|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2016 18:55:43 GMT -5
I'm curious about the office controversies and "After the Music" accounts of why some creators left assignments and what office feuds caused changes in the comics world. I was responding to the 12 days Near misses and cited that Dan Jurgens missed my list. Then I remembered that he worked for Marvel in the 90's on a Spider-man title that lasted just 7 issues. I think he was fired because he didn't get along with some of the editors or other creators. Does anyone recall any other Office squabbles and the results?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 10, 2016 18:58:47 GMT -5
I think a book could be written about John Byrne's problems with editors alone. I always found the Steve Englehart era of FF interesting. I've never read his whole run, but I do know that he was asked to bring things back to basics at one point, and in protest he had himself credited as John Harkness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jan 10, 2016 19:19:25 GMT -5
All you need to do is hunt down older fanzines for interviews. Especially The Comics Journal which loved to give creators free rein to express themselves. You'll find out the definitive story- at least from one side of the argument- while it was still a fresh memory. Thats where I remeber all the Jim Shooter complaints from folks like Gene Colan, Marv Wolfman, Steve Gerber, John Byrne and even Roy Thomas for Pete's sake. I think Jim Starlin and J.M. DeMatteis were also on the list of disgruntled ex-employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 19:40:30 GMT -5
All you need to do is hunt down older fanzines for interviews. Especially The Comics Journal which loved to give creators free rein to express themselves. You'll find out the definitive story- at least from one side of the argument- while it was still a fresh memory. Thats where I remeber all the Jim Shooter complaints from folks like Gene Colan, Marv Wolfman, Steve Gerber, John Byrne and even Roy Thomas for Pete's sake. I think Jim Starlin and J.M. DeMatteis were also on the list of disgruntled ex-employees. I understand Shooter was responsible for making Starlin give Dreadstar a more super-hero look in the book to try to increase sales and it was one of the reasons Starlin eventually took the book to first. I know between the Jack Kirby original art controversy and the improvements in creator rights and royalties initiated by Jeanette Khan, Paul Levitz, and Dick Giordano at DC compared to what he was doing at Marvel, Shooter became a very unpopular figure in the comics industry in general in the 80s, and his specific disputes with creators only added fuel to the fire and drove a lot of talent away from Marvel. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2016 19:55:33 GMT -5
I remember Starlin saying he moved to First because he wasn't getting paid by Marvel. I assume that to mean he was paid late and sporadically. I don't remember Starlin bad mouthing Shooter. As for the costume change- when he went to First he could have changed it back if that was true. But anyway , because he owned, it he couldn't be forced to accept any editors suggestions if he didn't want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jan 10, 2016 20:00:58 GMT -5
All you need to do is hunt down older fanzines for interviews. Especially The Comics Journal which loved to give creators free rein to express themselves. You'll find out the definitive story- at least from one side of the argument- while it was still a fresh memory. Thats where I remeber all the Jim Shooter complaints from folks like Gene Colan, Marv Wolfman, Steve Gerber, John Byrne and even Roy Thomas for Pete's sake. I think Jim Starlin and J.M. DeMatteis were also on the list of disgruntled ex-employees. I understand Shooter was responsible for making Starlin give Dreadstar a more super-hero look in the book to try to increase sales and it was one of the reasons Starlin eventually took the book to first. I know between the Jack Kirby original art controversy and the improvements in creator rights and royalties initiated by Jeanette Khan, Paul Levitz, and Dick Giordano at DC compared to what he was doing at Marvel, Shooter became a very unpopular figure in the comics industry in general in the 80s, and his specific disputes with creators only added fuel to the fire and drove a lot of talent away from Marvel. -M As usual, mrp, you are spot on. Now, I always admired Shooter's writing skills as far back as when he just passed puberty and was doing the Legion. He had a good instinct for the comics business. His people skills, critical for a manger, seemed to be suspect. He really seemed to tick off the established writers at Marvel like Wolfman, Thomas , Gerber et al , enough for them to quit. Since at that time the industry only really consisted of Marvel and DC and not much else, quitting Marvel was a MAJOR move, not to be done lightly. Its possible Shooter learned from his managerial mishaps by the time he helmed Valiant. But all those I've listed, and I might have left a few others off the list (Kirby for one) all are in agreement that he would not compromise with how he felt a story should be told or what direction a series should take. The prerogative for a boss? Sure. But something was seriously wrong to lose all those people |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2016 20:06:12 GMT -5
I understand Shooter was responsible for making Starlin give Dreadstar a more super-hero look in the book to try to increase sales and it was one of the reasons Starlin eventually took the book to first. I know between the Jack Kirby original art controversy and the improvements in creator rights and royalties initiated by Jeanette Khan, Paul Levitz, and Dick Giordano at DC compared to what he was doing at Marvel, Shooter became a very unpopular figure in the comics industry in general in the 80s, and his specific disputes with creators only added fuel to the fire and drove a lot of talent away from Marvel. -M As usual, mrp, you are spot on. Now, I always admired Shooter's writing skills as far back as when he just passed puberty and was doing the Legion. He had a good instinct for the comics business. His people skills, critical for a manger, seemed to be suspect. He really seemed to tick off the established writers at Marvel like Wolfman, Thomas , Gerber et al , enough for them to quit. Since at that time the industry only really consisted of Marvel and DC and not much else, quitting Marvel was a MAJOR move, not to be done lightly. Its possible Shooter learned from his managerial mishaps by the time he helmed Valiant. But all those I've listed, and I might have left a few others off the list (Kirby for one) all are in agreement that he would not compromise with how he felt a story should be told or what direction a series should take. The prerogative for a boss? Sure. But something was seriously wrong to lose all those people Movement between the two companies seemed to be common in the 80's. He wrote some interesting things in his blog a few years ago about the writers that were doing the writer /editor scam. He put a stop to that and it ruffled some feathers. No one likes a boss that comes to a job and makes you work. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 10, 2016 20:11:45 GMT -5
