|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 28, 2009 23:21:06 GMT -5
I was told that Shooter drove off alot of writers, Frank Miller said when he presented the story where Bullseye kills Elektra Frank said that Jim sighed and looked like he had a headache. I heard that Shooter felt that Jean Grey got off to easy in the original ending of the Dark Phoenix Saga so he said kill her off and X-MEN fans weren't happy about it. I've read varying things on the whole death of Phoenix. As I understand, Claremont and Byrne originally let their attachment to the character say she could still be redeemed, but eventually they realized they'd written themselves into a corner after she killed the D'Bari solar system (?) and so as a fitting climax to an epic story, she had to die. Claremont is more accepting of it now, definitely. www.biffbampop.com/2009/06/biff-bam-pop-exclusive-death-jean-and.htmlAnd I guess Claremont accepted it even way back when because when they decided to bring Jean back the FIRST time, he was actually against it... www.jean-grey.com/chris-claremont-speaks-about-jean-greys-return.phpAs to Frank Miller, well a) Frank did kill her off so he got the ending he wanted and b) he then resurrected her fairly quickly so maybe Shooter realized this was too strong a character to just kill off. Regardless, Frank got the ending he wanted and if he had to kvetch a little bit, in the Marvel of the 1980s that wasn't such a big deal. Try doing half this stuff at DC at the time. In fact if Miller hadn't been kicking butt so strongly with his Marvel stuff, DC never would've loosened the reins enough to let him do Dark Knight and Ronin a few years later. By the way, DC actually had Miller first, they had him doing backup stories in their horror and Sci-fi books. Marvel really let him cut loose, otherwise he might have been doing Air Wave eight page fillers in Action Comics..
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 29, 2009 17:10:18 GMT -5
I never heard that he had any issue with Elektra's death, but I do recall hearing that he insisted that Jean Grey must be killed.
This is one of those situations where Jim was trying to impose his vision of the overall Marvel Universe on his stable of writers, many of whom did not share his vision. It happens all the time in large collaborations, even in other media. It's amazing how many writers Aaron Sorkin and JMS ticked off during their television producing days--said freelance writer might want to go in one direction, but the boss says to go in another direction. That's just the way it is, unfortunately, because the boss (in this case, Shooter) is the one who is still going to be shepherding the direction and themes of these characters after the individual writer heads off for greener pastures.
I've always respected Jim's opinion on this one. It wasn't a popular position to take (and admittedly, I've only read the story once, years ago, because I'm not a huge X-Men fan), but he had a clear vision of the themes and ideas that he wanted portrayed in Marvel's line of comics. Many creators were unhappy about it, but that's the way it goes sometimes. He was the one entrusted with the editorial line, and at the end of the day, it's his call.
Now, admittedly, I'm not nearly as supportive editorial mandates that I don't like. The Spider-Divorce is an obvious example. I HATE that decision, but at the end of the day, it was the EIC's call, regardless of whether I or the writer like it. All I can do to show my displeasure is to stop buying Spider-Man comics (which I have done).
That's just the way the game is played.
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Apr 3, 2010 13:34:58 GMT -5
To tell you the truth Thunderstrike78, Not many fans liked the idea of Peter and Mary Jane being married.
Even Alex Ross didn't like the marriage he say's marriage makes the characters unappealing.
And what I said about Frank and Jim Shooter....Frank didn't say anything bad about Jim but what he said about him looking like he had a headache maybe Jim had a rough day.
Frank never said that Jim had a problem with Elektra dieing Jim loved the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 26, 2015 5:41:29 GMT -5
Tana Nile said:
Shiryu wrote:
Major thread necromancy here but the difference between 70s Marvel and Shooter era is something of interest to me.
I'm very much a Shooter fan and I think the comics produced in his era speak for themselves.
However, I think there is a kernel of truth in what Tana Nile said. Personally I think the creative peaks are greater in number during the Shooter era but both saw a great deal of very mediocre comics published.
What interests me here is the different attitudes. I've read that people in the industry assumed that the Silver Age revival of superheroes was a fad and that they were looking for the next big thing throughout the 70s (as the industry also faced tougher times). As a result you see a lot of fad or craze driven comics in that period. Horror in the form of Dracula and Werewolf by Night, even Tigra, Kung Fu with Iron Fist and Master of Kung Fu, Evil Kenievel style stunt biking (+ a bit of horror) with Ghost Rider, sword and sorcery with Conan and Red Sonja, giant monsters and robots like Godzilla or Shogun Warriors, types of sci fi and fantasy with Guardians of the Galaxy, Deathlock, John Carter, Killraven and so on.
A lot of Marvel's best material from this time, and the most striking creativity, is from these kinds of titles.
By contrast Shooter seems to have been very much a believer in Marvel's core superheroes and of course in the Marvel Universe as a cogent shared continuity. He appears to have been very focused on putting the best talents and the most reliable people on the core titles and nearly all of these feature a runs that most fans consider to be classics and amongst the very best during his tenure. Him and Michelinie (with Perez and Byrne) and later Stern and Buscema on the Avengers, Claremont's X-Men, Simonson's Thor, Miller's Daredevil, Stern and JRjr on Spider Man, Michelinie ad JRjr on Iron Man, De Matteis and Zeck on Cap (and the brief Stern/Byrne run too).
By contrast there's a lot less of the zanier stuff and there's far fewer new stand alone new characters with their own books. New characters tend to be tied to teams (like Rogue for instance).
Shooter tended to be regarded as a commercial Attila the Hun at the time and by his detractors (and people like Gary Groh have continued to demonize him on this basis, as have the rabid Kirbyites for whom anyone who got in Jack's way no matter how unrealistic his demands must be the devil). These arguments look weaker over time. Shooter was undoubtedly a shock to the system for the longhairs at 70s Marvel and appeared to be the herald of corporate evil. However he was clearly heavily invested in good storytelling practice and also in improving the lot of comic book creators. Compared to the rabid commercialism and the manifold evils that have ensued in the comics industry Shooter's own account of himself as walking the line between commerce and art in a time when commercial forces were becoming much more powerful and bringing themselves to bear seems fairly convincing.
I'm more a fan of the Shooter era than that immediately preceding it but I do think that the 70s saw greater risk taking on ideas that weren't simply toy or franchise tie ins. I don't think that equates with the 70s being more creative as I think that Marvel's established superhero titles saw great creativity and major storylines under Shooter but it is a different kind of creativity.
|
|