Bob Harras
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Say what you will about Bob Harras, but I just learned that he was the
*ONLY* Marvel executive to appear at Mark Gruenwald's funeral. Like Elmo
said, Mark Gruenwald devoted his entire life for Marvel, and this was the
thanks that he got from Ron Perelman and Co. Apparently, none of them
could be bothered to attend the services of a man who profoundly changed
the comic book industry, and was one of their most devoted employees.
His editing and writing skills aside, I think Mr. Harras' appearance
speaks volumes for his character and loyalty. My opinion of him has
changed drastically after finding this out.
--
\\ \\ |_/ The lemmings are back, and there's no place for me to hide \_|
\\-\\ |_\ "Quip _IS_ a valid word in newswriting!" - Me /_|
( X-X) |_/ *Mugger of Troy McNemar* *Mocker of Chris Bird* \_|
{_^_} -|_\ Liberator of Wheeler's Couches! E-Mail:ho...@syr.edu /_|
Aaron S. Veenstra
> Say what you will about Bob Harras, but I just learned that he was the
> *ONLY* Marvel executive to appear at Mark Gruenwald's funeral. Like Elmo
> said, Mark Gruenwald devoted his entire life for Marvel, and this was the
> thanks that he got from Ron Perelman and Co. Apparently, none of them
> could be bothered to attend the services of a man who profoundly changed
> the comic book industry, and was one of their most devoted employees.
>
> His editing and writing skills aside, I think Mr. Harras' appearance
> speaks volumes for his character and loyalty. My opinion of him has
> changed drastically after finding this out.
According to Pat O'Neil, Mark's family requested a small service with only
immediate friends and family. Pat also said that Marvel is planning some
kind of larger memorial thing.
Aaron
David Scott Doty
even as a creator. I *loved* his Avengers writing. However,
I think he has done terrible, marketing-before-readership
things to the X-books as editor. I think it's wonderful
that he went to the trouble to go to Mark's funeral, but
it doesn't change my opinion of his editing skills, and
I had never projected that dislike onto his personal life.
Dave Doty
Larryhama
Dave Doty said:
<I, at least, have never attacked Bob Harras as a person, or
even as a creator. I *loved* his Avengers writing. However,
I think he has done terrible, marketing-before-readership
things to the X-books as editor. I think it's wonderful
that he went to the trouble to go to Mark's funeral, but
it doesn't change my opinion of his editing skills, and
I had never projected that dislike onto his personal life.>
All this terrible stuff that you are blaming Bob Harras for was more the
making of the "suits and haircuts" who inhabit the upper floors of Marvel.
You have no idea what TRULY horrible stuff Bob has PREVENTED from
happening. The stuff you are complaining about is the trickle that escapes
around his fingers as he tries to hold back the tide. Bob really loves
the characters. These are not his decisions we are talking about. It is
his job to stand there and do his best to save what is there and to take
the blame. His is not to pass the buck and tell you that others are to
blame-- That is the action on a weenie. Bob is not a weenie, he is a
man. Comprende? The man spends many hours a day in meetings with the
suits arguing AGAINST all these things and arguing FOR some really
positive changes. I think you are making wild assumptions about a person
you really don't know who is operating in an environment you know nothing
about. "Nuff said.
Larry Hama
Kid York
I agree with Larry, 1,000%
Aside from being the hardest working man in the entire industry, Bob is
also the most dedicated. At a time when the industry is rocking, the
X-Men are still holding strong...and that is because of the foundation
that Bob has built over the years.
The readers and fans should remember that the X-MEN under Bob has survived
one major hit after the next after the next...Chris' departure, Jim's and
Whilce and Mark's departure, Fabian's departure, the UPSWELL of
competition from all quarters, the collapse of the infrastructure designed
to support the comic book industry...I could go on and on, but it probably
won't matter.
To the those people that don't know any better, he will remain the Enemy
no matter what is said...and to the people that DO understand his
commitment to the characters and fans, we'll know that Bob is doing a hell
of a job at a hell of a time.
Scott Lobdell
Boomstick
On Sep 19, 1996 12:05:10 in article <Re: Bob Harras>, 'larr...@aol.com
(Larryhama)' wrote:
Whoa!!!
another creative type shows his face!!!
evidence to identity:
He's on aol (or else knows how to fake it real well), a company Marvel
deals with and also the company that newbies and famous types flock to
(understandably).
But, more damning he defends the almighty BOB!
Something a RacmXer taking another identity to curry our favor would never
do.
Welcome mister Hama (by the way I'm a recent addition and if you posted
before I wasn't around then), for only a true X-writer would go to bat for
Harras.
Keep up the good work on Wolverine!! (although I'd like to see Wolvie get
more human looking I'll allow you to do it in your own time.)
>All this ter...ut. "Nuff said.
Even his writing is pretty good! either this guy is a real good fake or we
have another X-writer here to bother.<g>
>Larry Hama
Mister Hama, please killfile "Rob Mclean" before he attacks <g>
He gets off on it.
He attacked PAD (or the entity claiming to be) and Ellis (or the entity
claiming to be). did he and Scott come to blows (of chickens?<g>) yet?
--
Boomstick: Of the BoSPMwaA
"My name's Ash, I'm a slave. It wasn't always this way.... "<AoD>
Check out DOFCP my fan-fic epic at acf-f
Vermilion
In article <51t4n1$q...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com> finge...@usa.pipeline.com(Boomstick) writes:
<Boomstick's bewilderment over Larry's post snipped>
Not a fake, Boomstick. Not a new development either. Larry's posted here
inconsistantly for at least a year, much longer than you'd probably expect.
He just occasionally shows up, says his bit and pops out again. And we all
love him for it. If'n yer feeling up to it, check out Lady Amethyst's
webpage, and specifically her RacmxFest '96 page - picture o' Larry hanging
out with some racmx regulars. Cool, eh?
Larry can even put things like "Nuff said" in his posts. He rules.
- Vermilion, who also notes Larry's pencilled some comics, as you might
not know. He was also in an episode of M*A*S*H. Really. He's just
that cool.
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Just a note:
Ol' Larry Hama, famous writer of WOLVERIN and BUCKY O'HARE, has been on
rac.* for a while. B-)
--
\\ \\ |_/ "Chary '96! In your heart, you know Mike's Right." \_|
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!
Kid York wrote:
>
> I agree with Larry, 1,000%
>
> Aside from being the hardest working man in the entire industry, Bob is
> also the most dedicated. At a time when the industry is rocking, the
> X-Men are still holding strong...and that is because of the foundation
> that Bob has built over the years.
I'm sorry, but you are totally WRONG. The foundation was not built by
Bob, but rather Chris Claremont. It was Chris who took the relatively
obscure comic, revitalizied it, making some of the most memorable
characters and story arcs in comic-dom, and then gets driven out by
Bob.
Bob may be the hardest worker around, but I'll still wish that it was
him that left the X-men and not Claremont.
The readers and fans should remember that the X-MEN under Bob has
survived
> one major hit after the next after the next...Chris' departure, Jim's and
> Whilce and Mark's departure, Fabian's departure,
And how many of these people left because of Bob? We've all heard the
rumors and grumbling about working under Bob, so don't lay this BS
about him being such a saint in the business. Don't get me wrong, I
really like your work (I'm still laughing from the last GenX) and I
understand why *you* might have to write PC things about Bob, but
don't think for one second that I'm going to believe it.
the UPSWELL of
> competition from all quarters, the collapse of the infrastructure designed
> to support the comic book industry...I could go on and on, but it probably
> won't matter.
The collapse of the infrastructure? Is this a reference to the
disfranchised long term fans who feel that the comics they have come
to love now completely stinks? I mean come on, Wolverine is a dog and
you think I'm going to like this....we all know that Wolverine is
fighting a constant battle against his inner beast, but to use some
stupid external plot device by actually turning him into an animal
just shows me that Bob (for allowing this) and Larry (for writing
this) are reaching for ideas and both need a "vacation to recharge
their creative juices" ala Claremont.
> To the those people that don't know any better, he will remain the Enemy
> no matter what is said...and to the people that DO understand his
> commitment to the characters and fans, we'll know that Bob is doing a hell
> of a job at a hell of a time.
Frankly, I was actually surprised at how polite we have been...before
you came on, people were calling for your and Bob's respective heads.
But after you showed up, most of these same people were just waiting
in line to kiss your behind. The plot-holes in Onslaught were big
enough to throw the Blob through it (ie., for starters, what happen to
his and Mimic's relationship to Onslaught). I know *I* probably don't
know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that Onslaught was
rewritten mid-course cause Bob felt that "St. Xavier" couldn't be
Onsalught. He has some sick fascination with the character (how else
can you explain why most of the summer X-overs are about Xavier), that
prevented him from taking Onslaught to its logical conclusion.
Sorry for spewing at you, I agree with you that it's not your job to
deal with this type of crap. But at the same time, I have been
collecting the X-men for a very long time (11 some odd years) and do
have a strong attachment to the characters. For a long time I only
collected the X-titles, but after the shotty job with "Onslaught" I'm
sad to say that I've dropped alot of the titles and have gone
elsewhere to seek my "fix."
Rob
Joe Helfrich
Kid York (kid...@aol.com) wrote:
: I agree with Larry, 1,000%
:
: Aside from being the hardest working man in the entire industry, Bob is
: also the most dedicated. At a time when the industry is rocking, the
: X-Men are still holding strong...and that is because of the foundation
: that Bob has built over the years.
I've had discussions with Larry in Email over this. I've challenged him,
Fabian, and Marie on group on this. Your turn, Scott. :)
I will accept, after being told by so many people, that Bob is doing this.
It till leaves two complaints--
1) We keep getting these vague assurances that he's fighting the Great
Evil, without being told what the Great Evil wants. If we knew that, we
could better appreciate his efforts.
2) We still see a lot of silly editorial errors, which once upon a time as
a book editor, were his primary responsibility, as a group editor, are
something he should watch out for, and as editor in chief, are something
eh should be worried about. But there are continual errors in self
repairing/changing costumes between issues, coloring and appearance of
charachters, plot and timing inconsitencies, etc. There are those of us
who sit out here, with jobs, full social lives, and relatively minor
obsessive tendencies, and yet we spot these things easily. Why don't you
guys. If there are reasons for these errors, tell us, most of usm are
willing to be convinced.
Joe
--
Joe Helfrich, Managing Editor, CPI | Certainly the games is rigged. Don't
j...@dimensional.com | let that stop you; if you don't bet,
http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh | you can't win. --Lazarus Long
*** Dum vivimus, vivamus! (While we live, let us _live_!) ***
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh! (rwi...@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: Kid York wrote:
: >
: > I agree with Larry, 1,000%
: >
: > Aside from being the hardest working man in the entire industry, Bob is
: > also the most dedicated. At a time when the industry is rocking, the
: > X-Men are still holding strong...and that is because of the foundation
: > that Bob has built over the years.
: > one major hit after the next after the next...Chris' departure, Jim's and
: > Whilce and Mark's departure, Fabian's departure,
: And how many of these people left because of Bob? We've all heard the
: rumors and grumbling about working under Bob, so don't lay this BS
: about him being such a saint in the business. Don't get me wrong, I
: really like your work (I'm still laughing from the last GenX) and I
: understand why *you* might have to write PC things about Bob, but
: don't think for one second that I'm going to believe it.
"We've all heard the rumor and grumbling about working under Bob,"
Scott Lobdell and Larry Hama work under Bob. You don't. I don't. Who's
more believable, here? On one hand, you have rumors. On the other hand,
you have first-hand information. If Chris Claremont, Mark Waid, et. al
decide to come on here and bitch out Harras and co., then things may be
different.
As it stands, from conversations with Larry Hama, I've found him to be a
very reasonable and open-minded person, one who I could not see working
under the tyrant that some people see Bob Harras as. I've rarely conversed
with Scott Lobdell in any fashion, but the simple fact that he's willing
to stick around on an ecclectic and sometimes hostile newsgroup like RACMX
even after folks insulted him, well, I think that speaks volumes of him.
Other pros from the X-books haven't been quite as patient.
: > To the those people that don't know any better, he will remain the Enemy
: > no matter what is said...and to the people that DO understand his
: > commitment to the characters and fans, we'll know that Bob is doing a hell
: > of a job at a hell of a time.
: Frankly, I was actually surprised at how polite we have been...before
: you came on, people were calling for your and Bob's respective heads.
In the three+ years I've been on here, no one's called for Scott Lobdell's
head. I can only think of a handful of times anyone's called for Bob
Harras' head, and it's never, ever been from a regular, an intelligent
person, or from anyone of passable maturity. People who start "DEATH TO
BOB HARRAS" threads generally tend to lose interest and wander off. The
rest of us are more than content to stay on and engage in more intelligent
debates.
The same people who called for Bob Harras' head are the same ones who go
over to Rob/Raza's house every night for dinner. In all, pros generally
tend to get a good reaction here, and on average, peoples' opinion of them
rise because they get to know the pros better. The writers and artists
become something more than a faceless entity, they become average, normal,
people. So yes, peoples' attitudes change.
Dave Henry, who many see as Scott Lobdell's harshest critic, finally got
the chance to ask him some questions about XMU#4, and came off more
impressed than not. Was that bad? Was that ass-kissing? You may see it
that way, but I don't.
: Sorry for spewing at you, I agree with you that it's not your job to
Thanks Christian, I mean Bob, for turning an otherwise polite thread and
turning it into a vitriol-filled one for you to get out your personal
grievances.
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother wrote:
>
> Scott Lobdell and Larry Hama work under Bob. You don't. I don't. Who's
> more believable, here? On one hand, you have rumors. On the other hand,
> you have first-hand information. If Chris Claremont, Mark Waid, et. al
> decide to come on here and bitch out Harras and co., then things may be
> different.
But Chris Claremont HAD bitched about working under Bob Harris; he had
described quite bitterly in an interview that working under Bob was at
best difficult and had stated that at the tail end of his Marvel
career had communicated with Bob only through the fax, so that both
could have written records of what was being said. Now does that sound
like a normal working relationship to you?
> Thanks Christian, I mean Bob, for turning an otherwise polite thread and
> turning it into a vitriol-filled one for you to get out your personal
> grievances.
At least someone had the balls to do it! We spent the last few months
discussing how bad certain story-arcs have been (which was at its
height during the Onslaught story-arc) and how the X-titles are dive
bombing into a toliet....but then when Scott L. shows up, eveyone
forgets this and start lining up to kiss his ass. Come on people, I do
remember how disappointed some of you were when Waid was leaving and
not Scott. I do like and respect Scott's work, and it is because of
this respect that I'm willing to tell him straight. I'm not going to
hold back out of fear of driving him away cuz I would be doing a
disservice to myself as a fan of the X-men. And I'm not going to
sugar coat anything I write, because if I offend him then it's his
problem. I'm not trying or making personal attacks at Scott and if
my post seems especially "vitriol-filled," then it is out of passion
and not ignorance. So don't even think about lumping me into same
category as Rob/Naza or Christian....I find it extremely insulting.
Scott as the writer can do what he wants with the X-men, I accept this
(and why I have had many arguements regading the validity of OGTMU);
but as a reader and a consumer of the X-men I have a right to voice my
opinion of his work, and if Scott L. can't awknowledge the critism
then he should stay away from RACMX and read only the "huggy-feely"
letters in the X-titles letter pages.
Rob
O. MEANY
Vorp-El Bunny(TM),
When did Mr. Lobdell discuss Unmentionable #4 of this newsgroup? I'd be
very interested to hear HIS side of the story.
O. MEANY, who has been a way a while and is still catching up.
Snowlock
O. MEANY wrote:
>
> Vorp-El Bunny(TM),
>
> When did Mr. Lobdell discuss Unmentionable #4 of this newsgroup? I'd be
> very interested to hear HIS side of the story.
Check deja for posts by Kid York.
Snowlock.
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
My, Rob, at least no one can accuse you of being humble. "Having the balls
to do it." Right. So glad you're able to lead the unwashed masses.
I'll say this once more. You weren't there, Larry Hama and Scott Lobdell
were. For what it's worth, I've seen very positive comments from Peter
David concerning Scott Lobdell, sound surprising? Peter David wrote in BID
that when he was leaving X-Factor due to creative differences, he got a
call from a very sincere Scott Lobdell, concerning characters and
plotlines that Peter David had worked on
See, Scott felt very bad about Peter David leaving, and called him up to
see if there was anything that he could do. PAD said no, though, and that
Scott should stay on the title. As a gesture of faight, a character that
PAD had created on X-Factor was returned to him so that he could do with
the character what he really wanted to do. Got that? You say Scott
Lobdell's shite, I've got written statements from two pros who say you're
wrong. I've got my personal experience with him that say you're wrong.
Whatever problems you have with his *WRITING*, please keep them separate
from your problems with the man himself. That's why I get so upset when
people says "DEATH TO BOB HARRAS!" They obviously don't like his work, but
why do they want the *MAN* dead? He's got a wife, kids, a family, and yet
they think so little of him, seeing him as just a name, nothing more.
Try to keep this in mind. While reading your post, I could see very little
difference between yours and the standard Christian Viola message whenever
PAD posts. Your post insulted two creators who are on-line, at least one
who's not, and a good chunk of the people on this newsgroup. What did *I*
ever do to you, Rob, eat your puppy?
You may have intended honest criticism. That is something that everyone
should do and applaud. What did come out was an insulting letter with no
redeemable benefit. That's what Christian Viola does, write with no regard
for the consequences, trying to do nothing but hurt and insult people. Do
you want be like that? I'd doubt that, and I know you're more reasonable
than this, but right now, it's hard for me to tell.
