|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 22, 2017 16:23:23 GMT -5
For the way that he treated Gene Colan, I will never have any respect for Jim Shooter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 22, 2017 16:24:11 GMT -5
The members of this forum may or may not know that I'm a big Jim Shooter fan and supporter. My opinion of his tenure as EIC is an A-. He straightened out all the scammy Writer/Editor job and had enough foresight to let top talent run free on various titles like Thor, Daredevil, FF. He gets the "-" because the way he was fired at the end. But all things come to an end. It's too bad that he burned bridges with too many people and couldn't get work afterwards. I loved his Valiant and Broadway companies, but I wasn't to crazy about the Defiant stuff. Served him right. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 22, 2017 16:26:25 GMT -5
You reap what you sow, man.
|
|
rickd
Junior Member
Posts: 9 
|
Post by rickd on Mar 22, 2017 16:31:37 GMT -5
Stan Lee was by far, Marvel's most creative and innovative EIC. Shooter was good, Lee revolutionized comics.
|
|
rickd
Junior Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rickd on Mar 22, 2017 16:32:19 GMT -5
Also, hi guys.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 22, 2017 18:18:30 GMT -5
Hi rickd. Welcome to the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Mar 22, 2017 18:30:27 GMT -5
Stan Lee was by far, Marvel's most creative and innovative EIC. Shooter was good, Lee revolutionized comics. According to who you ask, Stan had little to no involvement with the books besides just fixing the occasional grammatical error. But yes, the atmosphere of an epic drama to rival that of Shakespeare that he filled the books with as well as the "bullpen mystic" were undeniably his own creation To be perfectly frank, I preferred Roy's tenure as EIC moreso than Shooter or Stan Also, welcome~ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 18:34:32 GMT -5
The members of this forum may or may not know that I'm a big Jim Shooter fan and supporter. My opinion of his tenure as EIC is an A-. +1 on this... |
|
rickd
Junior Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rickd on Mar 22, 2017 18:42:20 GMT -5
Stan Lee was by far, Marvel's most creative and innovative EIC. Shooter was good, Lee revolutionized comics. According to who you ask, Stan had little to no involvement with the books besides just fixing the occasional grammatical error. But yes, the atmosphere of an epic drama to rival that of Shakespeare that he filled the books with as well as the "bullpen mystic" were undeniably his own creation To be perfectly frank, I preferred Roy's tenure as EIC more than Shooter or Stan I rather enjoyed Roy's era myself, as that was when you had the fantastic science fiction, fantasy and horror titles going on. However, what Stan did was to create a single editorial voice that went across the entire line. There was never any doubt that the guy talking to you in those little boxes was Stan Lee, no matter if the book was Spider-Man or Millie the Model. The only other person who ever came that close to a single editorial vision was Harvey Kurtzman, and poor Harvey never quite got there because of his conflicts with Gaines. |
|
rickd
Junior Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rickd on Mar 22, 2017 18:48:16 GMT -5
The members of this forum may or may not know that I'm a big Jim Shooter fan and supporter. My opinion of his tenure as EIC is an A-. He straightened out all the scammy Writer/Editor job and had enough foresight to let top talent run free on various titles like Thor, Daredevil, FF. He gets the "-" because the way he was fired at the end. But all things come to an end. It's too bad that he burned bridges with too many people and couldn't get work afterwards. I loved his Valiant and Broadway companies, but I wasn't to crazy about the Defiant stuff. I never understood just what exactly there was that Shooter did to earn him a reputation as a good editor. That he let Frank Miller, Walter Simonson and John Byrne create great comics is not exactly a risky move on his part. The vast majority of the main titles, Iron man, the Avengers etc were pretty terrible throughout the late 1970's and the mid 1980's. We would sit there at Comics & Comix seeing all the brilliant work coming out of DC, First, Eclipse and Pacific and then look at the subpar comics Marvel was producing and wonder what the hell happened to this once great company. Shooter sent Marvel into a quality decline in both art and writing that to this day they have never quite recovered from. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 18:59:00 GMT -5
Maybe six months ago I saw a post on Facebook by a former Marvel creator, I believe a colorist, who said he one day got a random call from Shooter asking him what his page rate was. When told what it was, he said Shooter immediately doubled the rate. Needless to say, the creator was very pleased. I wish I had documented who the creator was now, but I don't recall.
|
|
rickd
Junior Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by rickd on Mar 22, 2017 19:16:23 GMT -5
Maybe six months ago I saw a post on Facebook by a former Marvel creator, I believe a colorist, who said he one day got a random call from Shooter asking him what his page rate was. When told what it was, he said Shooter immediately doubled the rate. Needless to say, the creator was very pleased. I wish I had documented who the creator was now, but I don't recall. Doesn't matter, it's probably true. But at the same time, that's one of Shooters biggest problems as an editor. He could be a good guy who cared about his employees one minute and the spawn of Mort Weisenger the next. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 22, 2017 19:39:49 GMT -5
The members of this forum may or may not know that I'm a big Jim Shooter fan and supporter. My opinion of his tenure as EIC is an A-. He straightened out all the scammy Writer/Editor job and had enough foresight to let top talent run free on various titles like Thor, Daredevil, FF. He gets the "-" because the way he was fired at the end. But all things come to an end. It's too bad that he burned bridges with too many people and couldn't get work afterwards. I loved his Valiant and Broadway companies, but I wasn't to crazy about the Defiant stuff. I never understood just what exactly there was that Shooter did to earn him a reputation as a good editor. That he let Frank Miller, Walter Simonson and John Byrne create great comics is not exactly a risky move on his part. The vast majority of the main titles, Iron man, the Avengers etc were pretty terrible throughout the late 1970's and the mid 1980's. We would sit there at Comics & Comix seeing all the brilliant work coming out of DC, First, Eclipse and Pacific and then look at the subpar comics Marvel was producing and wonder what the hell happened to this once great company. Shooter sent Marvel into a quality decline in both art and writing that to this day they have never quite recovered from. Have to disagree, During that time the Avengers and Ironman were great. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 19:45:45 GMT -5
I never understood just what exactly there was that Shooter did to earn him a reputation as a good editor. That he let Frank Miller, Walter Simonson and John Byrne create great comics is not exactly a risky move on his part. The vast majority of the main titles, Iron man, the Avengers etc were pretty terrible throughout the late 1970's and the mid 1980's. We would sit there at Comics & Comix seeing all the brilliant work coming out of DC, First, Eclipse and Pacific and then look at the subpar comics Marvel was producing and wonder what the hell happened to this once great company. Shooter sent Marvel into a quality decline in both art and writing that to this day they have never quite recovered from. Have to disagree, During that time the Avengers and Ironman were great. The Demon in a Bottle storyline, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 22, 2017 20:23:39 GMT -5
Whatever his flaws, I can't forget that it was Jim Shooter who gave me my shot at going pro back in '81. During that period, he was never less than kind, patient, and encouraging, even telling me at one point that I had the potential to be the next John Byrne. That I failed to live up to that potential wasn't his fault. My association with him ended by mid-1982, before his megalomaniacal tendencies began to affect the books, but in that time I came to respect Shooter's grasp of how the medium worked (even if I found his personal approach to storytelling too conservative for my taste). Much as I might criticize him, I will always have warm feelings for Jim.
Cei-U!
I summon the half-assed apologia!
|
|
