When was marvel at their best? >Pic never will be related

the 80's

The early 2000's.

Dark Reign honestly

If anyone says anything than the Shooter era, they're too young to remember competent editorial

Bronze Age Marvel is the best.

>>80481672
I also enjoyed this.

>>80481586
70s and 80s there were some good things in the 00s too.

even though the 90s were bad, at least there was tons of fanservice.

>>80481672
Yes. I was into so many Marvel books.

>>80481586
Whats that from anyway, OP?

>>80481929
Avengers Assemble by KSD.

>>80481929
Cant recall. I took it off a story time last year.

Bronze Age had so many gems

File: smh fam.png (20KB, 93x100px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 93x100px

>>80481586
1985-1991

>Gruenwald Cap
>Stern Avengers
>DeFalco and Simonson Thor
>early MacFarlane Spiderman
>X-Men at the top of their game
>Street heroes fighting outlandish cocaine pushers
>fucking Frank Miller
>the Epic comics label being GOAT way before Vertigo

It's sad to think how they went from being more artistically profound than DC to being a complete black hole of quality and storytelling.

File: Avengers_(Dark_Avengers)_(Earth-616).jpg (2MB, 2700x2088px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2700x2088px

>>80481672
Mah nigga
Never before was I hype for an Avengers book as I was for Dark Avengers

File: man-thing and howard by val mayerik.jpg (194KB, 529x800px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 529x800px

It's cool to see how most of the replies fall between the 70's and 80's era. I'm personally a fan of the Bronze Age, and really enjoyed most of Roger Stern's books that he did during the Shooter era.

File: Under-Siege.jpg (95KB, 400x603px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 400x603px

>>80482591
I'd say they peaked at Under Siege

>>80482751
You still had the Infinity Trilogy left though

>>80481748
>Marvel enjoyed some of its best successes during Shooter's nine-year tenure as Editor-in-Chief, such as Chris Claremont and John Byrne's run on the Uncanny X-Men,[20] Byrne's work on the Fantastic Four,[21] Frank Miller's series of Daredevil stories,[22] Walt Simonson's crafting of Norse mythology with the Marvel Universe in Thor,[23] and Roger Stern's runs on both the Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man.

The man himself on his editorial philosophy:
>...I look for how well the story is told. Is the conflict worthwhile? Is the climax exciting? Is the resolution satisfying? Is the plot good? Are there interesting twists and turns? Is there a theme? Is there character development? Is it dramatic? Is it entertaining? This is the really important stuff. It should go without saying that a writer or a prospective writer should know enough to meet the fundamental requirements of a story. It's the power and the passion and drama and characterization that I really look for.[51]


He had a reputation for being a hardass and was fairly unpopular among writers, but compare that to the absolute joke called "editorial" we deal with nowadays.

The fact that there are so many simple spelling and grammar mistakes in Marvel comics today is a fucking embarrassment.

File: TrumpAnAd.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

What could Marvel do to make be great again?

>>80483012
M M G A
M
G
A

File: JCcT11N.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>80481586

>When was marvel at their best?

We're all going to say somewhere before the late 2000's/2010's.

File: wizarduniverse_2014_354850287.jpg (175KB, 550x834px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 550x834px

>>80483012
Another Imprint like the initial Marvel Knights launch

>>80483012
Enough already with all these renumberings

>>80482817
gauntlet isn't even all that great let alone those awful sequels