Did nineties editorial really get it so wrong?

[IndigoPrime]

But you could be reading Junker, Babe Race 2000, Dry Run and Wireheads!

[Fungus]

A nineties thread.... touchy subject for me as my slower-than-slow slog finished with prog 1000  a few days ago (really 962 but I bought 1000 'cos it was there). An ordeal, many hours I won't get back. The last 3 or 4 years of which I bought through loyalty but didn't even read.

The nonsense was punctuated by some Smith, but I'm not a fan of his pretentious writing so tough going!

Struggling to think of highlights. Power's art and Mills (also) on Slaine were enjoyable romps.

Was the Meg faring better in the early nineties? Right now I've a mind to hit the early progs (yet to re-read) and remind myself what all the fuss is about    The Meg can wait...

[sheridan]

I'm gonna sit here with my arms folded and reminisce about The Word.

What, that episode?

[TordelBack]

Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories: unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade. These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

[James Dilworth]

But you could be reading Junker, Babe Race 2000, Dry Run and Wireheads!

You forgot Space Girls.

[ZenArcade]

Hey ease off Junker! Z

[Frank]

Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories:

unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade.

These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

TordelBack's Sam C Slade joke made me wet myself and he's engaged with the topic the thread was intended to discuss.

The thesis of the Future Shock documentary* is that the 90s were all Space Girls and BLAIR-1, then Rebellion took over, made everything the same as it was in the 80s, and it's all been plain sailing since.

TordelBack's list demonstrates that much of the 90s strips that supposedly had readers leaving in droves were the same strips (and the same types and themes) Rebellion turned to when they first took over.

The truth is the comic lost a similar proportion of its readers during the *TERRIBLE* Burton/McKenzie era (100k-50k) as it did during the so-so Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle runs (50k-25k) and Matt Smith regency (25k-15k).

Given those facts, it's difficult to support the theory that the comic lost readers because it ran a certain type of story, since it continued to lose readers when running previously successful strips in the 90s and when it ran better quality versions of those same strips in the 21st century.


*Pat Mills's thesis. If Thrillpower Overload is the History Of 2000ad from the perspective of David Bishop, then Future Shock is the Pat Mills History Of 2000ad- he has the first and last word (and most of the words inbetween)

[Tjm86]

My own personal thesis is that 2000ad's readership tanked when its main characters archetype changed. In the golden era it was a comic of adult characters read by kids who identified with them as heroes. Dark twisted anti-heroes but still adult hero types. By the 700s the readership had aged to university age but ....

I can't help thinking that your thesis also has another dimension.  When you think of the demographic of the readership in particular, there may be a different reason why both readership and the Tooth's fortunes have revived in recent years.  A large proportion of the readership grew up reading in the early days.  The early years still read as if it was largely aimed at children, particularly Dredd.  You can see a maturing in the story telling into the eighties with a few exceptions. 

By the nineties that core audience had aged into their twenties, hence the strategy of competing with the likes of Viz and Loaded.  Watchmen, Dark Knight and Vertigo were giving comics a kudos that they had previously lacked but the priorities of the twenty something audience were changing as well with a drifting away from comics in general.  I seem to recall the early nineties as a time when on the one hand comics had a greater level of respect than previously but that was being undermined by some of the marketing practices of a lot of comics companies.  This was a time of multiple covers, lenticular, chrome, ... whatever. 

The Rebellion takeover coincided with another change in priorities for that drifted audience and the rise in nostalgia marketing.  Rebellion, as has been mentioned previously, looked to the back catalogue of quality strips and mixed that in with new strips in a similar vein.  You have the return of the VC's, Slaine back to it's former style and the resurrection of Johnny Alpha.  I would agree that the most successful new creations of the last few years have appealed to the sensibilities that were present in the best of the early years' strips.

So we now have a middle aged readership, with a leavening of new blood to give it a longevity that would otherwise be lacking.  The long history of many of the characters also gives Rebellion a dual market for the back catalogue, graphic novel releases that at one and the same time appeal to the seasoned readership through higher quality but more expensive releases against lower cost versions for those looking to gain an understanding of past glories.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories: unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade. These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

This. So very, very this.

Have all the Dragon Tales you want, Tharg, I thought, but keep the Dredd good and everything's fine.

The Dredd wasn't good, though. It featured mutant teddy bears and spitting contests (which a good Wagner Dredd might have thrown in as an aside, but not as the main theme of the fecking story).

If it hadn't been for some amazing John Smith stories (Firekind, Revere and Killing Time in particular) and Zenith 4, I might have jacked it in completely.

For me, the different atmosphere of the Summer Offensive, trashy and kitsch as it was, was a welcome break from the mediocrity, though such a throwaway approach couldn't really have lasted much longer than it did.

When Wagner came back all was fine.  Even Sláine got better then (well, I liked the Robin of Sherwood one, anyway).

[BPP]

Given those facts, it's difficult to support the theory that the comic lost readers because it ran a certain type of story, since it continued to lose readers when running previously successful strips in the 90s and when it ran better quality versions of those same strips in the 21st century.

I don't think its difficult at all. First of all no argument is absolute, these are all degrees. Ennis-Millar Dredd alienated a lot of readers, new unappealing central characters  alienated a lot of readers, 3rd wave artists learning their trade alienated a lot of readers. Its cumulative. But bad stories are bad stories be that for art or script reasons. Trash, Medvac, were simply a dull dog. It would be whether it ran then or now. 2000AD had a readership and then lost it.  Sure they kept trying stories with the 'key' characters but they didn't work - that was down to the talent around them, but it stories that appeared alongside, the sort that should have been providing new key characters.. they simply wheren't there and I'd say much of that was due to it misunderstanding it's audience and creating stories that had little appeal.  Id say these are the things that loyal readers began to get a disjunct with and eventually after probably buying the comic for  a decade they got to the high 700s / 800s and walked off.

Nowadays the comic seems to have a much surer hand on what appeals to its readers. And its not an update of Zippy Couriers or Hewligan's Haircut.

(BTW - even accepting your figures - Smith has been here 13 years - 10k loss according to you. Burton Mackenzie was 7 years and 50k loss according to you. That's not a similar attrition rate in the slightest).

[Skullmo]

For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent, Pat Mills' work with Tony Skinner was not a patch on his solo stuff, Alan Moore was gone, Peter Milligan was gone. The new writers were young and inexperienced and/or didn't care.

I used to read the stories and wonder why they were not as good - they generally looked great, but the stories were just going through the motions. I later learned that the older artists who used to work on it were masters in storytelling, something that a lot of the pretty painted artists were not. Maybe a lot of that came from editorial, they set the tone, they guided the writers and artists.

[Frank]

even accepting your figures - Smith has been here 13 years - 10k loss according to you. Burton Mackenzie was 7 years and 50k loss according to you. That's not a similar attrition rate in the slightest

I didn't say anything about annual losses, BPP. I said they'd lost a similar proportion of readers*.

Even by your attrition rate criteria, the 7 years of Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle resulted in a similar proportional loss (50%) as the same interval of Burton McKenzie. The pattern is long term loss, regardless of type and theme of strip.

Matt Smith is to be congratulated for either slowing or reversing that pattern by 2013, but the reader favourites of that era were by Ewing, Spurrier and Williams - and 80s faves like Stront, Bad Company & ABC Warriors are not uncontroversial.


* as an aside, my understanding is that readership dropped below the 15k figure quoted by The Guardian in 2013.

[Hawkmumbler]

Ah, 90's 2000AD. I wasn't their, have read very little from the period that isn't either Dredd or ABC's, and can't bring myself too either.

[James Dilworth]

mutant teddy bears

Ha!  I remember chuckling along to that one at the back of history class.  Tharg ruined my education!

[PsychoGoatee]

For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent

The Pit was in late 95 for example, and there was plenty of Wagner in 2000AD before that in the 90s too. It was only a few years out of the decade that had that particular issue.

But like others have said, lumping the whole decade into one critique does oversimplify it. We'd also be including Necropolis for example.