|
Post by badwolf on Jan 11, 2018 14:18:09 GMT -5
There's an apocryphal story that a writer (supposedly Don Cameron) got so fed up with Mort Weisinger being a jerk that he dangled Weisinger out a window. It seems likely that some version of this story happened at DC, because I've seen versions of it several times, but just who was involved is a matter of debate. IN an interview, Bob Haney said he heard it was actually Bob Kanigher who was dangled out a window. Reminds me of the equally apocryphal story of Harlan Ellison throwing a fan down an elevator shaft.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 11, 2018 18:55:05 GMT -5
There's an apocryphal story that a writer (supposedly Don Cameron) got so fed up with Mort Weisinger being a jerk that he dangled Weisinger out a window. It seems likely that some version of this story happened at DC, because I've seen versions of it several times, but just who was involved is a matter of debate. IN an interview, Bob Haney said he heard it was actually Bob Kanigher who was dangled out a window. Reminds me of the equally apocryphal story of Harlan Ellison throwing a fan down an elevator shaft. Ellison debunked that in the documentary Dreams with Sharp Teeth, while talking with Robin Williams. He does confirm sending a dead animal to a critic (second class post), sending a copy to every piece of published work to a teacher that said he would never amount to anything, and breaking the hip of someone on an Irwin Allen production, while trying to punch him in the mouth. In that story, he was across a table, in a conference, with someone (exec, story editor, producer or some such) and something was said that set Harlan off (like, I don't know, "Good morning...") and Ellison came over the top of the table to punch him, slipped on papers on the desk and fell forward while punching the guy, causing the recipient to fall over backwards in his chair, into the wall, dislodging a large model of the Seaview (from Voyage Beneath the Sea), which fell and smashed the guy's hip. My favorite of those kinds of stories is one that has been fairly well corroborated; but, which the man can't speak about, due to a settlement. On the set of Steven Seagal's movie Hard to Kill, he had been less than respectful to the stunt guys who were taking bumps for him. He supposedly mouthed off about how tough he was and how none of the stunt guys could take him down. One of them, a smaller, older guy with balding red hair and a fireplug body said he could. Seagal said okay and the stunt guy proceeded to slap a chokehold onto Seagal and put him out. There are at least two versions of what happened next. One says Seagal was awakened and stormed off the set for the rest of the day. The other says he was revived and said the guys couldn't do that if he was ready for him and his opponent said to let him know when Seagal was ready. He then proceeded to put Seagal asleep with the exact same chokehold. Seagal was then revived and stormed off the set. The little fireplug guy with the balding red hair was "Judo" Gene LeBell, former AAU judo champion, alternate to the US Olympic judo team, stunt man, pro wrestler, martial arts trainer for various police agencies and the military, trainer of a few MMA fighters, and also the man who trained Bruce Lee in grappling techniques, which he incorporated into Jeet Kun Do. Gene can be seen doing stunts with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, David Carradine (on the Kung Fu tv series), and with Henry Winkler, in the wrestling comedy The One and Only (loosely inspired by Gorgeous George). LeBell was also the referee for the Muhammad Ali-Antonio Inoki fight, pitting boxer against wrestler in a legit, though rather boring fight.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 17, 2018 14:43:24 GMT -5
Jim Shooter on Bill Mantlo:
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 17, 2018 14:44:20 GMT -5
Jim Shooter recalls the departure of John Byrne for DC:
Brett Breeding responded:
Denny O'Neil responds:
Shooter recalls the time that Chris Claremont had Arcade strike a match on Dr. Doom's armor, and later John Byrne "revealed" that it was really a Doombot, because Dr. Doom would never have permitted such insolence:
Shooter again:
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 17, 2018 14:45:06 GMT -5
Some recollections from Peter David and John Byrne about an episode (n.b. I respect both these guys but just find the ins and outs of working in the biz interesting):
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 17, 2018 14:56:12 GMT -5
Jim Shooter recalls the departure of John Byrne for DC: Brett Breeding responded: Denny O'Neil responds: Shooter recalls the time that Chris Claremont had Arcade strike a match on Dr. Doom's armor, and later John Byrne "revealed" that it was really a Doombot, because Dr. Doom would never have permitted such insolence: Shooter again: The Denny O'Neil aspect is even more interesting to me. Supports a lot of what I've noted in my Batman review thread. Thanks much for compiling these!
