"Quality of Marvel" Graph 0

[Paul_Maul]

 

Could anyone who is so inclined make a rough graph depicting the overall quality of Marvel comics from 1961 to present? Or describe in words if you prefer.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Paul_Maul

[Unca Ben]

1961 to  mid 1970 was marvelous, producing some of the best comics in history.  By 1974 the overall quality had slipped with Marvel publishing anywhere from 50 -65 titles a month.  Some stuff in this period was actually pretty silly; Hercules pulling Long Island with a set of chains, for example. Writers needed to put down the bong and do some actual good writing.  By the late 70's there was some good stuff among the mediocre; the New X-Men, Howard the Duck, Tomb of Dracula, some of the Avengers stories, for example.

The early 80's continued some good to great stuff (Miller's DD, Byrne's FF, Moench and Sienkiewicz's Moon Knight, Simonson's Thor are some examples of great stuff, and the early New Mutants was pretty unique, too).  Throughout the 80's quality was pretty good overall, even though there was some evident convolution by then (X-Men?).
By the mid-90's quality really slipped overall, once again with Marvel over-producing, with oftentimes over a hundred titles a month.  I mean, really. Over a hundred publications a month?

For me, the signs of the end were the Onslaught/ Heroes Reborn.  Marvel continuity - it's greatest strength early on, had doubled back on itself like a snake eating its own tail.  Characters with 4 decades of history had shown their age.  The "illusion of change" that was conceived in the early 70's had run its course - actually it had run its course for some time.
By the end of the 90's flash over substance had prevailed, quantity over quality.

By 2004, when I stopped buying Marvel altogether, the Marvel universe I had grown up with had become unrecognizable.
Yeah, production values far outshined what I first read in the early 60's.  The artwork was nice, sometimes really nice, but often served as a series of pinups rather than lessons in sequential art storytelling.  Computerized coloring, along with color modeling and garish color palettes, overpowered rather than complemented the black-and-white artwork.
Inking with a brush, along with it's quality to change line weight within a single stroke all but disappeared.  (Mastering an ink brush is hard - a technical pen or brush pen, not so much).
Decompressed storytelling was no longer an occasional innovation used to make a point, it was used to fit a 5 or 6 issue story arc into a trade paperback, when 2 or maybe 3 issues could have concisely told the story.

After ASM's Sins Past in 2004 I cannot comment.  I have bought maybe a handful of books since then so I can't speak about which I don't know.
I'm sure it's me as much as it is the comics.  We grew apart.  I still get great joy out of the earlier stuff, though.  That's where my interest lies.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Unca Ben

[kav]

5 hours ago, Paul_Maul said:

 

Could anyone who is so inclined make a rough graph depicting the overall quality of Marvel comics from 1961 to present? Or describe in words if you prefer.

1961 we see a spike in quality that continues to rise until 1971 when it plummets dramatically then to this year, where the graph leaves the paper off the bottom.

[Mercury Man]

Silver Age:  Great!  Marvel revolutionized the industry, great characters with real world problems, amazing artists, the Marvel Bullpen was in full glory.  Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Romita, Steranko, Sinnott.  Revolutionary.  Fantastic Four, Amazing Spiderman, Iron Man, Avengers, Daredevil, X-Men and a revived Captain America....NUFF SAID!  

Bronze Age:  I really liked it, probably because that is the era I grew up in.  Comics were still fun, even though they still addressed some of the social issues in the real world.   We got some great new characters including Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and some new X-Men.   Claremont pretty much revived the X-Men franchise, and Simonson's Thor was as good as it ever was.   I'm a big George Perez fan too.  

Copper Age:  You can see the darker stories and anti heroes starting to come into play more. Moon Knight, Punisher, Wolverine, not your A-typical leads.  McFarlane, Lee, Byrne, Miller, all were producing good stuff.   I guess we can consider Deadpool coming out of this era too (not my favorite character, but you can't argue his popularity).  

Modern Age:  I didn't hate Heroes Reborn.  I really felt like if they just would have let those runs continue, they may have been on a successful path to that relaunch.   Some good artists came through, and the Captain America Winter Soldier storyline is still one of my most recent favorites. 

Today:  WTF?!?!  I have no idea what they are trying to prove.  Their stories are awful, they reboot everything with new #1's at the drop of a hat.  Instead of telling stories, they are working social agendas.  And we all know what they have done to our favorite mainstay heroes.  They better fix it fast.  I'm lucky if I buy 1 or 2 Marvel comics a week. 

These are all just one man's opinion.   

[kav]

They definitely do not want new readers because a new reader would be baffled about what comic goes with what.  Wait I want Thor #3-well sir which Thor #3 there's about 40 of them and I'm not too sure myself which goes with which and I work here.  Uh...nevermind i'll stick to video games.

[Lazyboy]

Very rough, yet still basically accurate:

 

 

 

[Ken Aldred]

1 hour ago, Unca Ben said:

By 1974 the overall quality had slipped...

 

... Writers needed to put down the bong and do some actual good writing.

Despite copious drug use, some writers, such as Englehart and Starlin, still managed to function and write some great stories.  This process can't be advocated, though.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[Ken Aldred]

2 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

For me, the signs of the end were the Onslaught/ Heroes Reborn.  Marvel continuity - it's greatest strength early on, had doubled back on itself like a snake eating its own tail.  Characters with 4 decades of history had shown their age.  The "illusion of change" that was conceived in the early 70's had run its course - actually it had run its course for some time.
By the end of the 90's flash over substance had prevailed, quantity over quality.

