|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 7:21:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 7:22:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 7:47:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 8:06:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 8:07:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 9:22:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Sept 24, 2016 13:08:45 GMT -5
Well, apart from wanting to strangle that camera operator, that was very interesting. I've personally never felt that Shooter was deserving of much of the derision that's heaped upon him, and even if you disagree with the decisions and changes he implemented during his tenure as EiC at Marvel, they certainly don't rise to a level of wickedness that warrants his being deprived of the ability to earn a living in his chosen profession.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 13:18:33 GMT -5
Most of my dislike for Shooter comes from how he handled himself and the things he did and said during the whole Kirby original art debacle in the mid-80s, but he is a polarizing figure.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 14:21:27 GMT -5
He was the face of Marvel during that time but I think the suits upstairs, that never even opened a comic book,
Were the true bad guy's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 14:26:15 GMT -5
He was the face of Marvel during that time but I think the suits upstairs, that never even opened a comic book, Were the true bad guy's. Except Shooter was the one presenting himself as a champion of creator rights and being the guy who would stand up for creators, except when it actually came time to stand up for creators. He may not have been "the bad guy, he certainly wasn't on the side he claimed to be, and the character he showed during that time was of self-interest and hypocrisy rather than the image he tried to portray as a heroic champion of creators. -M |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 24, 2016 17:51:32 GMT -5
I'm sad that Shooter, and others he's mentioned like Roger Stern, don't have work available to them.
The Kirby art work is the negative that sticks in my mind the most, but I also remember creatives talking badly about Shooter. The first one that comes to mind is Frank Miller.
Having said that, Shooter did a lot of things right. I don't think any of the E-i-C's to the present have done as good a job as Shooter did back then.
I love what he did with Valiant. I read all the Defiants and loved where they were going up to Schism, that never happened. I've got a couple of Broadways but remember nothing about them.
When Dark Horse had Shooter revisiting the Gold Key characters I was really hopeful, but the sales were terrible. Shocked that they didn't sell better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 24, 2016 18:05:49 GMT -5
With Shooter, you have to take the good with the bad.
You might like his writing and editorial decisions
His handling of people, however, was atrocious. Simply look up all the people who denounced him in interviews or quit companies because they couldn't work with him. Then try to find people who praise working with him for an extended time
I think, as a member of management where you are affecting peoples lives as well as their families, it's your people skills that are more important to your legacy than writing Avenger stories
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 19:08:18 GMT -5
And yet, he had people that followed him to Valiant and the other companies and that were fiercely loyal to him. Roger Stern was among them. I followed his blog a few years ago and he broke up the writer/ editor scam that many of the Marvel creators were using. It didn't make him any friends by doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 24, 2016 19:11:45 GMT -5
He was the face of Marvel during that time but I think the suits upstairs, that never even opened a comic book, Were the true bad guy's. Except Shooter was the one presenting himself as a champion of creator rights and being the guy who would stand up for creators, except when it actually came time to stand up for creators. He may not have been "the bad guy, he certainly wasn't on the side he claimed to be, and the character he showed during that time was of self-interest and hypocrisy rather than the image he tried to portray as a heroic champion of creators. -M Maybe it was overstated, but he DID institute the royalty program. That's a fact. He might have been tough but he got the books to go out on time and he had top creators do their best work of their careers. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 24, 2016 20:05:51 GMT -5
Except Shooter was the one presenting himself as a champion of creator rights and being the guy who would stand up for creators, except when it actually came time to stand up for creators. He may not have been "the bad guy, he certainly wasn't on the side he claimed to be, and the character he showed during that time was of self-interest and hypocrisy rather than the image he tried to portray as a heroic champion of creators. -M Maybe it was overstated, but he DID institute the royalty program. That's a fact. He might have been tough but he got the books to go out on time and he had top creators do their best work of their careers. No, he DID NOT institute the royalty program. He had to react to what was already being offered at DC and the various independant publishers.That's the fact. I don't give Shooter any credit for "top creator's doing their best work of their careers". I give all that credit to the creators themselves. Imagine the work they could have done if Shooter championed creator rights and these folks had a opportunity to be rightfully rewarded for the work they created. We've had several similar threads before where you championed Jim Shooter because he was nice to you at a convention and you liked some of the work he was involved in. And then find excuses for all his faults. Nothing much left to say about it |
|