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Aug 17, 2018 22:44:45 GMT -5
This is very good timing. I met and talked with Mr. O'Neil just before he left Marvel. I think some of it had something to do with some negative attention the G.I. Joe comic was getting in Canada at the time, and maybe I got the impression he was not big on war stories or at least not this one. Later when I discovered he'd moved over to DC I wondered if it had been over being put on the spot by Canadian media to defend the popular G.I.Joe as a representative of Marvel. He'd handed me a business card for me to get into contact later, it had Spider-Man on it, I thought afterward that he might've been heading for the door there when he handed it to me. We'd also talked about adult comics and Green Lantern/Green Arrow and was that a good fit superheroes with adult concerns. But I secretly all this time was thinking he'd left Marvel because of G.I.Joe and maybe even 'Nam or Savage Tales magazine. In 1994 I seemed to be about to be assigned a regular job at DC as an inker after performing a bunch of samples on a variety of pencillers and turning them in very fast and saying it's what whould be done in a real situation, not necessarily perfection. I was in contact with Neal Pozner (and to a lesser extent Dean Motter). I received a letter (had some before as well) on the DC stationary with the super characters on the back holding up the logo on the top front from Pozner saying Motter was probably already in touch about the assignment, or going to be, and then nothing. I tried to re-establish contact, even with Dick Giordano who I'd met in person twice, once with his wife, but nobody told me anything. I remember I was doing some of the trial pages while the Vancouver Canucks played the New York Rangers for the Stanley Cup in hockey (over the radio while I worked). Anyway, I wondered if it was because I said something negative about the Lobo title in one letter or phone call and figured that had scotched things. I wondered if it was a Rangers fan thing even, because there had been a freaking riot in Vancouver when the Rangers won. I wondered if they'd been fired. Or the company had an implosion. I even was angry a bit, then thought if it was over Lobo I would've turned it down anyway. Recently I found out through the internet, don't know why I'd never looked that way before, and saw Mr. Pozner had died of AIDS complications in June 1994. I cried. I would've been working at DC for a rate that meant I could leave my day job where working for a small publisher I simply couldn't (and it was 26-28 pages b&w monthly, more than DC would need in a month by quite a few pages and with extra shading involved, I was taking six weeks and still working a day job). Totally different life, not saying better or worse, but I got some stick from other artists that I was making the whole thing up and exaggerating even with the letter in my hand making it clear I was about to get a regular assignment of some kind. I still wonder what it would've been. I had almost no contact with comic connected things or people from 1996 until a couple years ago. I don't know, I'm kind of shaken up about this and still processing it, seems so silly I didn't know all this time. I even asked people a few times over the years. Did they think I was being sick or something? Couldn't somebody tell me? It was a total stranger a few weeks ago who responded to my wondering about the whole situation on a comic forum. R.I.P. Neal.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 17, 2018 23:19:40 GMT -5
Pozner's death was a big shock to people, at the time and there were glowing tributes from people who knew him.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 18, 2018 0:16:58 GMT -5
I have to admit, I don't like what I've heard or read about Shooter's editorship at Marvel but it's interesting to read these behind-the-scenes account, even though I wasn't even reading Marvel through most of the 80s and don't know much about the books or series he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Bronze age andy on Aug 18, 2018 5:58:34 GMT -5
Just looking over those stories from Shooter, O'Neil, Byrne and David....
I can't imagine how much anxiety Gruenwald, DeFalco et al must have been having.
The thought "Keep your head down and power through" must have been a constant.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 18, 2018 10:54:10 GMT -5
Now for a less horrific story about this cover, courtesy of Sean Howe on Tumblr:
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 18, 2018 11:38:10 GMT -5
breaking the hip of someone on an Irwin Allen production, while trying to punch him in the mouth. In that story, he was across a table, in a conference, with someone (exec, story editor, producer or some such) and something was said that set Harlan off (like, I don't know, "Good morning...") and Ellison came over the top of the table to punch him, slipped on papers on the desk and fell forward while punching the guy, causing the recipient to fall over backwards in his chair, into the wall, dislodging a large model of the Seaview (from Voyage Beneath the Sea), which fell and smashed the guy's hip. So, Ellison was inept at basic assault, and forgetting that Allen (or one of his staff) could have pressed charges against him, and being employees of somewhat straight-laced 20th Century Fox of the 60s, it would have stuck. Many of Allen's key production staff of that period were far older than Ellison, so his attacking any of the people i'm aware were working for Allen makes Ellison come off like a punk trying to show "he had a pair". Not.
|
|
|
Post by String on Aug 18, 2018 11:46:09 GMT -5
I've been reading Sean Howe's book about Marvel and it's certainly been an eye-opener.
Naturally, there's an entire section devoted to 'Trouble' Shooter and Howe details the events that rberman has highlighted here with O'Neil, Byrne, PAD, and such. Even reading this, I'm still on the fence about Shooter. It appears that he was trying to reclaim control of the books from the creative excess that flowered in the 70s and bring it back more in line under editorial control. Given the complicated nature of the fictional universe by that time and the growing number of titles that were being published, this would seem to make sense.
I'm biased though in this case because Marvel of the 80s was my introduction to them, it's hard for me to see that Shooter may have been doing egregious things compared to the quality of the books being produced. In the end, I know it basically comes down to He Said vs He Said mentality but still, it's a fascinating look into the behind-the-scenes of the company and business.