Do you have problems with Scott Lobdell *AND* Larry Hama? Then do what a
lot of other folks on here have done, write a critical, yet *HELPFUL*
message. You can do both.
"Dear Scott, frankly, I threw up while reading XMU #4. I mean, geez, let's
look from the beginning. It said Rogue did XXXXX, but in X-MEN #XXXX, it
was shown that she couldn't do it."
You know, it *IS* more than possible to write messages with both positive
and negative comments, something that some folks on here don't seem to
realize. What's the point of insulting the two people and others on RACMX?
Your ego gets soothed, but the people whom you've insulted will be less
than happy to see you around. Is that what you want? One of the reasons
pros leave RACMX so soon is that they hear from *OTHER* pros that it's
full of whiny, immature people. Or do you want to get something done,
something productive, make some changes peopl will respect?
Or put it this way. Would you go up to Scott Lobdell and Larry Hama's face
and repeat to them, verbatim, what you wrote in your post? Think about
before you respond. That's about the best way to judge whether or not your
posts have gone over the bend.
And as for Mark Waid, sigh, don't get me started on *THAT*, but Mark
Waid's far, far more complex than you may think. If he wanted to tell you
why he left, he would, but he didn't, so don't assume.
William George Ferguson
On 20 Sep 1996 15:24:03 GMT, j...@dimensional.com (Joe Helfrich) wrote:
[responding to Kid the Scooter York's support and followup of Larry
Hama's defense of Bob Harras]
>2) We still see a lot of silly editorial errors, which once upon a time as
>a book editor, were his primary responsibility, as a group editor, are
>something he should watch out for, and as editor in chief, are something
>eh should be worried about. But there are continual errors in self
(you mean 'he' of course, not 'eh')
>repairing/changing costumes between issues, coloring and appearance of
>charachters, plot and timing inconsitencies, etc. There are those of us
(you mean 'characters' or course, not 'charachters')
>who sit out here, with jobs, full social lives, and relatively minor
>obsessive tendencies, and yet we spot these things easily. Why don't you
>guys. If there are reasons for these errors, tell us, most of usm are
>willing to be convinced.
As someone partially responsible for putting out copy that is read on
a weekly basis by thousands of individuals (nothing exciting, job
listings), I constantly run head-on into the fact that it is just
massively easier to see these things after it's too late, and when it
isn't your copy. I did not include the inserts above as spelling/typo
flames, but to illustrate how unavoidable errors are (and how easily
seen by someone else). I am the most anally-retentive person I know
about spelling and typographical errors, and I make them.
Zero Defects is a nice slogan, but if you are putting out massive
quantities, such as several comic book titles a month, typographical
errors, logic errors, and continuity errors will slip in. All the
creators can and should do in this situation is a)try to keep them to
an absolute minimum, b)if you can, correct them, if they are major,
c)try to incorporate them if you can't correct them (I really meant to
make scrambled eggs), d)say 'oops, we goofed, sorry', if you can't do
any of the preceeding.
Actually, I think a lot (though not all) the niggling would go away if
the above were followed.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Kid York (kid...@aol.com) wrote:
> Okay, here's one (there are probably a billion, but we'll just go with
> this one...) About two years ago, when BOB was still just editor,
One subtle tidbit about racmx that many people don't always pick up
on--when people are complaining about comic quality, there's technically a
difference between BOB and Bob Harras. (This is in the FAQ, IIRC.)
BOB is a malevolent force that seems to be out to destroy everything that
everyone loves in the x-books with silly marketing ploys, encouraging
writers to utterly ignore everything that's been done before the previous
issue (and sometimes even including the previous issue), and getting
no-talent hacks to draw pretty pictures whose artwork probably should have
never left a) the family refrigerator, b) the high-school notebooks &
desks.
Bob Harras is a fun guy and a family man who was once an AssEd, and is now
EiC. He genuinely cares about the books, and tries to do his best to see
that they are at the top of the industry. Like any human, he has his good
and bad days, and has some ideas that catch on like wildfire and get
everyone, fans included, psyched up, has other ideas that fly like a
hydrogen-lift dirigible with a chain-smoking maintenance man, and a whole
spectrum in between. When Claremont was at his height, there were only
one or two ongoing X-titles. Now there's what--twelve? It's gotten as
difficult to arrange an X-book-only crossover as it used to be to arrange
a Marvel-wide crossover. Couple this with the Dilbert Principle in full
swing among the Marvel suits, and you get an unenviable position that he
actually does a pretty good job with.
(Doesn't mean I won't point out and moan about the gaffes that pop up,
though; after all, I loved Jurassic Park and got paid to see it 60-odd
times, yet I also compiled a list of some 70-ish continuity errors in that
film. For comparison, an average Hollywood movie has around 5, IIRC.)
Penultimate Definition of a Retcon:
"Up's down, down is out, out is in
Stairways circle back to where you've been"
--Chagall Guevara (Steve Taylor), "Escher's World"
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
(Kinda like the diff. 'tween TSR and T$R on the AD&D newsgroup, except T$R
is supposedly a truck stop in Nevada)
Andrew D. Devenney, Graduate School Senator
In article <520ula$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kid...@aol.com (Kid York) says:
>I'm sorry if you find the X-Books less exciting than you used to. Chris
>and Joe and Carlos and I are having the time of our lives...maybe it catch
>on. Stop by again in a few months and give us another peek...
Ok, I'm having a brain fart here. I think I know Carlos (Mr. P.) and Joe would
be Madman. Who is Chris? It certainly isn't Claremont, so who the hell is it?
Sorry if this is a no-brainer. I just got up.
Hochachtungsvoll,
---ADD, look everybody, I'm on topic ;-)
-------
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|WE KNEW THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM THIS RUNG OF HELL WAS TO UTTERLY DESTROY |
|THE INSANE SANTA. THE PROBLEM WAS: HOW? A BEING THAT CAN DEVOUR |
|PICKLE BARRELS FULL OF COCAINE AND HEROIN LACED WITH LSD AND WALK AWAY|
|IS A FORMIDABLE FOE. |
| ----SCOTT CHRISTENSEN, "MY LIFE AS SANTA'S RUBBER CLAD LOVE SLAVE: |
| AN ELF'S STORY" |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Kid York
CONTINUED FROM PERVIOUS POST
...the cracks. You're welcome to take that as an excuse, but I see it as
part of the process. (For that matter, if you look closely at Movies that
cost MILLIONS of MILLIONS of dollars, which take MONTHS and sometimes
YEARS to produce, there are mistakes...does that speak to the overall
quality of the movie? I don't think so. When they are standing DOROTHY,
TIN MAN, SCARECROW, LION from one angle, and then DOROTHY, LION, TIN MAN
and SCARECROW from the quick-cut in the next frame, and then back again
for the master shot, does it ruin the movie for me? When in BIRD ON A
WIRE, in the scene where they are trapped in the San Diego Zoo, Goldie
Hawn cries to Mel Gibson "What are we going to do, Mel?", and the fact it
got by what, some thirty different technical people, the director, about
five producers and studio heads and the actors who were called in to loop
their voices...does this mean that they the people who made this movie
were somehow inept or contemptuous, or even lazy? I think it means that
mistakes happen...but, as near as I know, no one has ever made a mistake
on purpose.
I'm not here to defend Bob, because frankly he doesn't need it. But I
don't mind shedding some light on people's misperceptions about what
happens behind the scenes.
Kid York
jbh asked something to the effect of "fighting the great evil...what does
this mean? Give us an example..."
Okay, here's one (there are probably a billion, but we'll just go with
this one...) About two years ago, when BOB was still just editor, a
decision was made to print variant versions of the X-MEN books...the good
prod-val vs. reg prod-val. A good idea? No. It was probably a
colossully stupid idea, but it was a decision that was handed down on
high...and nothing could be done about it. Bad--but it wouldn't effect
the integrity of the books, pe se. About a week after that was decided,
someone made the decision "Well, we will continue the numbering on the
regular prod-val books...but we will release all the good prod-val books
as #1! We will call them X-_____ Deluxe, and run them concurrent with the
regular books!" Now, as anyone who remembers the TEEN TITANS/LSH
two-books-a-month debacle, this was not only a colossuly bad idea, but
certainly a roadmap to disaster. It would be a cheat, it would be rude,
and it would be a slap at both the face and the wallets of the fans and
readers alike. In my personal opinion, say what you want about the
quality of particular stories, but NOTHING would have killed the X-MEN
faster than that. Having said that, it became a done deal...no debates.