 

+1

I really lost interest in Marvel's product in the mid-to-late 90s, which to me just seemed generally mediocre, dull and uninspired, although it was also possibly burnout and disillusionment from the immediately-preceding speculator period and glut, as well.

I did regain some sense of connection during the 2000s, but never close to the intense level I had from the early 1970s until 1990 or so.  There did seem to be more quality titles, good reads, month in and month out for me, up until then.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[shadroch]

Hercules pulled Manhattan, not Long Island.  Manhattan is maybe one hundredth the size of Long Island.  The real problem was he towed it in backwards.

I think much of the early Bronze Age is as good or better than later SA stuff.  I greatly prefer 20-25 cent Avengers to earlier stuff. Defenders of that period was great. Starlin's Captain Marvel, Master of Kung Fu, New X-Men. Dr Strange. All outstanding.

The FF, Hulk, Thor and Spidey weren't that great but it seemed like the torch had been passed. Man-Thing, Werewolf by Night, Dracula and Howard were blazing new trails. Captain America from 150-until Kirby came back was fantastic, even Frank Robbins art couldn't kill it.

By the late 70s the magic was definitely gone.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I think Marvel was at its A peak until Secret Wars 2, than stayed at a good B peak until the Image  guys left in the early 90s.  Really failing grades since than with an occasional writer/artist scores a top grade.

One thing that should be looked at is Marvel's ownership history as when they started getting sold many times during the 80s and 90s that it had an affect of their bottom line.

Love him or hate him,but when business savvy Martin Goodman was the owner that was when Marvel was at it's peak.

The Cadence Industries ownership era was pretty good as well. They ran the joint until about 1986. A lot of good comics under their stewardship.

Where it gets bad for Marvel is when their owners get bad.

Ronald Perelman is really when the Marvel era starts to get bad because he took Marvel public and only cared about keeping his stock holders happy. This led to massive over produced junk to make the bottom line look good. This ownership  led to Marvel's bankruptcy. 

Out of that bankruptcy were the new owners Marvel Enterprise whose jobs were basically to keep the company afloat to stabilize things until a new buyer came along.

Now we got Disney in control. A good thing because of their Hollywood power in movies, but a questionable thing for their comics division as they usually like to Disneyfied things.

So basically if we go back and look at Marvel's peaks and valleys we will find it really had to do a lot more with who the owners were, and not the creators.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[delekkerste]

1961-1965 - Period of great creativity and quality

1966-1970 - Continues to be great, both art & stories get a bit more mature/developed

1971-1975 - Continues to mature well, books take on a different tone from the Silver Age, lots of new, edgier (for the time) characters and titles launched

1976-1979 - Period of transition; with a few notable exceptions, the quality of both art and stories declines during this period

1980-1986 - Quality rebounds strongly, new concepts like mini-series, graphic novels, creator-owned properties are launched

1987-1992 - Mixed results; overall quality starts to decline

1993-1997 - Quality plummets as Marvel's corporate overlords feeds the speculative market with too many books, many of which feature D-list creators who are never heard from again.  The worst 5 years of comics, ever. 

1998-2005 - A renaissance at Marvel led by the new Marvel Knights imprint (esp. the Smith/Quesada Daredevil run) and then the Ultimate universe, as well as numerous memorable creator runs on prominent titles (e.g., Bendis/Bags on Ultimate SM, Morrison/Quitely on New X-Men, Bruce Jones on Hulk, Millar/Hitch on Ultimates, Bendis/Maleev on Daredevil, Brubaker on Cap, etc.

2006-present - A mixed bag marked by fewer notable creator runs, a surfeit of titles, constant reboots/crossovers, variant covers and other '90s-era gimmicks, etc. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by delekkerste

[Aweandlorder]

80s were great years for D.C. Just saying (sorry off topic)

They went with that "D.C. Comics aren't for kids" sloagan full fledge. And although it was a cliche it did make a difference. Most of their titles were brilliantly written with the mature reader in mind

Marvel had Art Adams which was good and bad. Good cause of his quality and stylized art. Bad cause he single handedly inspired the whole Image staff to create horrible books.

The 80s also had the European invasion. Moore, Bolland, Gibbons, Hewlett.. Marvel did good w adapting Moebius graphic novels through Epic. Some of these are still sought after to this day

[HeyMoe]

4 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

80s were great years for D.C. Just saying (sorry off topic)

They went with that "D.C. Comics aren't for kids" sloagan full fledge. And although it was a cliche it did make a difference. Most of their titles were brilliantly written with the mature reader in mind

Marvel had Art Adams which was good and bad. Good cause of his quality and stylized art. Bad cause he single handedly inspired the whole Image staff to create horrible books.

The 80s also had the European invasion. Moore, Bolland, Gibbons, Hewlett.. Marvel did good w adapting Moebius graphic novels through Epic. Some of these are still sought after to this day

Just to stay off topic!

What would a DC Graph look like?

[kav]

2 hours ago, HeyMoe said:

Just to stay off topic!

What would a DC Graph look like?

It would peak here

[Ken Aldred]

A good time for DC, including the slightly later 100-page period, but I'm quite fond of the mid-to-late 80s as well. That's the time I enjoyed reading DC the most.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[shadroch]

Early to mid 80s DC had some great stuff- Titans, Legion, Camelot 3000, Swamp Thing, but as a rule the books were still inferior to Marvel and even some Independents.

[Ken Aldred]

It was a time when Marvel, DC and independent companies were producing a lot of highly readable, enjoyable material.

I wasn't that bothered about the source, really.

So much to choose from.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[Aweandlorder]

Well let's just say they had this & this and leave it at that

 

[Ken Aldred]

I remember those. They were quite good. A little better than Sonic Disruptors, anyway.