jim shooter in comic book artist 7
DHenry7969
I wondered several times as I read cba 7 that Jim Shooter sure would make an
interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear the
man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other marvel
fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
I'm curious about why there is little mention of Bill Mantlo. In spite of his
injuries, he still played a big role in 70s marvel comics.
The Ministry of Disinformation
>
>I wondered several times as I read cba 7 that Jim Shooter sure would make an
>interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear the
>man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other marvel
>fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
Shooter has a well-established history of "tweaking" his past to make
it "Y2K compliant," therefore any interview with him would have to be
balanced by the stories of those who worked for him; the truth,
hopefully, would emerge at some point. For me, it became quite obvious
years ago when his "joke" memo was leaked, showing his true feelings
for the readers.
>I'm curious about why there is little mention of Bill Mantlo. In spite of his
>injuries, he still played a big role in 70s marvel comics.
He wrote a lot of books, but I don't think his work resulted in any
sort of paradigm shift in the manner of celebrated talents like Lee
and Kirby, Steranko, WIndsor-Smith, etc., so that might explain it.
Alan David Doane
---
The Ministry of Disinformation and Popular Enlightenment: Views, Essays, True Stories,
Comics-oriented Interviews, Reviews, News and Commentary. http://www.ministry2000.com
Check out The Ministry at SBC: http://silverbulletcomics.hypermart.net/ministry/ministry.htm
Blake
>
> I wondered several times as I read cba 7 that Jim Shooter sure would
make an
> interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to
hear the
> man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone
other marvel
> fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
I too would love to see this type of evidence presented to the public.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to do so without there being
some sort of special interest involved. Regardless, it's all just
gossip. All that really matters is what the person has created, and
whether or not it's good, quality material.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rtl...@my-deja.com
dhenr...@aol.com (DHenry7969) wrote:
>
> I wondered several times as I read cba 7 that Jim Shooter sure would make an
> interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear the
> man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other marvel
> fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
>
(j...@petrilak.com) who maintians Big Jim fan site. Even if he never gets
around to doing it he would know if
there does exist an interview were Jim went into detail on it. His site
www.petrilak.com/valiant has a lengthy Big Jim interview that deals a
little with his Marvel days (mostly it's about Valiant).
WRH Bill
>interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear
>the
>man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other
>marvel
>fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
I'd be interested in a Shooter interview about the era. It's probably true as
someone said that his side of things would have to be taken with a grain, or
even a whole shaker, of salt.... but then the same may well be true of others
giving interviews.
Jim Shooter may have been hell to work for, but as a *reader* I've always had
respect for him.... Besides his producing a number of classic comics as a
scripter (no, I'm not including SECRET WARS, though even that wasn't as bad as
some would claim) Marvel Comics under his supposedly tyrannical reign were more
entertaining overall (at least to me) than they were before him, during the
'70s Editor of the Month period, or after him.
It's interesting though that some of the comments on Shooter in CMA #7 seem to
suggest that he started off fairly reasonable but somewhere along the line went
power-mad, or something, and started making loony decisions such as the alleged
attempt to kill off every Marvel hero. This could explain some of the
divergence of view about him.
>
>I'm curious about why there is little mention of Bill Mantlo. In spite of
>his
>injuries, he still played a big role in 70s marvel comics.
I wouldn't mind reading a Mantlo interview, but because of his health problems
resulting from a brain injury in an accident years ago, that doesn't seem
likely ever to happen....and I suppose no other writer or editor particularly
wants to talk about him in an interview, especially since anything remotely
negative might seem like attacking someone who can no longer respond. (Not
that there's anything all that negative to say about Mantlo... he wasn't the
most inspired writer of the era, but compared to some of the people working for
Marvel these days he was a creative genius, and I have a fondness for some of
his work such as ROM and certain SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN issues.)
rtl...@my-deja.com
news...@hotmail.com (The Ministry of Disinformation) wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2000 06:04:12 GMT, dhenr...@aol.com (DHenry7969) wrote:
>
> >
> >interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear the
> >man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other marvel
> >fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
>
> it "Y2K compliant," therefore any interview with him would have to be
> balanced by the stories of those who worked for him; the truth,
> hopefully, would emerge at some point. For me, it became quite obvious
> years ago when his "joke" memo was leaked, showing his true feelings
> for the readers.
>
coherent detail. I remember Byrne writing that a magazine (CBG?) had
printed a history of Big jim that he said was warped from reality but
that's all I know about it. Could you please fill me in?
James Corcoran
> I missed everything that talked about Jim "tweaking" his past with any
> coherent detail. I remember Byrne writing that a magazine (CBG?) had
> printed a history of Big jim that he said was warped from reality but
> that's all I know about it. Could you please fill me in?
There was an issue of CBG focusing on the launch of Defiant Comics, I
believe. Contained was a biography, provided by Shooter's folks, that
heralded him as something of a "saint" (my words) in the comic world. The
flattering bio credited him with many achievements in the field including
fighting, as Marvel EIC, to return Kirby's artwork and being behind the
publishing of the first graphic novel. Problem was many of these noted
achievements were presented in such away to either be favorably misleading
or downright false. Of course, people who knew better read the bio and
called him on it. I seem to recall that he tried to defend himself and in
the process indicated that he gave Frank Miller money, or something along
those lines, which resulted in Miller writing a letter to CBG blasting
Shooter. Personally, it was the best run of letters in the column since
Byrne and Barr squared off.
