|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 10, 2016 21:03:47 GMT -5
IIRC, Shooter's chief complaint with Colan was that the latter had gotten lazy, designing pages that didn't tell the story clearly and getting careless with his figure work, resulting in characters with orangutan hands and "banana feet." Looking at Gene's work of that period, Jim might've had the germ of a point, but not enough of one to justify the disrespect he showed one of the company's artistic mainstays. Ultimately I think Shooter (unintentionally) did Colan and his fans a huge favor: moving to DC reinvigorated his work.
Cei-U!
I summon the fresh start!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2016 21:07:58 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 I guess it's all about how you perceive his role in his job as EIC. He didn't own Marvel and if the big shots upstairs wanted to deny Kirby because they feared he might eventually sue them for part ownership of the characters, he had to follow their directives or get fired. He wrote about the Creators guild and he knew it would result in many of them losing their livelihood. Work for hire usually wins everytime it's challenged. I'm not going to take the job of being an apologist for Shooter, some hated him and some loved him and some just did their work. |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Jan 11, 2016 3:35:14 GMT -5
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. I still contend that Jim's biggest problem was coming up under Mort, therefore he never saw anything he did was as bad as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 11, 2016 6:52:48 GMT -5
There were a few times Steve Engelhart was mad with Marvel. He was upset when Roy Thomas wrote the first issue of Giant-Size Avengers #1 and his run for Fantastic Four ended with him using an alias instead of his name.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 11, 2016 7:20:30 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? From the research I've been able to do on this, Dan Jurgens wasn't fired but rather quit Sensational Spider-Man after 7 issues. He had been a huge advocate to bring back Peter Parker as the "real" Spider-Man, as Ben Reilly was being pushed as the real one at the time by management, but he had been told to hold off until after the Onslaught crossover finished. According to a couple of sources (Wikipedia being one of them, in the interest of full disclosure), Jurgens had gotten tired of Marvel's group-planning, constant crossovers, and last-minute changes and delays to storylines, so he walked away from the title. It didn't completely sour his relationship with Marvel, however, as he later worked on both Thor and Captain America in the post-Onslaught MU. He worked on the Thor title from issue #1 until #79, only skipping the final storyline ("Ragnarok")in the series, and he started on Cap with issue #25 and wrote that until the series wrapped up with issue #50. The first three issues of that run, featuring Cap and Falcon against a group of supremacists led by Hate-Monger, were the first three Cap issues I ever bought off the rack; I should get to those issues in my Captain America review thread (shameless plug!) by the time my younger one heads off to college (she's currently in 2nd grade). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 10:32:25 GMT -5
I think a book could be written about John Byrne's problems with editors alone. The temperament and inflated ego of John Byrne, HA, surely there is enough there for an entire book, no doubt! |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jan 11, 2016 11:51:29 GMT -5
I think a book could be written about John Byrne's problems with editors alone. The temperament and inflated ego of John Byrne, HA, surely there is enough there for an entire book, no doubt! It's a book Byrne would surely be more than happy to write, since it's about his favorite subject. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 11, 2016 14:37:18 GMT -5
IIRC, Shooter's chief complaint with Colan was that the latter had gotten lazy, designing pages that didn't tell the story clearly and getting careless with his figure work, resulting in characters with orangutan hands and "banana feet." Looking at Gene's work of that period, Jim might've had the germ of a point, but not enough of one to justify the disrespect he showed one of the company's artistic mainstays. Ultimately I think Shooter (unintentionally) did Colan and his fans a huge favor: moving to DC reinvigorated his work. Cei-U! I summon the fresh start! Kurt beat me to it, though I believe Shooter wasn't the only person who had trouble with Colan's storytelling. (A side issue may have been that Colan's pencils seem very hard to ink.) |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 11, 2016 16:16:04 GMT -5
I read most of Shooter's blog - It was very entertaining and well written, but he basically ALWAYS casts himself as the victim or the hero, and you never hear "I made a mistake" or "I handled that situation badly."
Makes it really hard to believe his point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 11, 2016 18:30:04 GMT -5
I read most of Shooter's blog - It was very entertaining and well written, but he basically ALWAYS casts himself as the victim or the hero, and you never hear "I made a mistake" or "I handled that situation badly." Makes it really hard to believe his point of view. He did take the blame for a few things. He took it for Avengers #200. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 11, 2016 18:31:17 GMT -5
IIRC, Shooter's chief complaint with Colan was that the latter had gotten lazy, designing pages that didn't tell the story clearly and getting careless with his figure work, resulting in characters with orangutan hands and "banana feet." Looking at Gene's work of that period, Jim might've had the germ of a point, but not enough of one to justify the disrespect he showed one of the company's artistic mainstays. Ultimately I think Shooter (unintentionally) did Colan and his fans a huge favor: moving to DC reinvigorated his work. Cei-U! I summon the fresh start! Kurt beat me to it, though I believe Shooter wasn't the only person who had trouble with Colan's storytelling. (A side issue may have been that Colan's pencils seem very hard to ink.) There's at least two sides to a story. Sometimes people get into a rut , maybe he thought Colan wasn't trying his best. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 11, 2016 18:37:45 GMT -5
I read most of Shooter's blog - It was very entertaining and well written, but he basically ALWAYS casts himself as the victim or the hero, and you never hear "I made a mistake" or "I handled that situation badly." Makes it really hard to believe his point of view. He did take the blame for a few things. He took it for Avengers #200. I was going to mention that in the original post, because this was the only time I remember he kinda/sorta/a little bit took the blame for anything, ever. Like, I really specifically remember that being unusual for Shooter, so it stuck out in my memory! Here's the post. And he says that he doesn't remember anything about it and that the editors of the specific book signs off on the plot, not him. (But that the book was really bad and he does end with "I take full responsibility. I screwed up. My judgment failed, or maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention. Sorry. Avengers #200 is a travesty.") |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 11, 2016 18:41:21 GMT -5
He did take the blame for a few things. He took it for Avengers #200. I was going to mention that in the original post, because this was the only time I remember he kinda/sorta/a little bit took the blame for anything, ever. Like, I really specifically remember that being unusual for Shooter, so it stuck out in my memory! Here's the post. And he says that he doesn't remember anything about it and that the editors of the specific book signs off on the plot, not him. (But that the book was really bad and he does end with "I take full responsibility. I screwed up. My judgment failed, or maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention. Sorry. Avengers #200 is a travesty.") He impressed me as a stand up guy in his blog, but of course he's going to think he was right in his tenure as EIC. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 11, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
He impressed me as a really good *writer*...
But I've read a fair number of autobiographies and memoirs (probably half of 'em comics, because I try to read all the critically well received comics and a lot of THOSE are memoirs) and I'd say 95% of 'em express more regret about past decisions and are more open to admitting personal failings than Shooter's.
That's a big 'ol red flag to me.
You don't have to be Joe Matt, but most people look back at past dealing and say "I dealt with that situation poorly, here is what I did wrong, and here is what I should have done" about SOMETHING in their life.
And the Avengers 200 thing that you mentioned - where Shooter says he doesn't remember anything - was the only time he even came sort of close to doing that in tens of thousands of words. (Er... that *I* remember.)
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 11, 2016 22:54:19 GMT -5
Or maybe he was an asshole. I still contend that Jim's biggest problem was coming up under Mort, therefore he never saw anything he did was as bad as that. Though I don't know what the truth is behind Shooter's tenure at Marvel, I'm amazed that he could - as a kid - work for Mort Weisigner when adults couldn't stand the guy. According to Shooter, Weisigner didn't cut him any slack on account of his youth either. |
|
