|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 8:05:09 GMT -5
I've been reading and re-reading these posts and I did not know all the troubles that he has and I thought he did a good job as Editor and among other things as well - but his management style did not suit very well and I felt that he had a ego problem as well. I was sad that Jack Kirby left Marvel Comics and went to DC Comics to do the Forever People and created Mister Miracle and among others including Big Barda and that's one of the many reasons that I like about Kirby's work at DC Comics.
Your (all of you here that contributed to it) posts here is quite enlightening and I've learned a lot from you guys here and I did not know all the problems that was contributed to Marvel Comics in the 80's and the 90's and learning from you guys here that Jim Shooter had lots of problems to deal with. I've might have to change my mind here but listening to my friends back home and I trust them implicitly - I'm having a hard time changing it.
This thread is a challenging one to discuss here and I'm really learning a lot from all of you here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 24, 2017 8:11:15 GMT -5
Kirby did not leave to do the fourth world stuff because of Shooter. Although I'm sure a few people here want to blame him for that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 24, 2017 8:21:20 GMT -5
Kirby did not leave to do the fourth world stuff because of Shooter. Hey, we found something we agree upon. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 24, 2017 9:11:04 GMT -5
Shooter was still in high school when Kirby left Marvel in 1970.
And not a single one of those writer/editors, including Stan Lee, wouldn't have benefited from having a second set of eyes providing some editorial guidance. As our buddy Dan has pointed out, comics were the only place in the publishing industry where writers edited their own work. It's just not a good idea.
Cei-U!
I summon the timeline!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 24, 2017 9:24:40 GMT -5
I'm thinking that at the beginning of Marvel age, Lee was probably doing everything. It was seat of the pants stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 24, 2017 9:32:09 GMT -5
Shooter was still in high school when Kirby left Marvel in 1970. And not a single one of those writer/editors, including Stan Lee, wouldn't have benefited from having a second set of eyes providing some editorial guidance. As our buddy Dan has pointed out, comics were the only place in the publishing industry where writers edited their own work. It's just not a good idea. Cei-U! I summon the timeline! Always have a need for proof-reading. But when you have veteran established editors of entire lines of comics like Stan, Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Will Eisner and more, I hardly think them editing their own books is taboo. Then again, comics were the only industry in modern times with work-for-hire standards too |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 24, 2017 9:33:04 GMT -5
Byrne hosted a party where Shooter was burned in effigy. There was definite hostility there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 24, 2017 10:28:03 GMT -5
Byrne hosted a party where Shooter was burned in effigy. There was definite hostility there. He didn't host that party when he was making a million dollars being the top artist under him. Also, what kind of hateful person do you have to be to actually host a party like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 24, 2017 10:29:42 GMT -5
Shooter was still in high school when Kirby left Marvel in 1970. And not a single one of those writer/editors, including Stan Lee, wouldn't have benefited from having a second set of eyes providing some editorial guidance. As our buddy Dan has pointed out, comics were the only place in the publishing industry where writers edited their own work. It's just not a good idea. Cei-U! I summon the timeline! Always have a need for proof-reading. But when you have veteran established editors of entire lines of comics like Stan, Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Will Eisner and more, I hardly think them editing their own books is taboo. Then again, comics were the only industry in modern times with work-for-hire standards too It's not about your writing ability, it's about getting an extra paycheck for "editing " your own stuff. #Scam. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 24, 2017 10:45:15 GMT -5
Always have a need for proof-reading. But when you have veteran established editors of entire lines of comics like Stan, Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Will Eisner and more, I hardly think them editing their own books is taboo. Then again, comics were the only industry in modern times with work-for-hire standards too It's not about your writing ability, it's about getting an extra paycheck for "editing " your own stuff. #Scam. That's the biggest BS I ever heard. But then again, you got that from Jim Shooter's blog |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 24, 2017 10:56:07 GMT -5
Always have a need for proof-reading. But when you have veteran established editors of entire lines of comics like Stan, Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Will Eisner and more, I hardly think them editing their own books is taboo. Then again, comics were the only industry in modern times with work-for-hire standards too It's not about your writing ability, it's about getting an extra paycheck for "editing " your own stuff. #Scam. Editing is more than proofreading your own work; it's also about finding the artists and planning the publication of your books. That work has to be done by a writer-editor just as much as by a regular editor. I think the writer-editors just wanted the freedom to do what they wanted with their book. Not being told they must kill characters, or that Wolverine has never killed anybody or can't smoke anymore. Or that Colossus and Kitty being in love is too creepy. Some writers can deal with that, others can't (or would rather not)... especially when they're veterans like Wolfman or Thomas. I'm not condemning Shooter for his take on the writer-editor status. He had his position, Thomas had his own, and that's that. In the final analysis, if you're not the boss, it's harder to call the shots. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 24, 2017 12:06:37 GMT -5
Writer/editors made sense when comics were basically small shops, and it worked for Eisner, Feldstein, Kurtzman, Hughes, Biro, etc. But by the 70s, Marvel's characters were worth big money outside the comics context and it made sense to have editors who weren't just proofreaders, but also looked to the long-term viability of the characters. (This might have been another lesson Shooter got from Weisinger, whose vision of Superman and ancillary characters was consistent and successful for many years.)
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 24, 2017 17:35:41 GMT -5
Was it Jim Shooter that rewrote David Michelenie's story for Avenger's #200 so that Ms Marvel was raped and then gives birth to the rapist. And the Avengers witness the whole thing and have no problems with it www.geekinsider.com/on-the-rape-of-ms-marvel/Really? An issue with four co-plotters credited and yet Shooter deserves all the blame? I won't deny that office politics had their role in this debacle but I have yet to read any substantive claim that Shooter himself was solely responsible for this plot idea. Supposedly, Michelinie's original idea was for the Supreme Intelligence to be responsible for her pregnancy, which would fit with Carol's background and connection to Kree evolution. But apparently, concerns were that this plot may have too many similarities with a concurrent issue of What If?
(Possibly What If? #20)
Thus the need for three extra co-plotters to resolve the problem. But again, I've seen little to no charge that it was Shooter's sole idea even though as EIC, he ended up approving it. And lest we forget, Shooter was also EIC for the apology:  As for Claremont's scathing retort, while needed, he went too far in having Carol blame ALL of the Avengers. At the time she left with Marcus, only three Avengers were actually present: Hawkeye, Thor, and Iron Man. Hardly the stalwart paragons of understanding the female perspective. Of the three, only Tony voiced some initial concern and when he brought it up again in the next issue, Thor shut him up. So it's fair to say that afterwards, they informed the rest of the team of Carol's 'decision' and having little reason to question their view or opinion, why would they feel the need to 'rescue' Carol? So Shooter ends up authorizing the correction to the mistake of which he was party. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Mar 24, 2017 17:43:50 GMT -5
I enjoyed the set up to the Korvac saga but it really lost it's way towards the end. That surprises me. Avengers #177, the conclusion to the Korvac story, is an issue I actually keep a spare reading copy of because it's always been one of my favourite Marvel comics ever. No idea why. But I don't think Marvel have done "cosmic" as well since. A terrific conclusion of a strong arc. The overwhelming disadvantage they faced and still strove to fight against, I haven't seen anything to match that until Starlin and Infinity Gauntlet. Shooter's second run held some good moments aside from the Fall of Pym. Tigra's membership offered up a general outsider's view of the team and what it takes to be a member. Tigra's doubt over fulfilling such a potential was keenly felt in the Molecule Man story, which also had Steve finally learning Thor and Iron Man's secret identities. How can you not feel charged seeing Cap leading mere Tony Stark and mortal Don Blake into battle alongside the Silver Surfer? |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 24, 2017 18:47:44 GMT -5
Was it Jim Shooter that rewrote David Michelenie's story for Avenger's #200 so that Ms Marvel was raped and then gives birth to the rapist. And the Avengers witness the whole thing and have no problems with it www.geekinsider.com/on-the-rape-of-ms-marvel/Really? An issue with four co-plotters credited and yet Shooter deserves all the blame? He deserves the ultimate blame. It was he who rejected the original resolution of the plot and other alternatives. And he with Michelenie came up with the worst possible choice. Layton and Perez only contributed incidental story elements, not the main ending. So Shooter was the cause of changing the original ending and aided and finally approved the travesty it became. If you're going to be a heavy-handed EIC then you take the criticisms as well as the accolades |
|
