course) women who truly saw her, and DC's choice of keeping her in the 'chair as a huge inspiration. Heck, it was just a few years ago Barbara was the first paraplegic woman to do a fanservice scene, which actually was recieved very well in that demographic because it portrayed a woman in that condition as someone who could be well... sexy, to put it bluntly.

As for (2) I have no proper example in my brain at the moment, but most reboots make me think "WHAT were they thinking", especially when the 90ies reboots came out (Blue, Red, Black superman for example).

And (3)... It seems there is at DC two Universe-wide crossover events every year these days, and about 33% chance that one of them also will lead to a complete reboot. What happened with those days when a comic could run 20 years without a reboot?

[Yora]

I think the entire point of rebooting a franchise is to get back to a clean slate free of all the entanglement that has build up over the years and do something fresh.
But with superhero comics, it seems that after resetting things, they immediately do the same thing again and have all the same characters return in crossovers, resulting in the same overcrowded mess they had before. That's not a new start, that's just introducing changes and immediately retconning them out again.

I never read batman comics, but I've seen many of the movies and the cartoon, and from what I remember there is just batman and the batman villains and never any mention that there's a superman or any other superheroes out there. There is a batman-universe that could be reinterpreted in many new ways. But it doesn't work when you have 20 or 30 such universes and you want to reinterprete all of them while keeping the connections and relationships between them intact.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think the entire point of rebooting a franchise is to get back to a clean slate free of all the entanglement that has build up over the years and do something fresh.
But with superhero comics, it seems that after resetting things, they immediately do the same thing again and have all the same characters return in crossovers, resulting in the same overcrowded mess they had before. That's not a new start, that's just introducing changes and immediately retconning them out again.

Exactly. It seems the first thing they do after "cleaning house" is to re-introduce every major plot element since the begining of the comic anyway (maybe to try to ward of critics saying they ruin the series). This is why starting a new universe is better (The Ultimate Spidey was REALLY good in the first run).

[ThiagoMartell]

This is why starting a new universe is better (The Ultimate Spidey was REALLY good in the first run).

It still is. Miles Morales is making it quite clear (like Wally West and Richard Grayson before him) that legacy characters are the way to go when it comes to comics.

[Man on Fire]

Now after talking with JayngFet for a while I realized that so many characters in comics are getting grittier, but not in the 90s OEGXTRM way but in a more general way.

Characters seem to be loosing their families, and everything is just darker and there is this general feeling of comics taking themselves too seriously.

I'm sorry but I cannot hear you over the sound of Scott Lang showing us hero can deal with the loss of your daughter without going all grim and gritty, Kid Loki pulling the Young Avengers together, Captain Marvel travelling back in time to fight Vietcong armed with Kree weapons, X-Facttor always delivering the fun, Black Lightning and Blue devil in a buddy cop show, Frankenstein doing crazy stuff and Demon Knights being awesome.

Seriously,I know DC has a lot of dark comics recently (through I have to say, most of their edge and dark lines are pretty good - I need to catch up on Wonder Woman, Ressurection Man, Animal Man, Swamp Thing and I,Vampire, but they were good where I left them) and a lot of Marvel stuff doesn't look that bad really - even most Avengers titles are looking at least promising - DeConnick's and Hickman's series to be specific, only Remender' kinda sucks ("With Charles Xavier's brain Red Skull will eliminate the mutant menance!") and Avengers Arena will blow. Still, 2 on 5 isn't bad for such disssapointing brand.

[Thrawn183]

As far as dark/depressing comics: my problem is when I stop caring about characters. I mean making an active/conscious choice to not care. When a new love interest is introduced and I say to myself "Don't get attached, he/she is just going to be killed off or driven away," it totally destroys the emotional impact that those events are supposed to carry. This, to me, is the essence of a failure on the part of a writer.

As far as reboots and the like: why keep wiping the slate clean to retell the same stories? I say either finish the stories, letting us see the end of the characters' lives/missions/whatever, or start telling new ones. Additionally, this gets to the point of established IP being valuable over established IP comic sales. Wouldn't it make sense to establish new IP that could then become potentially as profitable in the movie scene?