I've gotten to the excesses of the 90s and I will say, my opinions of McFarlane and Liefeld have degraded quite a bit while my respect for Lee has somewhat improved.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 18, 2018 11:59:37 GMT -5
I've been reading Sean Howe's book about Marvel and it's certainly been an eye-opener. Naturally, there's an entire section devoted to 'Trouble' Shooter and Howe details the events that rberman has highlighted here with O'Neil, Byrne, PAD, and such. Even reading this, I'm still on the fence about Shooter. It appears that he was trying to reclaim control of the books from the creative excess that flowered in the 70s and bring it back more in line under editorial control. Given the complicated nature of the fictional universe by that time and the growing number of titles that were being published, this would seem to make sense. I'm biased though in this case because Marvel of the 80s was my introduction to them, it's hard for me to see that Shooter may have been doing egregious things compared to the quality of the books being produced. In the end, I know it basically comes down to He Said vs He Said mentality but still, it's a fascinating look into the behind-the-scenes of the company and business. I've gotten to the excesses of the 90s and I will say, my opinions of McFarlane and Liefeld have degraded quite a bit while my respect for Lee has somewhat improved. It's all a messy business. The most obvious bad guys were at the top, squeezing the company for their own financial gain. At the bottom was the pressure of declining news-stand sales and the need to expand the LCS market. The creators were caught in the middle, feeling the squeeze from both sides. I've read Howe's book, and while with hindsight we can see judgment calls that would have been better differently, and perhaps times he was looking after his own interests rather than his staff, it seems that he at least wanted to do right by everyone, which is more than can be said for many of his bosses. Fan-turned-creator-turned-administrator is going to be a tough place to live in any field that's not prospering.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 18, 2018 12:49:56 GMT -5
I've been reading Sean Howe's book about Marvel and it's certainly been an eye-opener. Naturally, there's an entire section devoted to 'Trouble' Shooter and Howe details the events that rberman has highlighted here with O'Neil, Byrne, PAD, and such. Even reading this, I'm still on the fence about Shooter. It appears that he was trying to reclaim control of the books from the creative excess that flowered in the 70s and bring it back more in line under editorial control. Given the complicated nature of the fictional universe by that time and the growing number of titles that were being published, this would seem to make sense. I'm biased though in this case because Marvel of the 80s was my introduction to them, it's hard for me to see that Shooter may have been doing egregious things compared to the quality of the books being produced. In the end, I know it basically comes down to He Said vs He Said mentality but still, it's a fascinating look into the behind-the-scenes of the company and business. I've gotten to the excesses of the 90s and I will say, my opinions of McFarlane and Liefeld have degraded quite a bit while my respect for Lee has somewhat improved. Well, I think it went in stages. At the beginning, yes, he was trying to bring order out of chaos and get the books out on time and make the company profitable. Star Wars was saving their bacon (it helped that there was little Star wars merchandise, in the early days). He did a lot to work with young talent and did quite a bit to boost Marvel's line, as a whole. He took some chances on a few ideas (like The Micronauts) and they turned out to be hits. But, he didn't seem to know when to ease up. He wanted hard and fast rules that applied to every situation, rather than recognizing that there was more than one approach to telling a story. His rules were good, for people starting out; but, they could be stifling for experienced creators, wishing to spread their wings. He was in a corporate environment and the knives are always sharp in that kind of culture. The Bullpen had been dysfunctional for years, with egos, substances, and other contributing factors. Shooter was an executive and the one having to make the hard choices, or voice them to everyone else and take the heat. However, he created a lot of heat with an intractable viewpoint and alienated whole chunks of fans with arrogant statements in the press. He became more and more difficult and alienated himself from more and more people, as time went on. I think stress was probably at the center of much of later accounts; but, also a problem of leadership. In my experiences, the best leaders aren't the authoritative ones (ie the screamers and the threateners); it's the ones who set the example and build people up, who inspire them to follow them anywhere. I don't think Shooter ever learned that. Valiant proved to be different, as the stories there were of developing young talent, like David Lapham, and giving the pros their freedom (like Layton, Perlin and BWS). His downfall there came due to differences with the investors as to the company direction. In that case, I tend to think Shooter was arguing on the side of quality, while the investors wanted higher returns, with a lot of expansion and going for the short money. As for poor Mark Gruenwald, accounts told at the time of his death spoke to him being under tremendous stress; but, he was the cheerleader that the Marvel staff needed, to lighten the mood and get through things. There were stories of him enduring Shooter's rages, then orchestrating some fun to get the staff to blow off steam. Many felt that the stress he endured contributed to his eventual heart attack. It certainly didn't help. Through it all, though, he was the sort of positive leader the gang needed: he set the example, he encouraged people, and he built team spirit and everyone would follow him into fire.
|
|