51 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

Personally I got into comics through Image so people can hold my personal taste against me if they wish, but the 90s did hold a number of things that did benefit comics. More competitors stepping up for one – Image, Valiant, Dark Horse (X had some brilliant moments), Malibu. Some of their output was absolutely awful, but some of it wasn’t. Some of it changed the rules.

However, MGK’s point appears to be that the big comic companies are making the same kind of mistakes that they did before. My belief is that they are unable to stop doing it because they need that comic to come out next month and sell well, so whatever appears to be working in one title (e.g. the Death of Superman) is brought across to others (e.g. the End of Batman) and then repeated (e.g. the Time Travelling Adventures of Batman and Captain America, Esq.).

Stories need an end. Comic books can’t end, but instead wait for readers to outgrow them so they can deliver the same stories to a new audience. This hasn’t happened as much with comics over the last 20 – 30 years as the people who were reading them then are often still reading them now. So we end up the kind of schizophrenic state of comics as they are now – not for children because they are too dark and not for adults because they’ve seen it before and how dare the new writers ignore a storyline from 2001.

… I have no real point to conclude on. Just observations.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments