Which FF issue?
Steven D. Smith
than the X-Factor cross over in FF #286.
Steven D. Smith
There doesn't seem to be any problem as far as I'm concerned, except that
I think Jean Grey should have remained dead regaurdless if it was really her
as Phoenix or not. Anyway, this is how I make sense of thev: continuity
Marvel is currently presenting.
In our line, Jean Grey was placed in stasis by the energy creature
while her body healed itself. The energy creature being a creature of pure
evil was then in continual conflict with its new personality. Finally it
to the point where Jean's side of its personna destroyed it before it could
do more damage.
In Rachel's time, the energy creature absorbed and healed Jean's
body rather than duplicating it. When the battle on the moon came, it left
Jean's body rather than being destroyed. Jean's body was probably protected
from destruction by this sudden outpour of energy. So, a now powerless Jean
Grey went back to Earth with Scott and poof - along comes Rachel.
Ellen Eades
> Anyone saving the Jean Grey shuffle discussion? We should package it and send
> it to Marvel.
>
> Ron
I'm saving it and have already sent some stuff to Marvel,
both to Claremont/Nocenti and to Shooter. No responses,
but I don't really expect that. However, as they're mailed
I remove the files, so don't ask for copies. Also: Due to
a bit of trouble over the first letter I sent, I am
removing all names from the postings.
Ellen
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?"
"I read it in a book," said Alice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
tektronix!reed!ellen
John Kenneth Riviere
>As far as I know Jean Grey does not appear in any FF issue other
>than the X-Factor cross over in FF #286.
Jean Grey (and the rest of the X-Men of the day) appear in FF #28 & FF Annual
#3. I haven't bothered to look much beyond that to verify no other appearances.(I'm not sure what the question was originally, but I know the quote above
exclude the references I cited.)
Re: Shooter at Marvel:
Since noone else has brought this up I feel that I must. There has been a
LOT of criticism of Jim Shooter in this newsgroup lately. Certainly Marvel
has done some incredibly stupid things lately, and there can be no denying
that Jim Shooter is directly responsible for some of these actions. However,
everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that Jim Shooter may possibly be,
at least partially, responsible for what I now consider to be one of the
most active times for comics in the last thirty years. My comics budget is
certainly feeling the strain of the numerous titles that are now on the
market. Can anyone else here remember back to the chaos that reigned at
Marvel during the early to mid 70s? Was anyone in comics doing well at that
time? Marvel had seen the end of the Stan Lee era and had gone through Roy
Thomas, Len Wein, Gerry Conway, Archie Goodwin, Marv Wolfman (I'm sure I've
missed someone, maybe more than one) looking for someone to take control of
Marvel and keep an even keel. Does anyone remember titles coming out with
reprints every other month due to a lack of editorial control which allowed
creators to miss deadlines repeatedly simply because the editors didn't
have time to make sure that there was something to be printed each month?
Certainly there was some brilliant work being done then with Barry (Windsor)
Smith, Mike Ploog, Craig Russell, and others turning out some magnificent
material. But all of those I've named as well as some others were missing
deadlines regularly due to weak editors. Jim Shooter claims (and I don't
feel like doing the research to disprove him) that there has not been an
unscheduled reprint in a regularly published title during his tenure. First
comics has taken this same rigidity regarding reliability of meeting deadlines
and has established a solid line of good quality comics. Look at what happened
to Pacific and some of the other companies that failed to produce the titles
that they had announced. Jim Shooter turned Marvel around when he took over
in 1978 (yes, it has been almost eight years, only Stan Lee holds a comparable
record for durability at the helm at Marvel). During that time the Epic comics
line was established which spawned some excellent work. Almost all of John
Byrne's work at Marvel has been done under Jim Shooter (I hope this rumour of
Byrne leaving Marvel altogether is untrue, but if it is I guess I will be
picking up more than just Superman that I hadn't been following previously).
There were only a few stores in Atlanta that bothered to carry new comics
in the mid-70s as something worthy of concern to make sure all the titles
were being carried. It is hard to find a spot now which is more than a few
miles from a comics specialty store. Maybe I am making too much of Shooter's
contribution to the field (as a long-time LSH fan I have to admit that I have
enjoyed his writing on more than one occasion), but I feel that he helped to
guide Marvel (and in turn, the rest of the industry) to a level of acceptance
in American society that comics has never previously enjoyed. For myself,
I find that Marvel has grown too big to try to keep up with everything they
do (at one time I picked up *anything* that Marvel published). However, I
don't feel that it is fair to expect that, as a company grows as Marvel has
under Shooter, that everything that the company does will appeal to everyone
who follows any part of that company's products. Again, I don't like
everything that Shooter has done at Marvel, but it seems to me that the
posters here on the net are allowing his gaffs to unfairly paint him as
being totally irresponsible. As someone else said, if you don't like it,
then don't buy it. Vote with your dollars for what you want to see. Don't
just complain that you are being ripped off by unscrupulous people who are
trying to take advantage of people who feel they must buy everything a
particular company produces. Exercise your independance and purchase only
those titles that you think are worthy of purchase. End of soapbox.
--
John Kenneth Riviere
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkr
& I. Rubin
>... Jim Shooter may possibly be,
>at least partially, responsible for what I now consider to be one of the
>most active times for comics in the last thirty years.
>Jim Shooter turned Marvel around when he took over in 1978
>It is hard to find a spot now which is more than a few
>miles from a comics specialty store. Maybe I am making too much of Shooter's
>guide Marvel (and in turn, the rest of the industry) to a level of acceptance
>in American society that comics has never previously enjoyed.
Thank you for speaking the other side of the issue (every issue has at
least two sides). Has Shooter made Marvel, and comics in general,
a commercial success at the expense of artistic integrity or quality?
I don't know. I read and enjoy more comics now than ever, on the other
hand, there is a lot of crap coming out, too.
>However, I
>don't feel that it is fair to expect that, as a company grows as Marvel has
>under Shooter, that everything that the company does will appeal to everyone
>who follows any part of that company's products.
>...
>As someone else said, if you don't like it,
>then don't buy it. Vote with your dollars for what you want to see.
>--
>John Kenneth Riviere
>Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkr
MAJOR PET PEAVE WARNING!!!
If each of Marvel's comics series' were a separate product, then we consumers
could indeed buy and read only those series which we liked and of which
we approved. Even if the series were grouped into "families" (e.g.
Avengers-Thor-Cap, XMen-NewMutants, etc.) where the goings on
in each family did not spill over from one family to another (at least
not much), then we consumers could decide to buy one family but not another.
However, this is not the case. There is a lot of crossing over among comics
and even among "families," and I believe there is more and more of it.
This means that if we want to follow the stories of, the development of,
our favorite characters we are "forced" to buy and read several other comics.
A recent example: I follow Power Pack, last ish the kids fought Kurse,
they stopped him long enough to think him dead and left, this ish
there is a different story not involving Kurse, but there is a reference
to the kids helping Thor stop Kurse in some other comic (Thor?).
I don't buy Thor, but I now feel pressured to go find and buy
the appropriate issue of Thor, not because I suddenly want to follow Thor,
but because I want to follow what is happening to the Power Kids. Of course,
I could say "I won't," but then I would feel I was missing out on something
I am interested in. Secret Bores II, of course, is the example
par excellance. I find it significant, and disturbing, that the beginning
of X-Factor is not in X-Factor at all, but in two other comics,
which are not at all related! Even more disturbing, no one has mentioned
it, no one here seems to think it unusual or unacceptable. So it appears
that the whole Marvel Universe is actually one product. Therefore,
those of us who are interested in the product have a good reason to
gripe rather than to walk away.
The Napoleon of Crime
some excellent points that I'd like to discuss. John is quite right in not
playing Shooter up as an ogre -- he has done some good things at Marvel, and
I can't argue that Epic Comics has some of the best comics on the market (at
least those that haven't been cancelled yet :-) ). However, a few bones of
contentions with your arguments:
1) It strikes me that while Shooter has brought Marvel under control
financially, it is still much of his editorial policy that strike me
as poorly-executed. We've gone off ad infinitum on the whole X-Men
thing, so I'll stay off of that, but I think his intrusion of his own
Secret Wars II storyline into titles was (as a reader) a poor move and a
rather egotistical one at that. Certainly mercantile, one way or
another. As John correctly points out at the end, you have to vote with
your dollars, which is why I'm not buying any "Secret Wars II" tie-ins,
unless I normally buy the title (and sometimes not even then).
2) Yes, editorial policy was lax during the late 70's at Marvel; things
weren't coming out on time and reprints often occured. However, until
two years ago I was still able to finding reprint issues in
currently-active titles, so I don't think Shooter is quite on-the-mark
there. At least, I've found current plotlines interrupted while a story
is "edited into" an issue. I don't think Marvel editorial policy before
Shooter was particularly good; it just wasn't malignant (and even
Shooter isn't *malignant* -- just self-indulgent, boorish and too
"Rah-rah Marvel!" for my tastes. I don't think I've seen any statement
from Marvel in the last two years complimenting another company on a
good piece of work, while I have seen DC, First, Eclipse and the late
Pacific compliment each other (and Marvel) on numerous occasions).
3) Yes, I do buy more comics now than ever before. But the number of
Marvels I buy is much, much lower than ever before. I don't think you
can lay the health of comics at Shooter's feet -- it seems to be more a
function of the independents and direct outlet specialty stores that
have brought things to their current state. Since comics don't have to
be sold via newstands, smaller runs of comics can be done, thus allowing
more specialized audiences to take part. Eclipse, First, the new DC --
these are the persons getting the majority of my moola (a quite
considerable chunk, too).
4) As to Epic, no arguments, good job there -- but two things: its success
is almost certainly due to having Archie Goodwin as the editor for Epic,
a man who is almost universally respected in the comics industry for his
talent, good taste, and professionalism. Also, Epic comics seemed to be
an answer to the independents popping up who were grabbing much of the
talent by allowing creators to keep copyrights for the characters they
created.
5) Can't say I think he's improved the way comics are seen. I admit that
there are some very high-quality Marvel comics out there (Power Pack,
Thor, etc.), but MOST comics in the last four years (except the majority
of the AmeriComics line :-) ) have had a higher quality in their writing
and art. Readers, in general, have a higher set of standards, and the
industry has to meet these to keep their market share.
In summary, I think the best way to summarize things is this: if I were a
Marvel stockholder, I would be very pleased with the way Shooter is doing
things. As a Marvel Reader, I am not pleased with his editorial or
(especially) his writing.
Leaving off, I again have to agree with John -- if you don't like a comic,
don't buy it. I'll at least get the first issue of X-Factor, but beyond
that, it'll depend on the quality. Anyone who hacks up my favorite
characters is not going to get my added support, critically or monetarilly.
"Try it NOW, you murderous poopheads!!"
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!mori...@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
John Kenneth Riviere
>A very well-stated article by John Riviere about Shooter -- it brought up
>some excellent points that I'd like to discuss.
good as getting a letter published in a letters column :-) !) However,
let me point out that I prefer Kenneth to John. Only the government, my
personnel department, and this computer think of me as John (and I hope I've
got the computer straight now).
>2) ... I've found current plotlines interrupted while a story
> is "edited into" an issue.
Personally I prefer to see a fill-in story to an out-an-out reprint.
Besides, sometimes the fill-in is better than the regular staff!
> ...Shooter isn't *malignant* -- just self-indulgent, boorish and too
> "Rah-rah Marvel!" for my tastes. I don't think I've seen any statement
> from Marvel in the last two years complimenting another company on a
> good piece of work, while I have seen DC, First, Eclipse and the late
> Pacific compliment each other (and Marvel) on numerous occasions).
I agree that Marvel's attitude towards their competitors is bad, but this
has always been the case, even before Shooter. (Remember all the jokes about
Brand X/Ecch, even before they published _Not_Brand_Ecchh!_?) The closest
Marvel has ever come to being complementary about their competitors that I
can remember was when they were working on the coordinated projects with DC,
and even then it was easy to hear a lot of bitching and finger pointing if
you talked to any of the people involved at Marvel.
>3) ... the health of comics ... seems to be more a
> function of the independents and direct outlet specialty stores that
> have brought things to their current state. Since comics don't have to
> be sold via newstands, smaller runs of comics can be done, thus allowing
> more specialized audiences to take part.
Let us examine this just a bit more closely. A few years ago I tried
retailing comics and took advantage of this work to talk to other retailers,
to wholesalers, and to comics personnel (both creators and those involved in
marketing). From my own experience and the comments of others I have found
that most of the direct outlet specialty stores make their living selling
Marvels. They then can also afford to sell some of the better independant
publications. Marvel gives better volume discounts, promotional help, and
advice, whereas all some of the independents offer is a plea to carry their
products. I remember a period of time then when DC was in trouble (it
appeared that Warner Communications was getting ready to dump the marginal
DC comics line) and someone brought out the point that if DC went under then
it was very easy to imagine that several of the stores that carry comics,
both direct and mass market, might stop carrying comics altogether since they
are such marginal items. Such a situation might pinch Marvel a bit, but they
could probably expect to make up the difference in new customers who had been
buying DC's. However, the independent publishers could very well be wiped
out without the direct sales shops. If there is any validity to this type of
argument then it follows that the direct outlet specialty shops, and therefore
the independent publishers, owe much of their existence to the financial
success of Marvel as ushered in under Jim Shooter.
>Leaving off, I again have to agree with John -- if you don't like a comic,
>don't buy it. I'll at least get the first issue of X-Factor, but beyond
>that, it'll depend on the quality. Anyone who hacks up my favorite
>characters is not going to get my added support, critically or monetarilly.
>
> Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
As a long-time Marvel fan, I have to admit that I don't like some of the
changes that have occurred over the last decade. But then, there are others
I do like (would Power Pack have been attempted 10 years ago?). Marvel is
working to stay on top in the market in which they have been dominant for
many years, a market made up of mostly teenage boys. There are a lot of
titles which I used to enjoy which I no longer read, but then, I don't
read Hardy Boys or Freddy the Pig books anymore either. I am trying to
learn to limit my purchases to those I read and enjoy. I find that I have
bought over 1000 comics in the last few years which I have not been able to
find the time to read. There is simply too much material available to be
able to keep up with it all, or even all that is done by people whose work
I admire and comics that feature characters in whom I am interested. As a
former Marvel fanatic (I earned the titles KOF,RFO,QNS,TTB, and therefore
PMM) I have been saddened by the way some of Marvel's characters have been
handled, but I have tried to accept it without letting it ruin my enjoyment
of comics as a whole. By ignoring more of Marvel's output I am able to find
time to read other material such as the Popeye, Spirit, and Steve Canyon
reprints that have been published in recent years. I watch Marvel to try
and buy the gems that still come out of their offices, but it is undenyable
that they are getting harder to find.
--
J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR)
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!jkr