At the time, Bob and Fabian and I had been tossing around an idea about a
time travel story where XAVIER would be killed and things would be
"changed forever." Bob explained to UPSTAIRS and said something to the
effect of "We have a story that will necessitate cancelling all the
X-Books and telling this major alternate reality story that actually
impacts on the X-Men now and for years to come...but we CAN'T do this
story if you're going to launch X-MEN DELUXE #1 and X FACTOR DELUXE #1 and
etc...and then four months later put them on hiatus for ASTONISHING X-MEN
#1 and FACTOR X #1 and etc..." While that might sound like a simple
situation now (and actually added much credence to what was the most epic
of all X-Men crossovers [epic in scope, that wasn't an ego-driven
statement]) it was a knockdown drag-out teeth gnashing arguement at the
time...an arguement that, if BOB was the person he's so often incorrectly
portrayed here was, would actually have been the person saying screw the
readers while he was counting the money on the X-Deluxes...but he isn't.
Again, he cares about these books...(there have actually been times when
people from other divisions have come to him an insisted that the X-MEN
get an "X-Mobile" so it can be sold as a toy, or worked into the
television series. Rather than play corporate nice nice and risk the
integrity of the characters, Bob has no.) Does he always make the
decisions that the fans want...no. But you know what, if fans always got
everything they wanted, they'd be bored to death.
As for all the mistakes that crop up in the books...what can I say?
Marvel's been down-sized to the point that everybodies work load has what,
trippled? This at a time when fax machines and modems and computer colors
and lettering has alternately extended deadlines and shaved them so that
AN entire book can be lettered at about two weeks to shipping...has made
producing comics a breakneck endeavor. In an effort to catch up, to put
the books out on a timely schedule, it has necessitated working ahead by
MONTHS some time... (An example, I am currently working on, and have art
for, the Nov. Dec. and Jan issues of X-MEN. That means not only am I
writing the first half of the THIRD story before the LAST half of the
FIRST story is finished being drawn...it means that sometimes an artist
who is drawing a torn costume on a character might not be the same artist
who is drawing that torn costume in the later half. Is it a perfect
system? No, but for right now, at a time when the industry is being
slammed to the left and to the right, we think it is important to keep the
books on a tight and regular schedule. Unfortunately, that means some
things fall through con't...
Kid York
Here goes...
::I'm sorry, but you are totally WRONG. The foundation was not built by
Bob, but rather Chris Claremont. It was Chris who took the relatively
obscure comic, revitalizied it, making some of the most memorable
characters and story arcs in comic-dom, and then gets driven out by
Bob.::
So maybe "foundation" wasn't the best word, granted. I didn't mean to in
anyway downplay Chris' role in the re-creation of the X-Men. Was he
"driven out"...? I don't know because I wasn't there. But having worked
with Bob for almost six years now, I can tell you that he has very strong
opinions on the way things are. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree.
Sometimes he gets his way, and I write a story that I find particular
depressing but he thinks hit all the notes he wanted....and other times I
write a story that I think is exactly what I wanted to say, but he'll
throw it up in my face for YEARS as a "bad" story. Is he inclined to say
"good job"...? Almost hardly ever, but that's okat...I get my job
satisfaction from what I think of the story, not from anyone else.
Chris's job was to write, Bob's job was to edit...sometimes people mesh
better than others. I don't know if that translates into "driving someone
away."
::And how many of these people left because of Bob? We've all heard the
rumors and grumbling about working under Bob, so don't lay this BS
about him being such a saint in the business. Don't get me wrong, I
really like your work (I'm still laughing from the last GenX) and I
understand why *you* might have to write PC things about Bob, but
don't think for one second that I'm going to believe it.::
How many people left because of Bob? In a way it is an interesting
question, but at the same time I don't think it has an honest answer. I
mean, because the comic industry is so insular, everybody gets to voice
their opinions immediately on everything. Now, Larry and I--for
example--have never gone out of our way to offer insight into our seperate
working experiences with Bob...so, what side of the story have people
heard over the last eight years...? It means people have heard from one
person after another who have left. Did any of them leave because their
stories sucked? No. Did anyone of them leave because someone was putting
their foot down and saying "this story has to be better. The motivation
for this character is weak and needs to be more defined"...? No. Did any
of them leave because "When I got on the book, I thought I would be
allowed free reign to do whatever I want--even thought I should have known
better because everyone in the industry knows the books are sewn together
so tightly--and then I got frustrated because I was the only person in all
of comicdom who didn't realize that the X-Men have an annual event that
ties the books together for a few months" No. At least not that I
remember. All I ever hear is that it is somehow Bob's fault. I guess if
I got fired, or I got frustrated and quit some day, it will be much easier
for me to blame Bob than it will be to look at myself and figure out what
I could have done differently. All I'm saying here is that for years
you've only heard one side of the story, and that's from disgruntled
people working on the book--what would you expect them to say?
For the record, I never said Bob was a saint. If my goal was to sit here
and tell you all the annoying and irritating things about him, I'm sure I
could fill a few posts...but that's not the point of the post. It was to
say that he does an extraordinary job under less than ideal circumstances.
Is that PC?
In regards to the WOLVERINE as DOG storyline...hey, some stories work
better than others. They just do. Was CROSSTIME CAPER a masterpiece?
The "invisible X-MEN hiding in Australia"...? "Storm as a twelve year
old?!?" I don't think so, but that's my opinion. But at the same time,
there have been examples of pure genius "The Days of Future Past" and "the
Phoenix Saga " come to mind. Similarly there are stories that...cont
Kid York
CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS POST
...I've written that I would just as soon they be stricken from X-Men
continuity, but they're there, right beside the stories I'm most proud of.
Does WOLVERINE going through this situation RUIN the character for all
time? I don't think so, it means that he's expereincing something. The
X-MEN, from Stan on to Roy on to Chris on...has always been about trying
something different--that's one of it's strengths. Unfortunately, it is
also one of the things that leave it wide open to criticism.
On the subject of ONSLAUGHT, was it rewritten half way through? No...it
was a work in progress. That is to say that we started with an idea, and
as the story got more fleshed out, it became a different story. It wasn't
"RE-written" rather it was WRITTEN while in motion. As for Bob's
"obsession" with Prof X, it happens to be one I share but for my own
reasons. He is the guy on the first page of the first issue of the comic
book--the one who has brought them all together, and a man whose will and
vision have guided him through the darkest times. My personal opinion is
that he is NOT an evil, bile-infested, frustrated by his handicap and
outraged by genetic racism, lust crazed person who would hide his emotions
and one day snap and become ONSLAUGHT and start killing people by the
thousands...to me, that would have been the ILLOGICAL conclusion to the
Onslaught storyline. You're complaining about Wolverine-as-dog, at least
that is something he's just going through. Xavier as closet psycho with a
high powered telepathic rifle perched atop a water tower would be a
character assassination of the worse kind.
As far as people kissing my ass, I haven't seen that. I see some people
who agree, sometime who disagree, some people who make it personal...but
that's the way it's supposed to be.
Snowlock
Andrew, D., Devenney, Graduate School Senator wrote:
>
> In article <520ula$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kid...@aol.com (Kid York) says:
>
> >and Joe and Carlos and I are having the time of our lives...maybe it catch
> >on. Stop by again in a few months and give us another peek...
>
> be Madman. Who is Chris? It certainly isn't Claremont, so who the hell is it?
> Sorry if this is a no-brainer. I just got up.
Bachalo
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother wrote:
>
> to do it." Right. So glad you're able to lead the unwashed masses.
I'm not trying to be arrogant, but I call it like I see it...people
here *were* bitchin' about Bob Harris and to a lesser extent Scott
Lobdell (maybe you forgot the term "lobdell-imizied", but I didn't!).
It just seems to me that there was alot of moaning and groaning about
those two before "Kid York" appeared, but now that he is here no one
wants to say anything that might be viewed as offensive and drive him
away. That to me is completely dishonest and cowardly, and I have too
much respect for myself and Scott L. (I never said I hated his work)
to sugar coat my opinion. I never attacked him or his work, and tho' I
might not like certain plot lines I recognize the fact that he is the
writer and the stories go where ever he wants them to go. I voiced my
opinion, that is all...if he or you are offended by it, then I
sorry...it was not my intent.
> I'll say this once more. You weren't there, Larry Hama and Scott Lobdell
> were. For what it's worth, I've seen very positive comments from Peter
> David concerning Scott Lobdell, sound surprising? Peter David wrote in BID
> that when he was leaving X-Factor due to creative differences, he got a
> call from a very sincere Scott Lobdell, concerning characters and
> plotlines that Peter David had worked on
This wasn't about Scott Lobdell, it was about Bob Harris...go read the
original post before you start defending something that isn't even
being discussed. Scott Lobdell does seem like a reasonable man to me,
just read his honest reply to my post...he wasn't offended, but for
whatever you were. And this is the type of crap I can't stand, here
you are cutting me down and insulting me (ie., lumping me with
Rob/Naza) cause you are afraid that I might drive Scott L. away.
> Whatever problems you have with his *WRITING*, please keep them separate
> from your problems with the man himself.
