|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 17, 2014 12:46:59 GMT -5
And if Brubaker's Cap is brought out as an example of how awesome Quesada's era as EIC was I'll need to splash cold water on my face.
It's a good run, maybe great, I have it in its entirety, but at the end of the day it is an homage to the Moench-Gulacy Master of Kung Fu which, you know, wasn't edited by Joe Quesada.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:49:04 GMT -5
Name-calling is usually the tactic of those incapable of backing up their own opinion, and suggests an intellectual deficiency on their behalf. It's also impossible to debate with, because there's no reasonable response. I dunno. I just finished reading a novel involving cheerleaders (Megan Abbott's Make Me), & evidently those can be some complex individuals. (Evil, too.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:49:25 GMT -5
Roy Thomas presided over an era that nearly put Marvel out of business. The books were always late, creators out of control, editors writing their own books with no oversight. It's not hyperbole, Marvel was losing money to the point that they were on the verge of shutting down. Maybe if you want to talk about Jim Shooter, who revived the company to the point where they absolutely dominated DCin sales in the early part of the 80s, you might have a legitimate argument. All Quesada did was bring the company out of bankruptcy to the point where Disney bought Marvel for hundreds of millions. But yes, they do make extra covers that their customers seem to enjoy buying from them. A pox on them all! You do know that Marvel became the #1 comics publisher under Roy Thomas regime in the early 70s? Some books might have been late but nothing like these days.Seen Hawkeye recently? Creators out of control? Who are you referring to? And what do you mean by out of control?Running around in the hallways? The comics industry as a whole was being challenged at the newstands and then Roy Thomas swung a deal with George Lucas and made Marvel a ton of money with Star Wars Disney bought Marvel for its intellectual properties and merchandising potential.On many characters Roy Thomas helped develope.Quesada or the comics had nothing to do with it I'll grant you the Star Wars point, but he did that after Shooter took over, and it saved the company from bankruptcy, which he helped put it in. Creators were out if control, using narcotics in the hallways of the office, double-invoicing for their work, writing fake letters to answer in the mailbag |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:51:27 GMT -5
And if Brubaker's Cap is brought out as an example of how awesome Quesada's era as EIC was I'll need to splash cold water on my face. It's a good run, maybe great, I have it in its entirety, but at the end of the day it is an homage to the Moench-Gulacy Master of Kung Fu which, you know, wasn't edited by Joe Quesada. I agree, good not great |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:53:54 GMT -5
Name-calling is usually the tactic of those incapable of backing up their own opinion, and suggests an intellectual deficiency on their behalf. It's also impossible to debate with, because there's no reasonable response. I dunno. I just finished reading a novel involving cheerleaders (Megan Abbott's Make Me), & evidently those can be some complex individuals. (Evil, too.) I'm looking forward to starting The Boys of '67 by Andrew Wiest, which I just purchased. Reading, like name-calling, is something most adults learned in kindergarten |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 17, 2014 12:55:04 GMT -5
Obviously, most here are going to have a strong bias for "the good old days of yore." I was very fond of the Heroes Return era and the Busiek/Perez Avengers run specifically, and I'm convinced that that was what really got the ball rolling for Marvel's resurgence. (Sort of how the Claremont/Byrne era go things going for Marvel in the 80's)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:55:08 GMT -5
I'll grant you the Star Wars point, but he did that after Shooter took over Not sure about that. According to Wikipedia (not necessarily definitive, of course, but the best source of info I could come up with on short notice), Shooter succeeded Archie Goodwin as EIC in '78. The first Star Wars movie came out in 5/77 (I graduated from high school that day or the day after, so the date is fixed in my mind), & the first issue of the comic presumably before that. |
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Jul 17, 2014 12:56:26 GMT -5
Shooter took over in January 1978. The Star Wars license was obtained in late 1976 going in to 1977. Archie Goodwin was the EIC then.