[Scowling Dragon]

As far as reboots and the like: why keep wiping the slate clean to retell the same stories? I say either finish the stories, letting us see the end of the characters' lives/missions/whatever, or start telling new ones.

I have to agree. Lets say the Giant just announced that OOTS would go on forever. You would say that would be the worst thing for the story.

[Kalmarvho]

I'm sorry but I cannot hear you over the sound of Scott Lang showing us hero can deal with the loss of your daughter without going all grim and gritty

Except why kill Cassie in the first place? No, the whole thing was a stupid mess that's probably just going to be an excuse to turn Iron Lad evil.

[Dienekes]

I have to agree. Lets say the Giant just announced that OOTS would go on forever. You would say that would be the worst thing for the story.

Which is a bit of a difference. OotS has been moving toward a definitive end the entire time. Most of the Supes comics have not been. I'm perfectly fine with a continuing story so long as a few things occur 1) the story is itself set up to have no hard ending. For instance, Watchmen, there should not be a Watchmen 2. It would not make any sense. But you'd better believe I'd read another book about Sherlock Holmes. 2) the stories being told are interesting. Retelling the same stories probably will in all probability not fit this criteria. They can (The Man Who Laughs is a retelling of the Joker origin, and I think it's better than the original. So was Year One.) but it's harder and generally needs to take things in a bit of a different direction.

[Scowling Dragon]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'm perfectly fine with a continuing story so long as a few things occur 1) the story is itself set up to have no hard ending. For instance, Watchmen, there should not be a Watchmen 2. It would not make any sense.

Well, I both agree and disagree with this. On the one hand, there shouldn't be a Watchmen 2. Because the creators don't want there to be, and doing otherwise is perhaps a little rude. More importantly, any extrapolation of what would follow after the events of watchmen that didn't come from the original creator is essentially in my eyes less legitimate.

But conversely, I think a continuation of Watchmen would be incredibly simple to justify. It leaves you on the brink of a massive change of the status quo and with a factor about to undermine that at any second. The world continues to be just as compelling as before, if not more-so than the world actually described in Watchmen itself.

The biggest, cheapest joke in the whole watchmen thing is that the whole affair is cut off, just as events start getting capitol letter Important for the setting and we are left to imagine what comes next.

[Dienekes]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

Indubitably.

Well, I both agree and disagree with this. On the one hand, there shouldn't be a Watchmen 2. Because the creators don't want there to be, and doing otherwise is perhaps a little rude. More importantly, any extrapolation of what would follow after the events of watchmen that didn't come from the original creator is essentially in my eyes less legitimate.

But conversely, I think a continuation of Watchmen would be incredibly simple to justify. It leaves you on the brink of a massive change of the status quo and with a factor about to undermine that at any second. The world continues to be just as compelling as before, if not more-so than the world actually described in Watchmen itself.

The biggest, cheapest joke in the whole watchmen thing is that the whole affair is cut off, just as events start getting capitol letter Important for the setting and we are left to imagine what comes next.

Isn't that the point? We're left to decide for ourselves who was in the right and explore how we think humanity will react or not react to what is about to happen. Answering that for us would ruin that.

[Kalmarvho]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

It is a better story, but it benefits from its limited format.

For comparison, all of the best Superman stories are limited runs - Kingdom Come, Red Son, Superman For All Seasons - that similarly benefit from a limited format. It's almost as though the comics are only useful in that they serve to set up a status quo that can then be subverted in 'What-Ifs' and 'Elseworlds', which is quite frankly not ideal.

[Scowling Dragon]

It is a better story, but it benefits from its limited format.

For comparison, all of the best Superman stories are limited runs - Kingdom Come, Red Son, Superman For All Seasons - that similarly benefit from a limited format. It's almost as though the comics are only useful in that they serve to set up a status quo that can then be subverted in 'What-Ifs' and 'Elseworlds', which is quite frankly not ideal.

Kinda my thoughts as well. The best stories in capes either COULD be self contained or ARE.

Comics don't benefit in any way from unlimited runs. Just tumor like continuity and tons of weird morality.

[Tiki Snakes]

Isn't that the point? We're left to decide for ourselves who was in the right and explore how we think humanity will react or not react to what is about to happen. Answering that for us would ruin that.

