|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Sept 13, 2007 12:23:22 GMT -5
He returns! forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=128352Anybody else excited to have Shooter writing a super team book again? I really am on the verge of cranking up a pull list and getting back into the new comics scene over this announcement.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Sept 13, 2007 13:59:11 GMT -5
Acc, I've never read a LoSH issue, and I won't start now. But perhaps if this is succesfull, he will do something for Marvel too...
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 13, 2007 19:13:05 GMT -5
I'm a Legion fan from waaaay back. He wrote some of their most memorable stories. I am looking forward to this!
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Sept 14, 2007 0:12:17 GMT -5
Not interested in DC product myself. However, I wish him success. Maybe it's a small step back toward Marvel and clearing out Joe Quesada's junta. I can dream, at least.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 8:12:01 GMT -5
I am looking forward to seeing what Shooter can do. I was put off a bit early in the interview by his "woe, O persecuted me" tone which is ofttimes evident when he speaks these days.
Certain Marvel creators should, however, take heed of this sage advice that Shooter gives:
Second, I personally just don't like it when everything changes every time a new writer or artist comes along. For instance, Francis wants to do new costumes. I suggested that we introduce them organically, within the story, rather than in a reboot way. Mike and Francis agreed, or, at least, are humoring me.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 9:15:12 GMT -5
I am looking forward to seeing what Shooter can do. I was put off a bit early in the interview by his "woe, O persecuted me" tone which is ofttimes evident when he speaks these days. Well, he has been persecuted. The reason this LoSH project took so long to see the green light at DC has a name: Mike Carlin. And be prepared to witness 1000 John Byrne interviews where he vows never to work for DC again.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 10:25:09 GMT -5
Perhaps if Shooter hadn't been an ass to so many people in the industry, the bed he lies in now might be more comfortable. He is skilled, to be sure, but the teen-wunderkind thing only lasted so long...
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Sept 14, 2007 11:10:18 GMT -5
Perhaps if Shooter hadn't been an ass to so many people in the industry, the bed he lies in now might be more comfortable. He is skilled, to be sure, but the teen-wunderkind thing only lasted so long... well shooter was hard on the talent and gave the fans some interesting stuff to read, whereas quesada treats the talent like his buddies and the fans get the shaft... sigh and now a disclaimer: the above statement is merely opinion and not necessarily representative of the views of the website and is not presented as fact. this is done to prevent anyone from acting as if a personal opinion is somehow wrong because you don't agree with the sentiments therein.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 11:46:24 GMT -5
well shooter was hard on the talent and gave the fans some interesting stuff to read, whereas quesada treats the talent like his buddies and the fans get the shaft... True enough, and I don't dispute that at all. He was good for the Legion, did some very memorable Avengers stories... My main point is that (from what I've read on the man) he treated people at times like dirt, and it just seems like now that it's water under the bridge he's ticked off that some people resented his micromanagement and oft-times tyranny. He just seems bitter toward some industry pros whom many others will tell you are swell guys. Well, it can't be both ways -- either Shooter treated them badly, or they're not nice guys. Seems to me that there are more opinions to support the former premise. But again, I don't want anyone to think that I am not curiously looking forward to his upcoming tenure on my second-favorite book. I'm just pointing out some issues among the pros given Shooter's status in the community.
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Sept 14, 2007 11:55:02 GMT -5
Shooter even ticked off Geroge Perez when Shooter said that the JLA/Avengers original crossover was not going to happen.
Then Shooter did New Universe and that was his downfall.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 13:29:38 GMT -5
My main point is that (from what I've read on the man) he treated people at times like dirt, and it just seems like now that it's water under the bridge he's ticked off that some people resented his micromanagement and oft-times tyranny. Tyranny? Because during his years as EiC people weren´t allowed to hack anymore? Artists had to meet deadlines? When someone came with silly ideas like making Mystique Nightcrawler´s FATHER the answer was "no"?