That was Steve Englehart who wrote his own letter to respond to concerning the mind-blowing Sise-Neg saga that he did with Frank Brunner. Classic! Classic!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:57:09 GMT -5
I dunno. I just finished reading a novel involving cheerleaders (Megan Abbott's Make Me), & evidently those can be some complex individuals. (Evil, too.) I'm looking forward to starting The Boys of '67 by Andrew Wiest, which I just purchased. Reading, like name-calling, is something most adults learned in kindergarten Go ahead & make me feel bad for never having attended kindergarten (it was private when & where I was growing up), why don't you. Meanie. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jul 17, 2014 12:58:09 GMT -5
You do know that Marvel became the #1 comics publisher under Roy Thomas regime in the early 70s? Some books might have been late but nothing like these days.Seen Hawkeye recently? Creators out of control? Who are you referring to? And what do you mean by out of control?Running around in the hallways? The comics industry as a whole was being challenged at the newstands and then Roy Thomas swung a deal with George Lucas and made Marvel a ton of money with Star Wars Disney bought Marvel for its intellectual properties and merchandising potential.On many characters Roy Thomas helped develope.Quesada or the comics had nothing to do with it I'll grant you the Star Wars point, but he did that after Shooter took over, and it saved the company from bankruptcy, which he helped put it in. Creators were out if control, using narcotics in the hallways of the office, double-invoicing for their work, writing fake letters to answer in the mailbag I may be wrong, but I believe most of what you're referring to happened under other editors. Roy was only EiC from 1972-1974. Most of the major problems with Marvel cropped up during the rotating editorships that followed, specifically Len Wein, Marv Wolfman and Gerry Conway. I think Archie Goodwin was EiC when Star Wars came out. I'm not sure why this discussion has become an argument over whether Roy Thomas or Joe Quesada are better editors. While I am a huge Thomas fan and Quesada's reign drove me away from Marvel after 25 years as a fan, that's more a matter of personal taste than a reflection on their abilities as EiC. I think both of them were very good EiC's, far better than most. In terms of really good EiCs after Stan Lee, Thomas, Quesada and Shooter are pretty much the whole list. Both Thomas and Quesada were far better than most of the people who came in between them. If we want to argue about terrible editors, let's talk about Conway or Wolfman or Bob Harras. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:58:49 GMT -5
Shooter took over in January 1978. The Star Wars license was obtained in late 1976 going in to 1977. Archie Goodwin was the EIC then. That was Steve Englehart who wrote his own letter to respond to concerning the mind-blowing Sise-Neg saga that he did with Frank Brunner. Classic! Classic!!!! Supposedly, some of the anti-Kirby letters in the wake of his revamping of Black Panther & Captain America were Bullpen-generated fakes. All I know is the one I wrote lamenting the Panther overhaul was the real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 12:58:54 GMT -5
I'll grant you the Star Wars point, but he did that after Shooter took over Not sure about that. According to Wikipedia (not necessarily definitive, of course, but the best source of info I could come up with on short notice), Shooter succeeded Archie Goodwin as EIC in '78. The first Star Wars movie came out in 5/77 (I graduated from high school that day or the day after, so the date is fixed in my mind), & the first issue of the comic presumably before that. Yeah, those dates sound right. Point being, the company wasn't exactly in great shape, despite how fondly anyone remembers liking the comics themselves |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jul 17, 2014 13:00:38 GMT -5
You do know that Marvel became the #1 comics publisher under Roy Thomas regime in the early 70s? Some books might have been late but nothing like these days.Seen Hawkeye recently? Creators out of control? Who are you referring to? And what do you mean by out of control?Running around in the hallways? The comics industry as a whole was being challenged at the newstands and then Roy Thomas swung a deal with George Lucas and made Marvel a ton of money with Star Wars Disney bought Marvel for its intellectual properties and merchandising potential.On many characters Roy Thomas helped develope.Quesada or the comics had nothing to do with it I'll grant you the Star Wars point, but he did that after Shooter took over, and it saved the company from bankruptcy, which he helped put it in. Creators were out if control, using narcotics in the hallways of the office, double-invoicing for their work, writing fake letters to answer in the mailbag Ben, thats pretty weak.Are you saying only under Roy's regime that drugs or alchohol were used on the Marvel premises?And since work is pretty much done at home now,is Quesada to blame if the inker lights up a joint in his living room? And are you saying double-invoicing or unauthorized business lunches never occurred except when The Rascally One was in charge? By the way,Mark Evanier just did a great write up on fake letters at newsfromme.com.Seems to have been going on a long time and Roy's name was never mentioned.Nor was it just a marvel thing. And you do know there were 4 or so editors between Roy and Shooter.So what year did Marvel almost shut down? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 13:01:29 GMT -5
Point being, the company wasn't exactly in great shape, despite how fondly anyone remembers liking the comics themselves Oh, it definitely wasn't. I was wrong, of course, but I remember predicting in a letter to some fanzine circa 1977 that Marvel & maybe DC would be publishing only TV- & movie-based titles by 1980. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 13:06:41 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but using drugs in the workplace is a tad more unprofessional than what you do in the privacy of your own home. Maybe that's just me
|
|
