kustomizer

12 minutes ago, kav said:

Marvels storywise didnt do much for me-it was just a review of characters much like the last episode of Steinfield.

Not really, it was the early Silver Age being told from the point of view of regular onlookers. 

I have a theory that Stan Lee did not actually write or -script anything himself, but was secretly using a ghost writer. I have reasons for coming up with this seemingly bizarre notion.

3 minutes ago, tvindy said:

I liked the Brood stories. That's how Professor X got his new younger body (which explained why he never became elderly), and he didn't need a wheelchair anymore. (Except later on he's in a wheelchair again for some reason, which is dumb.)

I feel the John Romita JR Issues were the absolute low-point. I stopped buying then.

3 minutes ago, tvindy said:

Interesting. That might explain why Claremont (afaik) never did anything great after the X-Men. One thing I will say is that whether due to Claremont alone or the Claremont/Byrne combo, no other writer has ever produced a good X-Men story. The entire run of Ultimate X-Men (pre-Ultimatum Event) was mediocre and forgettable.

People burn out too. Even Kirby did, eventually. I think with the X-Men there is often the attitude that the mere presence of the characters (especially Wolive) was more important than a good story.

Just now, Jesse-Lee said:

Although I do love this cover, actually just picked it up this week:

 

It was a big improvement when Silvestri came on board.

1 minute ago, Jesse-Lee said:

I'm just waiting for 5-10 years from now when some movie gets announced and Sovereign Seven 14 or whatever has a last page panel of a character's knee that makes the book worth about 5 grand. And I'll be kicking myself for letting my kid read it.

No-o-o-o!! I'll be kicking myself around the block!!

14 minutes ago, tvindy said:

Hmm, I don't know about about that. Claremont came on board with X-Men 94 and wrote every X-men and New Mutants story for the next 17 years. I know Byrne co-wrote, but I don't think he was there that consistently. I was excited when Byrne took over Fantastic Four but found the stories to be good but nowhere near as good as the X-Men. But I also remember Claremont getting into scifi novels. I purchased and read the first one and was very disappointed. So who knows? 

As soon as Byrne left the X-Men, Claremont started on those Alien rip-off stories (the Brood) and every second cover seemed to imply the death of a major character. It reeked of desperation. Also, Cockrum's art was by then extremely disappointing, especially with those watery Rubenstein inks.

8 minutes ago, Jesse-Lee said:

Speaking of drek, I recently bought a "mystery box" of DC books from a nearby LCS on a whim (and to have some books to give to my kid ultimately) - it was mostly full of Sovereign Seven garbage. Sorry kiddo, here's some 50 cent bin fodder for ya...

I remember when one of our LCS's went out of business -- all modern comics were 50 cents each. And I still didn't want any of them. That would have been in the '90s, if that makes any difference. I scored a ton of good TPBs though.

6 minutes ago, tvindy said:

Hmm, I don't know about about that. Claremont came on board with X-Men 94 and wrote every X-men and New Mutants story for the next 17 years. I know Byrne co-wrote, but I don't think he was there that consistently. I was excited when Byrne took over Fantastic Four but found the stories to be good but nowhere near as good as the X-Men. But I also remember Claremont getting into scifi novels. I purchased and read the first one and was very disappointed. So who knows? 

Yep, I read one of Claremont's sci-fi novels too. Thought it was terrible, but my wife loved it.

I agree with you about Byrne's FF, not my cuppa. Byrne and Claremont were never as good apart as they were together. I liken it to the Kirby - Lee situation.

5 hours ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

 

YES!! Lou Fargino, star of Hulk #'s 7 to 100!!

6 hours ago, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

I agree with a lot of the listed 90's hits, but definitely agree with Alex Ross! 

Alex Ross for the win, no doubt about that. I think he was only 20 when he did Marvels.

8 hours ago, tvindy said:

Thank you! It looks like I have some research to do. No Chris Claremont? I guess after he left the X-Men he was never able to recapture the magic. 

I always thought John Byrne was the force behind the X-Men, with Claremont along for the ride. As soon as Byrne left the title, the quality of the stories tanked. Claremont was just a really messy writer, anyone see his Sovereign Seven? Really incoherent stuff.

Just now, 1950's war comics said:

i can't afford Hulk 1-6 ,... but i do really like Lou Farigno so i anyone has any cheap reader copies of Hulks issues 7-35 i would be interested as i don't remember reading those issues...

That really was a tale to astonish!

I remember seeing ads in CBG in the '90s where dealers would sell you cases of "hot" books, and instead of shipping them to you, they would store them on their premises -- for an ongoing charge!! Then, once the books skyrocketed in value, they would on-sell them for you as well. Except that last part never happened.

Anyone remember this? Indeed, was anybody ever a participant in such schemes?

17 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

But if you can get them for 5 cents a piece, or $25 a long, I don't think I've ever lost money on that stuff. It's not EASY to sell, and you have to put in work, but you can sell almost (ALMOST!) anything if priced right. Again, the key is what you put into it to begin with, and how much work you're wanting to put in. For me, it was a fun hobby.