Again I don't have any problems with the man, and I completely accept
that stories are going to be written that I don't like. But what you
and everyone else have to realize is that while I might have to accept
it, as a reader and a consumer of the X-men I don't have to be silent
about my dislike over a plot line.
That's why I get so upset when
> people says "DEATH TO BOB HARRAS!" They obviously don't like his work, but
> why do they want the *MAN* dead? He's got a wife, kids, a family, and yet
> they think so little of him, seeing him as just a name, nothing more.
And I never participated or started in a "DEATH TO BOB HARRIS"
thread...I brought this up as an example of the general grumbling and
rumbling regarding Scott L. and co. that have disappeared now that
"Kid York" is hanging around. I didn't like them either, cuz I can
separate reality from fantasy....
> You may have intended honest criticism. That is something that everyone
> should do and applaud. What did come out was an insulting letter with no
> redeemable benefit. That's what Christian Viola does, write with no regard
> for the consequences, trying to do nothing but hurt and insult people. Do
> you want be like that? I'd doubt that, and I know you're more reasonable
> than this, but right now, it's hard for me to tell.
Again, did I ever personally attack Scott or his work? For whatever
reason, you have confused my opinion about Bob Harris with Scott
Lobdell. And let me tell you, I did realize the possible consequences
of writing the post, specifically the attacks against me and the
possible leaving of Kid York. But you know what, I felt someone had to
step up and say something different than "I love your work Scott,
don't leave the newsgroup." I wanted Scott to know that I'm not overly
happy with some of the plotlines and I didn't want to suger-coat the
message either. Do I think Scott L. is a lousy writer? Far from
it...his issue where Sabretooth escapes ranks up there with my top two
favorite X-men of all time. And it is because of this like regading
his work is why I choosed to be perfect blunt in my opinion.
> Do you have problems with Scott Lobdell *AND* Larry Hama? Then do what a
> lot of other folks on here have done, write a critical, yet *HELPFUL*
> message. You can do both.
>
> "Dear Scott, frankly, I threw up while reading XMU #4. I mean, geez, let's
> look from the beginning. It said Rogue did XXXXX, but in X-MEN #XXXX, it
> was shown that she couldn't do it."
Now that up there is arrogance...I'm not trying to tell Scott L. how
to do his job. I don't want him to leave the X-men, I simply want him
to write consistantly good comics. In someways, I think he is better
than Claremont, but unfortunately he also has a tendency to write a
few bombs here and there. Is that harsh? Probably, but to me that is
the way it is. Frankly, I would be honored if Scott L. would ask me
for my opinion of where the X-men should go, but that ain't goin' to
happen'. He is the writer and he has his own vision of where they are
going.
> Or put it this way. Would you go up to Scott Lobdell and Larry Hama's face
> and repeat to them, verbatim, what you wrote in your post? Think about
> before you respond.
Yes I would and I'll leave it at that. However, are you trying to tell
me that you don't always voice your disaggrement with someone? Are you
so afraid to offend everyone else that you hold back on what you
really want to say. If so, then that is your choice and not mine.
Rob
Hohn Cho
In article <32444F...@mail.utexas.edu>,
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh! <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> responded to Hosun Lee
(Vorp-El Bunny):
>It just seems to me that there was alot of moaning and groaning about
>those two before "Kid York" appeared, but now that he is here no one
>wants to say anything that might be viewed as offensive and drive him
>away. That to me is completely dishonest and cowardly, and I have too
>much respect for myself and Scott L. (I never said I hated his work)
>to sugar coat my opinion.
[...]
>whatever you were. And this is the type of crap I can't stand, here
>you are cutting me down and insulting me (ie., lumping me with
>Rob/Naza) cause you are afraid that I might drive Scott L. away.
[...]
>Yes I would and I'll leave it at that. However, are you trying to tell
>me that you don't always voice your disaggrement with someone? Are you
>so afraid to offend everyone else that you hold back on what you
>really want to say. If so, then that is your choice and not mine.
While Bob's passion did seem a bit over-the-top to me in certain places,
and while he didn't necessarily have the strongest factual basis for some
of his positions, I'm in full agreement with him here.
Vorp, I appreciate the fact that you are apparently a very courteous
person, for the most part. But to be blunt, you _do_ seem to leap quite
often onto the "defend the pros no matter what" side of the argument. To
me, it seems rather obsequious at times.
I like very much the fact that pros sometimes participate here. Their
insights are often fascinating. But that participation does not immunize
them from criticism or blunt disagreement, nor should it, IMO.
--
Sincerely,
Hohn Cho
hoh...@kaiwan.com
Andrew D. Devenney, Graduate School Senator
In article <32443F...@northernnet.com>, Snowlock <ba...@northernnet.com>
says:
>
>Bachalo
Duh. <slams head on table>
Of course I don't read Gen X so I block it out.
Hochachtungsvell,
---ADD, brain farting all day long
Roland X
In article <5227l2$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>, hoh...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
(Hohn Cho) wrote:
<snip>
> While Bob's passion did seem a bit over-the-top to me in certain places,
> and while he didn't necessarily have the strongest factual basis for some
> of his positions, I'm in full agreement with him here.
>
> Vorp, I appreciate the fact that you are apparently a very courteous
> person, for the most part. But to be blunt, you _do_ seem to leap quite
> often onto the "defend the pros no matter what" side of the argument. To
> me, it seems rather obsequious at times.
Having seen him on rac.du in the thick of the GL debate, I
know that this is not true.
> I like very much the fact that pros sometimes participate here. Their
> insights are often fascinating. But that participation does not immunize
> them from criticism or blunt disagreement, nor should it, IMO.
>
This I agree with wholeheartedly. Flaming anyone (except in
response to flames, of course <evil grin>) should be discouraged,
but if I think 'X' stank, then I'll say so even if Chris Claremont is
the writer and starts posting here.
(Of course, I happen to think that CC is a god, but that's another
thread. ;^)
--
=== / "Do not become your enemy to defeat your enemy."
O (/) epitaph, Captain Marvel (Mar-Vell)
=== / Support the Green Lantern Net Corps
Roland X, Freelance Immortal of Earth-One
de Designer
Kid York wrote:
((snipped))
> You're complaining about Wolverine-as-dog, at least that is something he's just
> going through. Xavier as closet psycho with a high powered telepathic rifle
> perched atop a water tower would be a character assassination of the worse kind.
But all the things you described as being possibleX, does work. By
always having him do the good stuff, not even _thinking_ of wanting to
do the bad stuff all the time gets annoying. When you(?) had Xavier tell
Storm to break into that military(?) facility, and Storm said that she
would do it, but don't ask me ever again to do it, that ws a perfect
characterization of what could lead up to a cracked-X. When we hear
Warren Worrithington banter with Xavier about how X used to mind-wipe
the locals memory of the X-men's presence all the time, it shows that he
DID use his powers extensively against the people, even if for the
betterment of those people.
That flashback Xavier shows that he can make the hard decisions, like
mind-wiping Magneto did. It shows that he used to be semi-cavalier about
using his powers, and for some reason, maybe the increasing prescence of
evil mutant, that using mutant powers too much has him ashamed of
something.
I think that Onslaught as a little demon was a big cope-out on the
manifestation of Xavier's other half. Sure, Xavier can be a saint to all
people, but he can't be a saint to himself. To thine own self be true.
Something like that.
And Scott, if you compare what was posted about your work before and
after you de-lurked, they (detractors and all) are much nicer to you
overall.
--
de Designer
<---- Shade and Sweet water, mes amis and Edgerunners ---->
<--Assoc. Professor at Xavier's Institute of Higher Learning-->
<-------- Link at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jamesony ------->
Boomstick
On Sep 22, 1996 04:29:24 in article <Re: Bob Harras>, 'Andrew D. Devenney,
Graduate School Senator <34E...@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu>' wrote:
>Duh. <slams head on table>
>
>Of course I don't read Gen X so I block it out.
>
>Hochachtungsvell,
>
>---ADD, brain farting all day long
>
Foundation to Prevent Brain Farts.
jerky
Kid York wrote:
>As for all the mistakes that crop up in the books...what can I say?
>Marvel's been down-sized to the point that everybodies work load has what,
>tripled?
....
>That means unfortunately some things fall through the cracks.
Ok, I can accept that. But doesn't that signify to any of the staff there that
perhaps the amount of X-books produced should be downsized to accomodate the
reduction of resources? There are over twice the amount of X-book titles out
there since 1991, yet Marvel's overall output (and staff) has probably been
reduced by over 50% since then. I realize it's a bit nit-picky to point out
these errors all the time, but unfortunately, these mistakes seem to be
happening all the time as well, and it really cheeses those who have been
loyal fans for a while.
Here's a quick one:
The latest issue of Uncanny shows Storm in the Morlock Tunnels to commemorate
the Anniversary of the Mutant Massacre. But didnt the Anniversary take place
in #325? A year definitely did not take place since then. And you wrote BOTH
issues!
