|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Sept 17, 2007 13:55:10 GMT -5
Highly talented people often have difficulty working well with their colleagues. As a fan, I don't care whether DC or Marvel are nice places to work. I am. however, a big fan of most of the Marvel books that came out under Shooter, and I'm looking forward to his return to the Legion.
|
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 17, 2007 14:21:01 GMT -5
One could argue, however, that in spite of less-than-spectacular sales at the time, Roy's Infinity Inc. was the groundwork for DC's current commercial success, JSA. The idea is interesting, but I don´t see how. The Infinity Inc. was more or less a Earth 2 version of the Titans (there is some speculation that one of the reasons for CoIE was to move the title - among others - to the then current DC universe Earth, to see if it could so become more succesful), younger heroes at odds with the "old guard". From the original Infinity Inc only Rick Tyler is a member of the current JSA, a legacy team, unlike Infinity Inc. And the Infinity Inc. female Doctor Mid Night, female Wildcat and many other characters are gone and forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 17, 2007 15:02:57 GMT -5
Mmmmm... female versions of many (previously) male heroes...  Makes you wonder... Is Bendis too young to have written those stories under a pen name...  |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 18, 2007 10:28:56 GMT -5
It's certainly good to hear that Shooter is back.
I'm an admirer of his achievements and have little doubt that I've always been a Marvelite thanks to his tenure as EiC for a large part of my youth.
He certainly does seem to have had a knack for getting on the wrong side of people but if you're the boss for ten years and don't get on anyone's back you're probably not doing your job. In John Byrne's case (of whom I'm also a fan) the record suggests a very cantankerous individual who seems capable of getting into feuds with pretty much anyone.
I suspect that Shooter's immense success (I understand Marvel had a 70% share of the market at the height of his tenure) played a part in his downfall. The market leader, and in this case dominator, is always going to attract ire from dissenters ( and should do really- it's healthy for the medium). A number of Marvel lines in the era were undenibly bland and commercial, but that should be balanced with the brilliant things that were done and the talent that was fostered. If Shooter's own version is to be believed he was actually holding the tides of commercialism at bay and ended up isolated as the classic man in the middle who wasn't supported by his staff or his bosses- he was no longer able to keep anyone happy. My own impression of the industry bears this out as rampant commercialism followed his departure and ultimately lead to crisis at Marvel and disillusionment with the customers.
I suspect, from Shooter's own comments, that he had fairly restrictive ideas about storytelling that I don't entirely agree with and I can understand why some of the creative talent became fustrated with this. OTOH after his departure there is clearly a lack of editorial control at Marvel with storylines appearing which really sould have been stopped (some were good stories but were inappropriate in mainstream Marvel books). The continuity and internal logic of the MU was mucked up by the creatives being given too much freedom (Claremont's X-Men suffered from his worst pulp sci-fi leanings post-Shooter for one). Sometimes they were brilliant but they also stuffed up sometimes and over time the build up of contradictions became far too obvious and perhaps insurmountable (the kind of thing that made DC have to have a complete reboot).
In this context I think the best testament to the Shooter era was the 'Marvel Universe' line. These showed an internally consistent world that's, at least superficially, guided by rational principles. This is surely what Stan and Jack aimed for back in the day. For me Marvel under Shooter was still Marvel, I'm not sure it is any more. I haven't read the newer versions of Marvel Universe but I doubt they can attain the same level of internal concistency across the line that the originals did.
BTW someone mentioned Quesada as a nemesis earlier. I understood he was on record as a Shooter fan and tried to get him to work for Marvel a few years ago. My impression was that this was sabotaged by threats of mutiny from within the company. Is this correct?
On another subject I always thought DC's revival was fairly simple. When I was a kid no one I knew was interested in DC books. It was really 'Dark Knight Returns' that made people interested in the characters again. It was a turning point. They then got Byrne on Superman (he was really the prime example of Marvel's 'house style' in the eighties) and put Perez on Wonder Woman (long overdue to do one of the core titles). I've never really had any doubt that this was the crucial period in the company's change in fortunes. They were basically 'Marvelising' DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Sept 18, 2007 12:21:34 GMT -5
I just HAD to exalt you, crimsoncowl... excellent post...!
We don't see as many of these lately around here as I'd like: you state your opinions clearly and in a reasonable, dispassionate tone...
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 18, 2007 12:36:22 GMT -5
I'm honoured Doc.
Incidentally I found the answer to my Q about Quesada. Shortly after posting I found the link to a Shooter interview that explains his falling out with Tom Brevoort in another thread.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 18, 2007 12:38:08 GMT -5
I just HAD to exalt you, crimsoncowl... excellent post...! We don't see as many of these lately around here as I'd like: you state your opinions clearly and in a reasonable, dispassionate tone... Agreed! And a kudo from me, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 18, 2007 13:12:26 GMT -5
On another subject I always thought DC's revival was fairly simple. When I was a kid no one I knew was interested in DC books. It was really 'Dark Knight Returns' that made people interested in the characters again. It was a turning point. They then got Byrne on Superman (he was really the prime example of Marvel's 'house style' in the eighties) and put Perez on Wonder Woman (long overdue to do one of the core titles). I've never really had any doubt that this was the crucial period in the company's change in fortunes. They were basically 'Marvelising' DC. I would say the 'Marvelization' of DC began in the late 70s/early 80s, the turning point being Wolfman and Perez Teen Titans. DC even tried to 'Avengerize' the JLA with the Detroid League, all this some years before The Dark Knight Returns and Byrne´s Man of Steel. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 18, 2007 15:23:20 GMT -5
Von Bek wrote:
I would agree with you (to some extent) about Teen Titans, but I'm not really familiar with the other stuff you mentioned (as I wasn't very interested in DC). I guess I would interpret it differently. Teen Titans was really one of the few bright spots for DC in this period and along with Swamp Thing (sometimes) garnered some interest from a Marvel obsessed market (as I remember it anyway). I would tend to take the view that the success of these titles influenced DC's future approach rather than actually being the turning point in themselves. My own view would be that when DC's major titles (rather than Teen Titans) adopted a new approach was when things really started to shift. This is necessarily subjective as it's a matter of interpreting trends.
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Sept 21, 2007 13:43:39 GMT -5
I have never never liked Shooter or anything he did at Marvel but I would welcome him with open arms if he came back and got rid of the jerks running the show today.
|
|
Hourman
Probationary Avenger
Posts: 83
|
Post by Hourman on Sept 24, 2007 10:58:05 GMT -5
Infinity Inc, was a version of the Teen Titans, but it was also a vehicle for Roy Thomas to get some milage out of the 1980s JSA w/o having a JSA book. He already was using a lot of them in his All-Star Squadron, but he wanted to make some current day stories as well, so he used the sons/daughters/godchildren aspect to make them part of the stories.
The Titans, on the other hand, had very little to do with the JLA anymore. Robin, Wonder Girl and Kid Flash had long since broken away from the mentors, and the early stories especially focused on the new Titans: Cyborg, Changeling, Raven and Starfire.
What doomed Infinity Inc. was Crisis. Thomas tried to salvage something by bringing in the new Wildcat, Dr. Mid-Nite, Hourman and so on, but the characters weren't particualrly interesting, and in the case of Mid-Nite and Hourman, their costumes were pretty ugly.
The villians also looked too corny for a 1980s book -especially, given what was going on in Titans.
The makeover the JSA received about 5-10 years ago was what should have happened in Infinity... much better characterization and the villians are much stronger (i.e. Johnny Sorrow)
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Sept 26, 2007 9:36:22 GMT -5
Shooter was also the guy who thought Jean Grey got off to easy
in the Dark Phoenix saga so he said that Jean has to die.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 26, 2007 23:34:47 GMT -5
Shooter was also the guy who thought Jean Grey got off to easy in the Dark Phoenix saga so he said that Jean has to die. Yes, this is true, and I've always wondered how different X-Men would've been if Claremont and Byrne had been able to proceed with their original plans. Maybe we wouldn't have had to put up with Jean dying and being resurrected umpteen times if they'd just done the psychic lobotomy instead! |
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Sept 27, 2007 8:21:54 GMT -5
The death of Jean Grey was a great story -- really provided a fitting climax to the Dark PHoenix Saga. Without the death, it really would have been less of an event.
The sad part is that they felt a need to resurrect her. That's where it went wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 27, 2007 9:17:58 GMT -5
The death of Jean Grey was a great story -- really provided a fitting climax to the Dark PHoenix Saga. Without the death, it really would have been less of an event. The sad part is that they felt a need to resurrect her. That's where it went wrong. Truer words were never spoken. And the sad part is that they keep ressurecting her to kill her again. |
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 27, 2007 9:58:56 GMT -5
The death of Jean Grey was a great story -- really provided a fitting climax to the Dark PHoenix Saga. Without the death, it really would have been less of an event. The sad part is that they felt a need to resurrect her. That's where it went wrong. Agreed, the original story was very affecting, at the time. Unfortunately, the repeated rebirths and deaths have diminished its significance in the Marvel Universe. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 27, 2007 10:15:55 GMT -5
That may be one positive of trade paperbacks (and of course the Dark Phoenix Saga lies outside the current "writing for the tpb" mode): stories that are for the most part self-contained can still have some sentimental or shock value, especially if nothing further is read.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 27, 2007 19:28:19 GMT -5
The sad part is that they felt a need to resurrect her. That's where it went wrong. And the sad part is that they keep resurrecting her to kill her again. Unfortunately, the repeated rebirths and deaths have diminished its significance in the Marvel Universe. I agree Jean's (first) death was a very powerful chapter in Marvel's history and Marvel could have stopped there. But later on, when tptb took the Phoenix name literally, the idea that death/resurrection are a constant with this character- - whether she's a person or a force or an entity or whatever- -grew on me. I like that the character, even when she's enjoying one of her revivals, is caught in a tragic cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jun 15, 2009 21:05:48 GMT -5
Giving this one a bump back to the front page in light of the Shooter discussion that's going on over in the DC section.
Good stuff in this one, some of it is repeated in the modern version that's building these days.
|
|
Makes you wonder... 
