not to mention Marvel Knights, Morrisons X-Men, Ultimates & Ultimate Spider-man, Daredevil
>>151995481Honestly? I think the answer is yes, and it’s not even nostalgia talking. Early-2000s Marvel Comics felt hungry in a way it just doesn’t now. You had JMS on Spider-Man, Bendis redefining Daredevil and the Avengers, Morrison blowing up the X-Men, Astonishing X-Men actually feeling like next phase, plus Marvel Knights letting creators really push tone and consequence. Stuff like Ultimate Spider-Man and The Ultimates didn’t read like IP management, they read like someone had something urgent to say about power, identity, politics, adulthood. Characters changed, sometimes for good, and the books trusted readers to keep up. Post-MCU, especially 2010s onward, you can really feel the shift, comics start orbiting the movies and Disney branding, designs and personalities get flattened for “synergy,” everyone sounds a bit more jokey, a bit more self-aware, and way less desperate. Stories stretch, stakes evaporate, and nothing feels allowed to matter too much in case it messes with the brand bible. It’s not that there haven’t been good runs since, there have, but the center of gravity moved. Early 2000s Marvel felt like comics leading culture; now they often feel like merchandised echoes of films, written for adaptations instead of for the page. And yeah, once you notice that, it’s hard to unsee it.
>>151995481NO, it peaked in the 80sDaredevil, spider-man, uncanny x-men, spectacular spider-man and web of spider-man
Just counting the 90-25 era? I guess. Against late 60s, early, middle, late 70s, early, middle, late 80s, no.
>>151995481No. Marvel peak when Shooter in charge
>>151995503People will try and downplay these words of wisdom by saying shit like "Bendislol" and sharing images of some of the dumber shit in Millar's Ultimates, but it's true.It was a point where most of the 90s edge had been moved past, and the company was desperate enough to let things move forward again and shake things up. Has it all aged well? Fuck no, but that's not the point; it did exactly what it needed to at the time. Most eras didn't age well, and no, just listing Spider-Man and Claremont's X-Men doesn't mean that the fucking 70s/80s were timeless, and unless you actually know more about the time period then I encourage you to eat my ass.I look back on a lot of stuff from the period with derision (New Avengers basicslly calcified the formula for the Avengers having no character development and just being a vehicle for events - all build up, no payoff, come back next week), but that doesn't change how important it was. It's also one of the earliest periods where a higher majority of material "aged well", purely by virtue of the fact that the transition to more modern writing styles had fully sunk in. Let the artwork tell the story: Show, don't tell. The 90s was still shaking off older writing styles where writers felt the need to include narration and dialogue that explained shit that was already better represented by the art. That doesn't take away from the quality of earlier periods, but there's far less of a need to "think of the context of the time".
X-Men? 100% yes. Nothing they have done after early 2000s it's good.
>>151995481Spider-Man definitely, there was a time when there JMS, Jenkins and Bendis all on Spider-Man titles ASM PPSM and Ultimate + OG Spider-Girl, say what you want about them but there hasn’t been a better Spider-Man writing team line up since things went more to shit after OMD, Spider-Man was doomed from the 90s anyway when the editorials agenda started to reveal itself.
>>151995503hi quesada
>>151995481No, you’re just in your thirties and still reading super heroes books for kids.
>>151995481it peaked in the late 00's with Dark Reign
>>151996931And your sitting here talking about them.
>>151995481Most of those are awful.
>>151995481What a horrible thread>>151995732Please shoot me, Shooter