I have to think that the less structured, less ridged, story telling style of the Bronze Age had a lot to do with the problems creators had with Shooter. It seems that editors and creators, particularly editors and writers, communicate better today and pretty much hash out the years events well in advanced. Back in the day, you had a lot of one-and-done stories and no six issue arc structure, so the editor's were probably more prone to be surprised or unsatisfied given that they didn't necessarily know what was coming well in advance. Maybe he had a lot to do with communication being limited to the phone and snail mail? If creators could message or email Shooter directly to hash out issues, perhaps things would have gone smoother?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 10, 2016 20:14:51 GMT -5
As usual, mrp, you are spot on. Now, I always admired Shooter's writing skills as far back as when he just passed puberty and was doing the Legion. He had a good instinct for the comics business. His people skills, critical for a manger, seemed to be suspect. He really seemed to tick off the established writers at Marvel like Wolfman, Thomas , Gerber et al , enough for them to quit. Since at that time the industry only really consisted of Marvel and DC and not much else, quitting Marvel was a MAJOR move, not to be done lightly. Its possible Shooter learned from his managerial mishaps by the time he helmed Valiant. But all those I've listed, and I might have left a few others off the list (Kirby for one) all are in agreement that he would not compromise with how he felt a story should be told or what direction a series should take. The prerogative for a boss? Sure. But something was seriously wrong to lose all those people Movement between the two companies seemed to be common in the 80's. He wrote some interesting things in his blog a few years ago about the writers that were doing the writer /editor scam. He put a stop to that and it ruffled some feathers. No one likes a boss that comes to a job and makes you work. Possibly with writers. Not with artists. The Late Gene Colan didn't have a single good thing to say about Shooter. And otherwise Colan seemed like an incredibly amiable guy. So there was clearly some smoke in the Shooter fire. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2016 20:17:03 GMT -5
Movement between the two companies seemed to be common in the 80's. He wrote some interesting things in his blog a few years ago about the writers that were doing the writer /editor scam. He put a stop to that and it ruffled some feathers. No one likes a boss that comes to a job and makes you work. Possibly with writers. Not with artists. The Late Gene Colan didn't have a single good thing to say about Shooter. And otherwise Colan seemed like an incredibly amiable guy. So there was clearly some smoke in the Shooter fire. He clearly didn't like Colan. Or maybe he thought Colan wasn't doing his best and was just phoning it in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 20:20:12 GMT -5
Will Eisner on the Kirby artwork fiasco...  The Comics Journal issue devoted to it...  the back cover ad run on all Eclipse comics for a while during the whole fiasco....  Shooter's internal memos and how he communicates company policy...  Just a few snapshots of how Marvel and Shooter as its faces was perceived. The Creator Bill of Rights, first drafted in 1988 was in reaction mostly to Shooter's policies at Marvel and took a lot of what DC was doing one step further. It was spearheaded by Scott McCloud, but several other prominent creators backed it.  The anti-Marvel sentiment of the 80s was not the tpical switching companies by a freelancer routine, there was a lot more to it and behind it. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 10, 2016 20:22:02 GMT -5
Colon was an older creator who already knew how to draw comics and wasn't as malleable or as easily intimidated as younger creators, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with it. Also, Colon's style was very unique and I get the feeling that Shooter, who always had a very mainstream mentality, didn't fully understand or appreciate Colon's talents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 20:27:36 GMT -5
The thing about Shooter was his about face once he got into power-he was one of the young comic guns standing with Neal Adams trying to form a comic book guild to fight for creator's rights, then he got the editorial position and became the champion of the other side trying to stomp down any talk of creator rights and creative freedom...
synopsis of attendees of Adams' guild meeting efforts...
That about face was what pissed off a lot of the creators, Shooter had been one them and their case, and they felt he betrayed them as soon as he got the power and position to actually do the cause some good.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 10, 2016 20:29:04 GMT -5
Possibly with writers. Not with artists. The Late Gene Colan didn't have a single good thing to say about Shooter. And otherwise Colan seemed like an incredibly amiable guy. So there was clearly some smoke in the Shooter fire. He clearly didn't like Colan. Or maybe he thought Colan wasn't doing his best and was just phoning it in. Or maybe he was an asshole. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jan 10, 2016 20:44:50 GMT -5
He was known in the Marvel Bullpen as "Genial" Gene Colan for a reason
Defending Jim Shooter from the dozen or so veterans who er, were not working hard enough? Bill Cosby should use that defense against all those who are trying to sue him
|
|