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Sept 14, 2007 13:29:53 GMT -5
well shooter was hard on the talent and gave the fans some interesting stuff to read, whereas quesada treats the talent like his buddies and the fans get the shaft... True enough, and I don't dispute that at all. He was good for the Legion, did some very memorable Avengers stories... My main point is that (from what I've read on the man) he treated people at times like dirt, and it just seems like now that it's water under the bridge he's ticked off that some people resented his micromanagement and oft-times tyranny. He just seems bitter toward some industry pros whom many others will tell you are swell guys. Well, it can't be both ways -- either Shooter treated them badly, or they're not nice guys. Seems to me that there are more opinions to support the former premise. But again, I don't want anyone to think that I am not curiously looking forward to his upcoming tenure on my second-favorite book. I'm just pointing out some issues among the pros given Shooter's status in the community. Oh I have no doubts that Shooter alienated any number of people. But sometimes good bosses do that. Marvel didn't exactly innovate under Tom deFalco's rule. From all accounts a nice guy, but does anybody even remember anything from his run? And Shooter managed to make money just about everywhere he went as a boss. Not saying he had to do it, merely that was his management style and it worked from a financial and critical standpoint just about every time he applied it. Not only that Shooter gave young lions like Miller and Sienkewicz their first steady gigs on regular titles. he could spot talent.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 13:32:56 GMT -5
Then Shooter did New Universe and that was his downfall. Err... not quite like that. The lack of support (and money) for the NU doomed the project. Shooter used the same premisse years later to create the Valiant Universe and it was a success, critically and commercially.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 13:51:25 GMT -5
Tyranny? Because during his years as EiC people weren´t allowed to hack anymore? Artists had to meet deadlines? When someone came with silly ideas like making Mystique Nightcrawler´s FATHER the answer was "no"? I would not argue the last comment. No-brainer. However, I would like a couple of examples of hackers from his pre-EiC days. Seems to me guys like Archie Goodwin, Gerry Conway, David Michelinie, Bill Mantlo, and Tony Isabella (et al.) were putting out decent-enough books in the late '70's-early '80's. And to be fair, one of the "nice guys" who Shooter apparently crapped on was Sal Busema. Talk about a guy who did everything and anything Marvel wanted in the 1970's -- the man was a deadline-beating machine. And, for the most part, his work was quality storytelling. It's only been as he's advanced in age that I haven't cared for his pencilling (because, Doom, it looks too much like JR Jr.!!).
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 13:52:51 GMT -5
Not only that Shooter gave young lions like Miller and Sienkewicz their first steady gigs on regular titles. he could spot talent. I'll give you Miller, but I have never, ever (OK, maybe early Moon Knight stuff) been a big fan of Bill Sienkewicz.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 13:54:30 GMT -5
Then Shooter did New Universe and that was his downfall. Err... not quite like that. The lack of support (and money) for the NU doomed the project. Shooter used the same premisse years later to create the Valiant Universe and it was a success, critically and commercially. I don't think Shooter had anything to do with the creation of Magnus or Solar. Others, I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I know the ones I mentioned were rescued from the 1960's minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:10:14 GMT -5
However, I would like a couple of examples of hackers from his pre-EiC days. Seems to me guys like Archie Goodwin, Gerry Conway, David Michelinie, Bill Mantlo, and Tony Isabella (et al.) were putting out decent-enough books in the late '70's-early '80's. Yes, but in the late 70s/early 80s he had already become EiC (Shooter became EiC in 1978). I was talking about the mid 70s. The talent was there (for the most part) but needed supervision and direction. Claremont wrote his best stories during the Shooter era as EiC. Same with David Micheline. And Shooter didn´t let writers edit their own work, what increased the quality of the books. There were no A-list books anymore, every book had to meet a level of quality. Marvel produced many crappy books in the mid 70s and had a big problem meeting deadlines. And to be fair, one of the "nice guys" who Shooter apparently crapped on was Sal Busema. I heard a story that Sal once asked who was this guy that in his late 20s thought he could tell a veteran like himself how to produce comics. Shooter replied that he started writing comics two years before Sal Buscema debuted as artist. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 14:14:46 GMT -5
Was Roy the EiC immediately in front of Shooter? After, I know there was a revolving door. Was Len Wein, among others, before or after Shooter?
I think a lot of the trouble with Marvel in the '70's was that they were just trying to bury DC so badly -- DC also pumped out several titles that didn't last a year in duration.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:15:35 GMT -5
Not only that Shooter gave young lions like Miller and Sienkewicz their first steady gigs on regular titles. he could spot talent. I'll give you Miller, but I have never, ever (OK, maybe early Moon Knight stuff) been a big fan of Bill Sienkewicz. OK, but personal preferences aside, Miller/Sienkiewicz Elektra Assassin revolutioned the industry back then. They were the vanguard of the comics industry. Shooter saw their potential.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:20:14 GMT -5
Err... not quite like that. The lack of support (and money) for the NU doomed the project. Shooter used the same premisse years later to create the Valiant Universe and it was a success, critically and commercially. I don't think Shooter had anything to do with the creation of Magnus or Solar. Others, I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I know the ones I mentioned were rescued from the 1960's minor leagues. Yes, Magnus, Turok and I think Solar too were originally Golden Key characters from the 60s, but had to be retooled for the modern audiences. But Harbinger, one of the best Valiant titles was his creation, just to stay with one example.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:23:50 GMT -5
Was Roy the EiC immediately in front of Shooter? After, I know there was a revolving door. Was Len Wein, among others, before or after Shooter? Here´s a small list, after Stan Lee and before Jim Shooter: Roy Thomas (1972-1974) Len Wein (1974-1975) Marv Wolfman (black-and-white magazines 1974-1975, entire line 1975-1976) Gerry Conway (1976) Archie Goodwin (1976-1978)
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:26:48 GMT -5
The New Universe concept later used in the Valiant line I was talking about was ordinary people with superpowers, or a more sci-fiesque approach to superheroes set in a world similar to our own.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 14, 2007 14:31:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the list; I could have looked it up and I appreciate that you did!!