It is possibly supposed to be the point. Hard to say. I'm not sure it's a point I have any urge to respect, though. It's just another facet of the piece that makes me wonder what could have been if the main creative driving force wasn't so inherantly hostile to his own genre of fiction.

Seriously, though, screw "You must decide how you think things will happen!" I would much rather have more awesome stories thanks. That is of course, just me.

[Man on Fire]

Except why kill Cassie in the first place? No, the whole thing was a stupid mess that's probably just going to be an excuse to turn Iron Lad evil.

That's kinda irrevelant, because her death was in completely different comics, made by completely different people than those, who will write Scott in FF and who already showed what approach for this they are going to take (FF is going to be a book for kids and is adversized that way, btw, everybody have high hopes this series gonna be fun, even if they aren't fans of Matt Fraction, all thanks to a short story about Scott Lang painting moustache on Dr. Doom's portrait). Also, Gillen's Young Avengers looks very promising and entertainign already.

There is a good stuff. You people just need to look pass the BIG UBER HUGE POPULAR NAMES to see it.

[Kalmarvho]

That's kinda irrevelant, because her death was in completely different comics, made by completely different people than those, who will write Scott in FF and who already showed what approach for this they are going to take

Which just spells out the problem. Writers don't have complete power over what they can do with their characters, because they're not their characters. Dwayne McDuffie suffered from this all throughout his stint with DC, and when he voiced his outrage, they had the nerve to fire him. George Perez never got the same freedom with Superman that the "big" names like Geoff Johns and Morrison (even though Perez is a legend and head-and-shoulders above Geoff Johns) and now he's gone.

Even Liefeld quit over editorial being its usual pants-on-head self, and Liefeld is LIEFELD, for chrissakes. The man has the integrity of a fish.

All of these writers, all of these continuities, interfering with each other. Office politics and marketing taking precedence over telling a good story. THAT'S what "the New 90's" really is.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm definitely still a comic reader. But my favourite books aren't usually cape books, and when they are (like Kirkman's Invincible) they suffer from none of the problems that DC and Marvel books do.

[Metahuman1]

I never read batman comics, but I've seen many of the movies and the cartoon, and from what I remember there is just batman and the batman villains and never any mention that there's a superman or any other superheroes out there. There is a batman-universe that could be reinterpreted in many new ways. But it doesn't work when you have 20 or 30 such universes and you want to reinterprete all of them while keeping the connections and relationships between them intact.

Actually, there are nods given too it here and there. In at least one Noland verse batman movie, Metropolis is mentioned in the background, and in the Animated series, they mention it in the background again, along with Star Labs being mentioned once or twice for plot relevant reasons.

And superman did guest star in "Worlds Finest.". Then Batman and Robin Guest Stared in an ep of his series, and a Batgirl themed Episode of Batman had Supergirl show up.

And you know what? They were all really good episodes.

[Man on Fire]

Which just spells out the problem. Writers don't have complete power over what they can do with their characters, because they're not their characters. Dwayne McDuffie suffered from this all throughout his stint with DC, and when he voiced his outrage, they had the nerve to fire him. George Perez never got the same freedom with Superman that the "big" names like Geoff Johns and Morrison (even though Perez is a legend and head-and-shoulders above Geoff Johns) and now he's gone.

Even Liefeld quit over editorial being its usual pants-on-head self, and Liefeld is LIEFELD, for chrissakes. The man has the integrity of a fish.

All of these writers, all of these continuities, interfering with each other. Office politics and marketing taking precedence over telling a good story. THAT'S what "the New 90's" really is.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm definitely still a comic reader. But my favourite books aren't usually cape books, and when they are (like Kirkman's Invincible) they suffer from none of the problems that DC and Marvel books do.

Your new 90s is, in many ways, the total opposite of 90% of the problems of the old 90s, namely creators having too much freedom and no editorial control over them, resulting in delays and messed up continuity. So even through I agree with you about the problem you mention here, as it's a reason why I'm not reading mot of titles from Marvel and DC (if anything, I stick to low-profile comics, where editors tend to give more creative freedom to the creators) I refuse to call it new 90s. Current era DOES have it's own share of problems, but trying to stick a label of 90s over them is really just hiding those problems behind nostalgia.