 

Is it really worth the effort for the chickenfeed return? It takes as much time to sort and pack near-valueless comics as it does for decent books.

15 minutes ago, tvindy said:

I believed it, because it made sense. Superman was becoming more and more of an anachronism, and he was not nearly as popular as he had been in the past. The storylines that could spawn from the aftermath of that event (the DC universe's oldest, most powerful and most ethical hero being killed) could go on for years. It would mark the ending of an age. And you could still have Superman stories on alternate Earths. Also, some Kryptonians were still around, like Supergirl and the Kandorians. I see the situation as somewhat analogous to what Disney did with Mickey Mouse. No, they didn't kill him, but they long ago stopped producing Mickey Mouse cartoons and comics. (Other classic characters, such as Donald and Goofy, still get occasional cartoons and even movies.) Mickey is Disney's flagship character, but he exists now only as a symbol. I assumed something similar was in store for Superman. Also, for him to truly be the greatest hero of all time, he really does need to have a heroic (and permanent) death.

Very well said. You certainly put a lot more thought into this than I ever did. Your position is absolutely valid, and what you suggest would have been a very meaningful and admirable outcome.

1 minute ago, RonS2112 said:

I was there and remember this event pretty well.  I don't think anyone thought Superman was dead for good, and DC did a good job of making the "death" a real cultural event -- big enough to make the nightly news and grab newspaper headlines.  It was enough to draw in non-regular comic book readers, who were willing to pay a small premium to have their piece of the event.  So for a short time, speculators made some money, until the novelty passed and they were left selling to each other.  So I can only partially blame DC for the feeding frenzy,  Certainly, they published enough copies of Superman #75, that everyone should have seen the writing on the wall.

Anyway, I till have my 9.8 copies of Man of Steel #18 and Superman #75, which I bought for cover price back in '93.  So it would be a bit of a payoff, even now. 

Funny thing is, once you get past all the speculator-DC-contrived-cultural-event nonsense, the Death of Superman arc is actually a pretty decent storyline. 

I was there too. Regular folks (non-comic collectors) did think that DC was genuinely killing off Superman in a 'bold' step towards the future. The media reports gave that distinct impression too. Usually when a character dies, even in fiction, he doesn't come back. Comics and soap operas are the exception to this.

3 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Of the bigger players, DC probably had the least to do with the problems that nearly destroyed the industry in the 90s, though they certainly participated.

I tend to think the "death" of Superman was the nail in the coffin, because it was such an outright lie. Who kills off their flagship character? But lots of "normal" folks thought it was genuine and were investing in copies of that, thinking it would be a surefire pay-off. Until the resurrection event inevitably occurred, and the public was betrayed.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

I agree. Be sure to only list one copy per month and future generations of your family will be assured of having meagre pocket change FOREVER!

13 minutes ago, gadzukes said:

Remember how people were in line wrapped around the block waiting to get their "Death of Superman" comic from the LCS.  OMG I couldn't believe it.  I'm an avid comic collector and even I didn't fall for that rubbish.  To this day I have never owned that issue.

I remember when there was a hard and fast rule that Bucky Barnes was the one character who was definitely going to remain dead. That didn't last either.

7 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

I keep my Jurgens signed SS 9.6 as a tribute to the greatness of the scam that DC pulled on the world with “death” of Superman.

That sleazy debacle pretty much taught the mainstream never to trust comic gimmicks.

Just now, tvindy said:

Interesting. I guess the industry just became complacent after their success in the 80s. I can see how foil covers would look cool to people in the 90s, though.

Yeah, complacency is a good word for it. Other good words and phrases for it are 'bumbling incompetence', 'lack of talent', 'get rich quick' etc.

Just now, gadzukes said:

Maybe we should have a good old fashion book burning.  Bring your 90s drek

I guess if we burn 99% of it, the surviving copies would finally be "rare".

31 minutes ago, tvindy said:

 

My comic collection was almost entirely amassed in my childhood from the mid-70s to late 80s By the 90s, I had moved on to other things. (I still have my collection, though, and it's one of my most treasured possessions.) I have very little familiarity with 90s comics. I'm not surprised that most comics from that decade have almost no monetary value. That makes sense, since collectors were hoarding them in large numbers as investments. But I'm really surprised to hear that the quality was so bad, to the point that no one even wants to read them, even if they're free. What exactly happened in the 90s? Did all the big-name writers just walk out?

There was just an attitude that any old garbage would sell, and for a while it did. Now it just clogs up peoples' garages like cholesterol in an artery.

3 hours ago, serling1978 said:

I've got multiple long boxes of 90s superman garbage in my basement that I won't even waste time taking pics of to sell.  I picked them up as part of a $200 lot that included the full 70's marvel Star Wars run, the Marvel Transformers run, Marvel GI Joe run and others. So the purchase was worth it but I need to unload those 90s rags. I do have a fire pit out back.... 

You never know, some of those might have recently become "keys" due to the first appearance of some suddenly "hot" character who's going to be in an upcoming movie. Worth a quick check before striking that match.