My guess is that sharkar will be along soon to weigh in on this matter, as she is our resident Silver Age historian (yeah, I know this goes beyond, but she has a real mind for all things Marvel ;D).
I never really got into Valiant, although I know many friends who did.
Through all of this, I would offer this kudo to Shooter: when you look at the list you posted, vonBek, it could be said that Roy put a stamp on the MU. There then seems to be a gap, kind of a "what was going on that was lastingly important" until Shooter took the reins. Then, one could again see an EiC's impression on the company.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 14, 2007 14:38:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the list; I could have looked it up and I appreciate that you did!! The power of Google My guess is that sharkar will be along soon to weigh in on this matter, as she is our resident Silver Age historian (yeah, I know this goes beyond, but she has a real mind for all things Marvel ;D). Looking forward to her opinions
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Sept 15, 2007 11:32:22 GMT -5
I'll definitely try out Shooter's Legion. When I started reading the book I believe it was Cary Bates writing it, but I have gone back and read some of JS' issues. To be honest, I just want to have a Legion I can like. Although I have enjoyed Mark Waid's work before, I found his take on the Legion to be a terrific bore.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 15, 2007 16:26:24 GMT -5
First: dlw and von Bek - thanks! Second: I've posted a couple of times about my admiration for his writing (the LSH in the late 60s, Secret Wars). I think he was an underrated writer. His Legion stories were not formulaic, unlike most of DC at the time. It will be very, very interesting to see how he handles the team now! as for Shooter as EiC: I basically agree with what von Bek wrote some weeks ago:"Not only is the guy one of the best comic writers Marvel and DC ever had, his tenure as EiC saved Marvel back in the late 70s and brought a new golden age to the company and the books." (This is posted in the Silver Age Artists thread.) I was talking about the mid 70s. The talent was there (for the most part) but needed supervision and direction. Claremont wrote his best stories during the Shooter era as EiC. Same with David Micheline. And Shooter didn´t let writers edit their own work, what increased the quality of the books. There were no A-list books anymore, every book had to meet a level of quality. Marvel produced many crappy books in the mid 70s and had a big problem meeting deadlines. Exactly right. Von Bek succinctly hits on Shooter's achievements. Less succinctly: Basically, as Marvel EiC, Shooter had to impose stricter controls over creative people- -a situation guaranteed to make him enemies. He alienated a lot of talent because - -among other things- - he abolished the writer-editor role, so writers had less carte blanche over their books (as von Bek stated). Naturally, this"loss of control" bothered many veterans, including Roy Thomas (and he quit in 1980). But Shooter had the sense to install Archie Goodwin and a few others as editors, so now each book was reviewed and examined by people other than that book's writer. This ensured that the books were not subject solely to the writer's flights of fancy, that there was some objective guidance, so it could meet a "level of quality" (von Bek again). Shooter also insisted that the scripts/art be delivered on time. I recall Adams saying his art shouldn't be subject to deadlines and it was "worth waiting for" (true...), but someone in management replied it was not worth anything if it was too late to make that month's deadline. (I don't think it was Shooter who said this.) But this was Shooter's philosophy: deadlines had to be met (for financial reasons), which--again-- irked the talent. Things like submitting vouchers for payment (before the work was finished) became a thing of the past. As for Shooter's personal dealings...well, I think we can agree they seem less than exemplary. To cite but one example, he put Gene Colan through a lot. Gene was known for not reading plot synopses ahead of time (he liked to read "like a fan" and be surprised)...so he'd illustrate a story without knowing how it was supposed to end. By the time he got around to reading the entire plot, he'd already completed most of the art. So sometimes his art lacked "proper pacing" and he'd have to cram in a lot on the last page to finish up the story. Stan and some others put up with this because they liked "Genial Gene" and because his work was so singular. Shooter took a harder stance and kept sending Gene's work back to the artist for corrections. Gene finally quit (saying Shooter was harassing him), bringing Marvel a lot of bad publicity, and went to DC in '81 or so, which was quite a coup for DC at the time.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 15, 2007 21:12:00 GMT -5
See, I knew we'd get some more insight!
Thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 16, 2007 21:36:13 GMT -5
Thanks... and back at you, dlw--I think you, von Bek, bendisbites, and the others who have posted on this topic have provided much insight on Jim Shooter; I feel he is a seminal comics figure, so I've enjoyed reading everyone's responses. Not only that Shooter gave young lions like Miller and Sienkewicz their first steady gigs on regular titles. he could spot talent. Exactly right. He was a big proponent of getting newcomers nvolved in the business. In the way he was following the lead of Mort Weisinger, who also believed in hiring young talent (like Shooter, E. Nelson Bridwell--and for two weeks, Roy Thomas, before RT bolted to Marvel!) Weisinger- -though from all accounts a miserable person to work for- -insisted that Shooter learn as much as he could (during his summer vacations from high school, Shooter learned how to color and other production work). I believe JS was the one who instituted the young talent/production program called Romita's Raiders for newcomers (Romita was the art director at the time). Sure, they were doing grunt work (erasing pencil lines on inked pages, etc.) but this program provided invaluable experience and attracted people like Kyle Baker and Christopher Priest (which may be why there are favorable JS mentions on CP's website, which Tana mentioned earlier in this thread). Here´s a small list, after Stan Lee and before Jim Shooter: Roy Thomas (1972-1974) Len Wein (1974-1975) Marv Wolfman (black-and-white magazines 1974-1975, entire line 1975-1976) Gerry Conway (1976) Archie Goodwin (1976-1978) As you can see from the chronology von Bek posted, Goodwin was Shooter's predecessor as EiC. Goodwin did not like the headaches that came with the position so he resigned as EiC, with the intention of writing for Marvel instead. I mentioned that Shooter had the good sense to have the well-respected Goodwin as one of his editors. (After abolishing the writer-editor role, Shooter installed 2 or 3 editors who oversaw the books.) In case anyone is wondering, yes, Goodwin had been Shooter's boss before Goodwin resigned the EiC position. So when Goodwin became "just" an editor, to avoid an awkward situation (Goodwin now reporting to Shooter), it was agreed that Goodwin be told he was reporting to Stan and not Shooter. (From what I've read though Goodwin figured it out pretty quickly, but he never let on, at least not to Shooter.)
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Sept 17, 2007 12:53:39 GMT -5
As for Shooter's personal dealings...well, I think we can agree they seem less than exemplary. To cite but one example, he put Gene Colan through a lot. Gene was known for not reading plot synopses ahead of time (he liked to read "like a fan" and be surprised)...so he'd illustrate a story without knowing how it was supposed to end. By the time he got around to reading the entire plot, he'd already completed most of the art. So sometimes his art lacked "proper pacing" and he'd have to cram in a lot on the last page to finish up the story. Stan and some others put up with this because they liked "Genial Gene" and because his work was so singular. Shooter took a harder stance and kept sending Gene's work back to the artist for corrections. Gene finally quit (saying Shooter was harassing him), bringing Marvel a lot of bad publicity, and went to DC in '81 or so, which was quite a coup for DC at the time. According to Shooter the problem was that Gene Colan was "decompressing" the stories (many years before decompression became the norm) creating problems with the pacing of the story - like Sharkar said - and also didn´t want to draw backgrounds and add detail to the figures. So Shooter kept sending the art back to be re-drawn. The creative team for the Avengers in the early 80s should have been Bill Mantlo as writer and Gene Colan as artist, but because of those peroblems with Colan, who later moved to DC, Shooter started plotting the book himself. As for the creators who went to DC in the early 80s, most of them weren´t really doing very good work at Marvel, and with the exception of Wolfman and Perez, who saved DC with the instant hit "The New Teen Titans", almost noone created memorable work at DC either. Roy Thomas´ Infinity Inc. was OK, but didn´t met the quality or the high sales of the Teen Titans.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 17, 2007 13:51:18 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 adding of Power Girl, Robin, and Star-Spangled Kid to the "revival" of All-Star comics in the '70's could also arguably be labeled as the groundwork for the current "new guys/mentors" theme that has been JSA for quite some time -- Roy didn't have anything to do with that, however.
|
|