I realize that the staff is under hard times right now, thats why I think
decreasing the workload is a better solution than letting mistakes happen.
Jerky!
Joe Helfrich
William George Ferguson (fr...@primenet.com) wrote:
: On 20 Sep 1996 15:24:03 GMT, j...@dimensional.com (Joe Helfrich) wrote:
: (you mean 'he' of course, not 'eh')
: (you mean 'characters' or course, not 'charachters')
:
: As someone partially responsible for putting out copy that is read on
: a weekly basis by thousands of individuals (nothing exciting, job
: listings), I constantly run head-on into the fact that it is just
: massively easier to see these things after it's too late, and when it
For the record, I did see those when I typed it at first, I was just too
lazy to fix them. :)
: isn't your copy. I did not include the inserts above as spelling/typo
: flames, but to illustrate how unavoidable errors are (and how easily
: seen by someone else). I am the most anally-retentive person I know
: about spelling and typographical errors, and I make them.
I know this. I am an editor, and have been for assorted publications for
years now. (Single Card Strategies Magazine, #1, AVAILABLE AT A GAMING
STORE NEAR YOU! :) ) I'm also a lousy spellermy fingers are larger than
my keys, my brain moves just a little bit faster then my fingers, and I'm
slightly dislyexic (sp?). SO i have people look at my stuff before I send
it out, and I have others edit for my weak points.
Never, ever in my life, have I passed a story that included waterfalls on
the Mississsippi.
: Zero Defects is a nice slogan, but if you are putting out massive
: quantities, such as several comic book titles a month, typographical
: errors, logic errors, and continuity errors will slip in. All the
Certainly they will. The difference is that even though I know it's
impossible, Zero Defects has never, ever been a _slogan_ for me. It has
always, and always will be, a goal. The day it stops being a goal, I hope
I get fired. The X-books have fallen into that trap, I believe.
And no, I don't treat USENET posts to that scrutiny. Because this is
talk, not work.
: Actually, I think a lot (though not all) the niggling would go away if
: the above were followed.
So do I.
Joe Helfrich
Kid York (kid...@aol.com) wrote:
<snipped--Bob fighting the suits UPSTAIRS>
FIne--this needs to be done and I'm glad that he's doing it, and I'm glad
that he's winning.
But while he's doing that, whose keeping a creative eye on the books?
: MONTHS some time... (An example, I am currently working on, and have art
: for, the Nov. Dec. and Jan issues of X-MEN. That means not only am I
: writing the first half of the THIRD story before the LAST half of the
: FIRST story is finished being drawn...it means that sometimes an artist
: who is drawing a torn costume on a character might not be the same artist
: who is drawing that torn costume in the later half. Is it a perfect
: system? No, but for right now, at a time when the industry is being
: slammed to the left and to the right, we think it is important to keep the
: books on a tight and regular schedule. Unfortunately, that means some
: things fall through the cracks.
First off, I think this is a bad system. I'd much rather have a delay in
shipping then have shoddy books shipped. One of the few things that I
like Todd McFarlane for is that he admitted that he couldn't write and
draw a book in 4 weeks, so he pushed it back to every six. If the X-books
decided to do this, or even took a month off to get back on a proper
schedule, I think that my happiness with the books would go up
considerably. A lot of people have been leaving the books for what we see
as poor editing and slip-shod production. i think you're losing more
customers this way then you're keeping them.
Secondly, I don't entierly buy this argument. I've met some Marvel
touch-up artists. Why don't you let them do this, hmm? Even if something
you write in the second half of the first issue contradicts something you
write in the first half of the third, don't you have time to change the
reference in the third? Or, more simply, can't you simply write the first
so it dosen't conflict with the third? (Ugh, English needs better
time-travel tenses.)
: YEARS to produce, there are mistakes...does that speak to the overall
: quality of the movie? I don't think so. When they are standing DOROTHY,
: TIN MAN, SCARECROW, LION from one angle, and then DOROTHY, LION, TIN MAN
: and SCARECROW from the quick-cut in the next frame, and then back again
: for the master shot, does it ruin the movie for me?
Does it ruin the movie? No. Nor does it make it acceptable.
: When in BIRD ON A
: WIRE, in the scene where they are trapped in the San Diego Zoo, Goldie
: Hawn cries to Mel Gibson "What are we going to do, Mel?", and the fact it
: got by what, some thirty different technical people, the director, about
: five producers and studio heads and the actors who were called in to loop
: their voices...does this mean that they the people who made this movie
: were somehow inept or contemptuous, or even lazy? I think it means that
: mistakes happen...but, as near as I know, no one has ever made a mistake
: on purpose.
First off, Bird on a Wire was a joke from the begining. My brother and I
were on a trip to Canada when we saw that movie, and got strange looks
when we burst out laughing at the opening CG. There is no place withing
25 miles of Atlantic City that looks _remotely_ like that house. Past
that, maybe, but the AC Mobsters don't live there, the New York Mobsters
do. I grew up outside Atlantic City.
Second of all, Star Wars, The Greatest Movie of All Time, features Luke
Skywalker jumping off his X-Wing and screaming for Carrie. Does that ruin
the movie? No. Does it break the illusion at a crucial point? A bit.
Did everyone connected to that slip feel chagrined at letting it through
and watch a little bit harder when working on Empire? I suspect so. I
know I would. And I think that that is what the X-Books are missing.
: I'm not here to defend Bob, because frankly he doesn't need it. But I
: don't mind shedding some light on people's misperceptions about what
: happens behind the scenes.
And even though I don't agree with your answers, I'm grateful for the
information. It's much better then the stoney silence we've been getting.
(Larry. :) )
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!
Thanks for the honest reply to what another has described as my
"vitriol-filled" post...
Kid York wrote:
> ...I've written that I would just as soon they be stricken from X-Men
> continuity, but they're there, right beside the stories I'm most proud of.
> Does WOLVERINE going through this situation RUIN the character for all
> time? I don't think so, it means that he's expereincing something. The
> X-MEN, from Stan on to Roy on to Chris on...has always been about trying
> something different--that's one of it's strengths. Unfortunately, it is
> also one of the things that leave it wide open to criticism.
I don't think it ruins the chartacter either; and while it is
unreasonable to expect you or any writer to take a "poll" to see what
direction a character takes, I would like to see some thought put in
by the writers over the consequences there stories might cause. Was
the change to Wolverine done to further "flesh out" the character, or
was it done to score more "kewl" points? If it is the first, then I
appluad Larry's attempt at doing something different but at the same
time I'm dissatisfied with the results. If it's the latter, then it's
kind of sad....
> On the subject of ONSLAUGHT, was it rewritten half way through? No...it
> was a work in progress. That is to say that we started with an idea, and
> as the story got more fleshed out, it became a different story. It wasn't
> "RE-written" rather it was WRITTEN while in motion.
Unfortunately, that method of writing the story left many loose
ends...for example, what about the connection of Blob and Mimic to
Onslaught? Post mentioned that he was the weakest of Onslaught's
minions, but who were the rest? Dark Beast and Holocaust? They both
joined way after Post encounter with the X-men. And while the "Road to
Onslaught" answered many questions of Gateway's involvement with
Onslaught, the story itself didn't. It just seemed to me that as a
work in progress, Onslaught was sloppy.
> My personal opinion is
> that he is NOT an evil, bile-infested, frustrated by his handicap and
> outraged by genetic racism, lust crazed person who would hide his emotions
> and one day snap and become ONSLAUGHT and start killing people by the
> thousands...to me, that would have been the ILLOGICAL conclusion to the
> Onslaught storyline.
And was Jean Grey a power hungry, murderous witch when she destroyed
that planet as the Phoneix? She had the power of a god, and that power
corrupted her. Similarily, it was revealed that Xavier WAS repressing
his negative emotions, this is a fact. Now maybe Xavier's intentions
were done for a good cause, but as the cliche goes "the road to hell
is paved with good intention" and Onslaught should have been the
consquence of Xavier's hubris in thinking he could strip away his own
dark side. Could the X-men continue the "dream," even if the dreamer
is corrupt?...I think so. Excalibur may have not survivied with out
King Arthur, but the X-men had "out-grown" their mentor.
> I'm sorry if you find the X-Books less exciting than you used to. Chris
> and Joe and Carlos and I are having the time of our lives...maybe it catch
> on. Stop by again in a few months and give us another peek...
Did I say I would give up on the X-men? While I still groan over
certain aspects of the book (ie., why didn't the highly trained
martial artist, Gambit rip the recovering amnesiac, Magneto a new
asshole during their fight? This in my opinion should have been a one
sided fight...), I've yet to miss an issue of the X-men in the last 11
years. I admit, I have been spoiled by the high quality and as a fan I
expect more from this comic than others.
Rob
Lord of deXness
In article <3242E1...@mail.utexas.edu>,
Bob Wiacek, heheheheh! <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother wrote:
>>
I read the situation very differently from you.
I have yet to see a poster "line up to kiss his ass". I've seen people
post questions in a polite, non-confrontational manner and get polite,
non-confrontational answers. Just because you don't like something
doesn't mean you have to hurt someone's feelings, and you can make a
negative point without causing undue offense.
For example, which is less offensive?
"I didn't like UXM #666."
"I thought UXM #666 sucked."
"UXM #666 was worthless."
"A pox on the diseased scum who gave birth to the monstrosity that had the
nerve to pass itself off as UXM #666."
Personally, I think #1 is the least offensive. It's clear that the person
didn't like the issue in question without any gratutious insults. #2
isn't bad, but I don't think it's as polite a phrasing as #1. #3 is
clearly insulting, and the person who says #4 probably needs to cut back
on hisher Prozac dosage.
I won't go as far as Senor Bunny did and compare you to Christian, though.
I seriously doubt you have a vendetta against Lobdell that you feel must
be aired publicly in a highly irritating manner. (Actually, the most
irritating thing about Christian's posts is that he usually does have a
valid point, but his tone is so off-putting and over-the-top that no one
wants to hear it. That's a whole other topic, though...)
Anyways, you don't have to be mean to criticize someone. That's all.
deX!
CARMEN J. BERNARDO
rwiacek wrote in response to Kid York's extensive postings:
I happen to agree with Rob 100%. It's not the X-Men or their comic that
is going wrong to me. It's more like the manner in which their stories
have become more plot- and plot-device driven than character-driven in
recent years. While I must admit that Bob and Scott try their best (and,
at times, it looks pretty good), It isn't quite what I had in mind for
the series. I've often thought that a *partial* resolution to the
anti-mutant sentiment was preferrable over the current hysterical
direction myself.
Carmen (still checking things out even if he doesn't pick them up)
Paul O'Brien
"Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!" <rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>It just seems to me that there was alot of moaning and groaning about
>those two before "Kid York" appeared, but now that he is here no one
>wants to say anything that might be viewed as offensive and drive him
>away. That to me is completely dishonest and cowardly, and I have too
>much respect for myself and Scott L. (I never said I hated his work)
>to sugar coat my opinion.
I can assure you that the only reason I've given Scott's recent
issues good reviews is because they're good. Onslaught was utter
crap, but it was over by the time Scott got here. When he next
writes something chronically appalling, I'll be happy to say so.
In the meantime, I'm not going to write gratuitous attacks on him
just to make me look independent.
Paul O'Brien
The Onslaught Index - http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/index/
There's a thin line between Danny Baker and Chris Evans.
Kid York
::First off, I think this is a bad system.::
Maybe I'm just feeling punchy right now, but this statement cracked me up.
Let's see, I think it is a bad system that when we order food in a
restaraunt, we have to pay for it. I would much prefer if we got it for
free.
And hey, DOWN with traffic laws! I think people should drive however they
want to drive. I would have more respect for drivers who just drove
without getting into accidents than I do for drivers who actually obey the
law and still get into accidents.
And what is the deal with reruns on television? I think it would make
much more sense if there was a new episode on every week. I think all
writers should only be like Hemingway and just write novels. I would have
more respect for writer's who refused to write for television and let the
actors figure out the roles themselves.
Okay, I'll stop now. My point is that it seems kind of silly to me that
someone would complain about the nature of a monthly comic. In my brief
lesson on economics, let me put it this way: If Todd decides he has
enough money that he can cut the production on his book to accomadate his
style of living, then that's great. We don't have that luxury, as we are
in the uneviable position of generating enough money to keep the rest of
the books going. Saying "I think it would be smarter to produce less
books a year" is like saying "I have decided I am going to tell my boss I
am only going to show up four days a week instead. I will explain it to
him that that will give me more time to relax on the weekends, and I'll do
much better work and be more productive. I'm sure he will understand."
Good luck, let me know how it turns out.
Joe Helfrich
Kid York (kid...@aol.com) wrote, quoting me:
: ::First off, I think this is a bad system.::
:
: Maybe I'm just feeling punchy right now, but this statement cracked me up.
: Let's see, I think it is a bad system that when we order food in a
: restaraunt, we have to pay for it. I would much prefer if we got it for
: free.
So would I. Life sucks.
Other "examples" snipped
: Okay, I'll stop now. My point is that it seems kind of silly to me that
Praise Allah
: someone would complain about the nature of a monthly comic. In my brief
I'm not complaining about the nature of a monthly comic. It comes out
monthly. But in _your_ post, you were talking about how fax machines etc
have led to shaving of deadlines, and as a result, people were working on
overlapping issues at the same time. My comment was not that you should
to go to less frequent output to prevent that, but that Marvel should
_consider_ that _temporarily_ as a way of getting the books on a better
schedule where there is less overlapping of work and less mistakes as a
result. My point was that I, and I believe a lot of comic readers, would
accept a temporary delay a lot faster then we accept shoddy work.
: lesson on economics, let me put it this way: If Todd decides he has
: enough money that he can cut the production on his book to accomadate his
: style of living, then that's great. We don't have that luxury, as we are
My brief lesson in "look beyond the end of the week" economics:
Poor quality of books ==> Dissatisfaction of readers ==> fewer readers
==> cancelation of books, or at least of creative team.
: in the uneviable position of generating enough money to keep the rest of
: the books going. Saying "I think it would be smarter to produce less
: books a year" is like saying "I have decided I am going to tell my boss I
: am only going to show up four days a week instead. I will explain it to
: him that that will give me more time to relax on the weekends, and I'll do
: much better work and be more productive. I'm sure he will understand."
: Good luck, let me know how it turns out.
No, but almost everybody in the world gets two weeks of vacation a year,
for exactly that purpose. You're over reading my statement, Scott.
David R. Henry
Paul O'Brien writes:
>I can assure you that the only reason I've given Scott's recent
>issues good reviews is because they're good.
Damn straight. I've always been happy to call 'em as I see 'em.
When Lobdell does good, I faint for joy, and am certain to
mention it. When he does bad, I open my review book to the
"Cheap Joke" section once again.
>In the meantime, I'm not going to write gratuitous attacks on him
>just to make me look independent.
Anyone who thinks I'm anything but independant is a Vorpal Bunny.
--
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu Old Endgame, Lost of Old
Play and Lose and have Done with Losing
Alleigh
kid...@aol.com (Kid York) wrote:
>In regards to the WOLVERINE as DOG storyline...hey, some stories work
>better than others. They just do. Was CROSSTIME CAPER a masterpiece?
>The "invisible X-MEN hiding in Australia"...?
I liked the "Invisible X-Men" stories the best of all.
You puny, pathetic human -- to think you could take a telepath
by surprise...or your gun would be any threat to a telekinetic.
- Phoenix (Rachel Summers) - Uncanny X-Men #196
Tim Elf
Joe Helfrich wrote:
<<No, but almost everybody in the world gets two weeks of vacation a year,
for exactly that purpose. You're over reading my statement, Scott.>>
"Almost everybody in the world"? Must be nice. I didn't realize I was in
such a minority. I only get one week, myself, and I had to be employed
here for over a year before I was able to get that. Two weeks? Almost
everybody? Maybe in your dimension...
-Tim, who really wishes he got two weeks a year
Joe Helfrich
Tim Elf (tim...@aol.com) wrote:
: Joe Helfrich wrote:
:
: <<No, but almost everybody in the world gets two weeks of vacation a year,
: for exactly that purpose. You're over reading my statement, Scott.>>
:
: "Almost everybody in the world"? Must be nice. I didn't realize I was in
: such a minority. I only get one week, myself, and I had to be employed
: here for over a year before I was able to get that. Two weeks? Almost
: everybody? Maybe in your dimension...
Sorry. I come from a family that works exclusively for state and county
government in my lifetime, so it's an automatic response. :)
Joe, who's currently on unemployment vacation
Julian Murgatroyd
Boomstick wrote:
On Sep 19, 1996 12:05:10 in article <Re: Bob Harras>, 'larr...@aol.com
(Larryhama)' wrote:
>evidence to identity:
>He's on aol (or else knows how to fake it real well), a company Marvel
>deals with and also the company that newbies and famous types flock to
>(understandably).
Larry's been around for awhile.
>He attacked PAD (or the entity claiming to be) and Ellis (or the entity
>claiming to be). did he and Scott come to blows (of chickens?<g>) yet?
McLean seems to have returned to annoying rac.mu now. He's yet to annoy
Lobdell...
--
Kate Martin jul...@haven.boston.ma.us http://www.haven.boston.ma.us/~julian
"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully. "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's
clever." "And he has Brain." "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain." There
was a long silence. "I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he
never understands anything." -The House at Pooh Corner
Jeremy Billones
In article <52ai5m$h...@plains.nodak.edu>,
David R. Henry <dhe...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote:
>Anyone who thinks I'm anything but independant is a Vorpal Bunny.
What, Vorp thinks you're a Democrat?
Jeremy Billones http://www.primenet.com/~billones/
Objective Reality Isn't "The lottery is a tax on people who don't know math."
"I believe this is heaven to no one else but me and I'll defend it as long
as I can be left here to linger in silence if I choose to. Would you try to
understand?"
Snowlock
Joe Helfrich wrote:
> Poor quality of books ==> Dissatisfaction of readers ==> fewer readers
> ==> cancelation of books, or at least of creative team.
I'd just like to support Joe here. After that disgustingly drawn issue
of X Men #58, and given the pure crap on X Factor, X Man, and X Force,
I've decided Marvel really doesn't give a damn about me as a consumer.
I, who last month collected every x book, have dropped most all except
Uncanny and the Magneto LS and am picking up books by Image, Homage,
Extreme, and DC now. I would rather have seen X Men #58 ship late than
have an artist on there who isn't even qualified to breakdown a book
from the .99 cent line. You can defend Bob untill the cows come home,
but he still picks the art teams, don't he?
What #58, and the current X Force replacement has shown me, is that
Marvel thinks they can just force feed us consumers crap like the
Copout-Slaught, and substandard artists and get away with it. You
can't.
You've said over and over that Onslaught was not a cop out, that it was
a work in progress. But, that is no excuse. In fact, that only makes
me shake my head in disgust more because basically you're telling us you
had no plan, you were just shooting from the hip. In other words,
Onslaught was just a first draft then; shoddy craftsmenship. The last
issue of Onslaught should have been done by you guys before the first
issue came out, to prevent what happened. If you say, "well, that's the
nature of the industry, and can't be helped," then these kind of
projects shouldn't be attempted if they can't be done right.
Sorry to rag on you, but I'm just fed up. I feel like I'm being ripped
off; and not by you Mr. Lobdell, who has written excellently
post-copoutslaught, but by your editor.
Snowlock.
Allan J. Benson
Julian Murgatroyd (jul...@flash-gordon.haven.boston.ma.us) writes:
> Boomstick wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1996 12:05:10 in article <Re: Bob Harras>, 'larr...@aol.com
> (Larryhama)' wrote:
>
> >He attacked PAD (or the entity claiming to be) and Ellis (or the entity
> >claiming to be). did he and Scott come to blows (of chickens?<g>) yet?
>
> McLean seems to have returned to annoying rac.mu now. He's yet to annoy
> Lobdell...
I think Mclean said he likes Lobdell's writing. I'll bet that could change
real fast if Lobdell hangs around long enough.
--
Allan Benson, silent but violent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| "Sometimes the clothes do not make the man." |
| -George Michael- |
Danny Miller
In article <3246C6...@mail.utexas.edu>, "Bob Wiacek, heheheheh!"
<rwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > On the subject of ONSLAUGHT, was it rewritten half way through? No...it
> > was a work in progress. That is to say that we started with an idea, and
> > as the story got more fleshed out, it became a different story. It wasn't
> > "RE-written" rather it was WRITTEN while in motion.
>
> Unfortunately, that method of writing the story left many loose
> ends...for example, what about the connection of Blob and Mimic to
> Onslaught? Post mentioned that he was the weakest of Onslaught's
> minions, but who were the rest? Dark Beast and Holocaust? They both
> joined way after Post encounter with the X-men. And while the "Road to
> Onslaught" answered many questions of Gateway's involvement with
> Onslaught, the story itself didn't. It just seemed to me that as a
> work in progress, Onslaught was sloppy.
Speaking of which, what *did* The Road to Onslaught reveal, in general,
that wasn't revealed in the comics? Could someone email me? (Don't want
to waste valuable space with them pesky spoilers! :) ) Thanks. :)
--
Daniel A. Miller ST93...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
MB#0723, Brandeis University, P.O. Box 9110
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
"It's all fun & games 'till someone puts out an eye."
Andy Grant
Boomstick wrote:
> But, more damning he defends the almighty BOB!
>
No he doesn't. He defends Bob. None of us here have a problem with Bob.
It's BOB we have a problem with. It's impossible to defend BOB. He's
the incarnation of all evil. By definition. Yay Bob. Boo BOB.
Simple, see?
--
Andy Grant, hypnotist of ladies
can be reached at ga...@gre.ac.uk during september
then my course finishes and I have no computer
so enjoy me while ya've got me!
Kevin Schmidt
>Kid York wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Larry, 1,000%
>>
>> Aside from being the hardest working man in the entire industry, Bob is
>> also the most dedicated. At a time when the industry is rocking, the
>> X-Men are still holding strong...and that is because of the foundation
>> that Bob has built over the years.
>Bob may be the hardest worker around, but I'll still wish that it was
>him that left the X-men and not Claremont.
But where would the x-books be if claremont were still with them?
Wolverine would have lost his metal. (In the first few issues of X-Men)
Jean and Scott would have been married.
The world would be at war with mutants. (Thanks to the Shadow King)
The Shi'ar empire would be on the brink of war.
My opinion is that the x-books may actually finally be getting back on track
where Chris left them.
David Meade
Snowlock wrote:
>
> Alleigh wrote:
> >
> > kid...@aol.com (Kid York) wrote:
> >
> > >In regards to the WOLVERINE as DOG storyline...hey, some stories work
> > >better than others. They just do. Was CROSSTIME CAPER a masterpiece?
> > >The "invisible X-MEN hiding in Australia"...?
> >
> > I liked the "Invisible X-Men" stories the best of all.
>
> favorites.
>
> Snowlock.
I also liked the X-Men in Australia issues. From what I've read of Crosstime
Caper (the first 10 issues or so) I've liked most of it. It was a
lighthearted story, which the present X-Men are desperately in need of.
Jeffryes Joshua M
:|> > kid...@aol.com (Kid York) wrote:
:|> >
:|> > >In regards to the WOLVERINE as DOG storyline...hey, some stories work
:|> > >better than others. They just do. Was CROSSTIME CAPER a masterpiece?
:|> > >The "invisible X-MEN hiding in Australia"...?
I've got to say that this is one of the more damning moves old Scott has
taken. Rather like saying "Boy, that Dark Phoenix Saga sure was stupid, eh?"
In agreement with many others, I enjoyed both the Invisible in Australia
and Crosstime Caper arcs. They were good, solid stories, with consistant,
logical characters I good relate to. The current books have none of this.
Thus, I dropped all but Excaliber two months ago. Period.
J. Spectre - and Excaliber's soon to go. Besides, now I can better afford
Starman, Sandman, and Aztek from DC.
- go dig up the "Ended Before Its Time" Foot Soldiers from Dark
Horse. *There* was a group of characters I could care about.
*There* was drama, and emmotion. *There* was actions that mattered,
without needing to change or save the world. They changed a few
lives, and gave people hope, and that's better than the X-men have
done in years.
| "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of |
| salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer |
| and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I |
| shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln |
Elizabeth Celeste
> >In regards to the WOLVERINE as DOG storyline...hey, some stories work
> >better than others. They just do. Was CROSSTIME CAPER a masterpiece?
> >The "invisible X-MEN hiding in Australia"...?
> I liked the "Invisible X-Men" stories the best of all.
I was ratherfond of parts of the Crosstime Caper actually:
"You should have stayed DEAD, Douglas Ramsey!"
And Australia was one of my favorite eras as well.....
If you want to talk _BAD_ ideas, a little reminder of the glories that
were Bird Boy, Gossamyr, Kwannon, and the past two issues of X-Force
might be a better option.
Eliz- who really liked the Girls School From Heck too. "Is that tail
really prehensile MR.Nightcrawler, Sir?"
Keeper of the Dead New Mutants Flame * Elizabeth Celeste X-Force | Chick
Check out the X-Writers - The net's best- http://minuteman.com/x-writers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"She came all the way from America, Had a blind date with Destiny, And the
sound of Te Awawmutu, Had a truly sacred ring" Mean to Me - Crowded House
Andy Zupcsan
[snippage]
> I was ratherfond of parts of the Crosstime Caper actually:
>
> "You should have stayed DEAD, Douglas Ramsey!"
I agree on Crosstime. That was when I started collecting Excalibur.
The problem was that it degenerated from alternate Excaliburs and
alternate earths to the strange Nth man/Jamie Braddock stuff which
I found personally confusing, and generally at odds with the rest
of the series, and also Alan Davis was not doing art on those few
issues either. Overall it was good though.
> Eliz- who really liked the Girls School From Heck too. "Is that tail
> really prehensile MR.Nightcrawler, Sir?"
Hee Hee! <no comment>
Andy
--
Andy Zupcsan: a...@po.cwru.edu
http://b63876.cwru.edu/
Magneto and Rogue lobbyist,
Supporter of Sinister,
Loremaster of Marvel Cosmology