James Corcoran
CFS
My understanding is that the press release was culled from his resume. A
resume is created to make a person's job past glow in the dark. Mr.
Shooter's
depth of experience far exceeds most creator's in the industry whether he
personally spearheaded the changes or not. Besides heading Marvel, Mr.
Shooter
actually worked ~with~ some of the older legends in the industry and made an
effort to learn from them. Most of the CBG's published letters rambled on
mindlessly whether the death of Captain Marvel was the first graphic novel
or
not. Regardless of whether it was technically the first or not, it was a
significant change in the way comics were being made. Marvel dedicating it's
resources to giving creator's rights to their work was a tad bit more
significant than any other changes at the time. Mr Shooter may or not be the
driving reason, but he allowed it to happen. If he had not allowed it to
happen we might have ended up with the best creators boycotting the industry
for greener pastures. I disagree that it was the CBG's "best run of
letters".
They were quite shallow and annoying. Regardless as to whether Mr. Shooter
was
there as a crutch to Frank Miller in the early days, he let the man keep
working for Marvel. I happen to prefer everything Frank Miller did ~before~
Ronin.
I am not fond of all the things Mr. Shooter done in his career (such as
Secret
Wars), but he gets slammed by people for some pretty stupid reasons.
CFS
Please visit: http://www.atlan.net/pe
Post comics you wish to buy or sell here:
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb89637
Richard Pace
> My understanding is that the press release was culled from his resume. A
> resume is created to make a person's job past glow in the dark.
Then you misunderstood -- it was his own PR. Shooter micro manages everything.
> Mr. Shooter's depth of experience far exceeds most creator's in the industry
> whether he
> personally spearheaded the changes or not.
And that earns him brownie points how?
> Besides heading Marvel, Mr. Shooter
> actually worked ~with~ some of the older legends in the industry and made an
> effort to learn from them.
He also worked with many of the then current legends in the industry and
occasionally shut them out from Marvel or stifled their creativity.
> Most of the CBG's published letters rambled on
> mindlessly whether the death of Captain Marvel was the first graphic novel
> or not. Regardless of whether it was technically the first or not, it was a
> significant change in the way comics were being made.
No, it wasn't. If it wasn't the first then it didn't make a significant change
it just recognized and capitalized on a change that was already occurring. That
Shooter was business savvy enough to go with this doesn't absolve him of any of
the things he's smudged his reputation with.
> Marvel dedicating it's
> resources to giving creator's rights to their work was a tad bit more
> significant than any other changes at the time. Mr Shooter may or not be the
> driving reason, but he allowed it to happen.
Epic's OOP creator reversion deal wasn't that good a deal when it was written --
it was just a better financially compensatory deal than any other well financed
comics company in North America was offering at the time. Star*Reach, Eclipse,
Heavy Metal and a few others actually offered better deals first. You could
also point out that Shooter let it happen that Marvel doesn't pay royalties but
incentives -- a far less creator friendly deal than what DC offered (first, I
may add).
> If he had not allowed it to happen we might have ended up with the best
> creators boycotting the industry for greener pastures.
You mean the Marvel creators running to DC in the mid-'80s?
> I disagree that it was the CBG's "best run of
> letters". They were quite shallow and annoying. Regardless as to whether Mr.
> Shooter
> was there as a crutch to Frank Miller in the early days, he let the man keep
> working for Marvel. I happen to prefer everything Frank Miller did ~before~
> Ronin.
That's nice. However, I'm sure Miller would have been just as easily employed
at DC so giving credit to Shooter for keeping a creative commercial asset
employed is hardly cause for deification.
> I am not fond of all the things Mr. Shooter done in his career (such as
> Secret
> Wars), but he gets slammed by people for some pretty stupid reasons.
Okay -- here're the reasons I slam Shooter. His cult-of-personality during his
latter years as Marvel EIC as well as his famous (black) list. His nonsensical
art dictates during his tenure and micro managing artistic and editorial
decisions. His admitted dislike and open derision of the comics audience. His
reinvention and distortions of his past dealings as EIC at Marvel (Kirby art,
etc.). His screwing over his creative partners in Broadway. I've reasons to
despise him for things he's done in his private life, but won't list here.
There are things that he's done that are worthy of comment -- I've heard that he
was instrumental (with DC) in getting Archie Goodwin decent medical insurance
when Archie was facing cancer.
He's no demon, but he falls very, very short of being a saint.
Richard
--
I've added over twenty more images of my artwork to my gallery for your viewing
pleasure!
- http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
CFS
>CFS wrote:
>> Most of the CBG's published letters rambled on
>> mindlessly whether the death of Captain Marvel was the first graphic novel
>> or not. Regardless of whether it was technically the first or not, it was a
>> significant change in the way comics were being made.
>
>No, it wasn't. If it wasn't the first then it didn't make a significant
change
>it just recognized and capitalized on a change that was already occurring.
That
>Shooter was business savvy enough to go with this doesn't absolve him of any
of
>the things he's smudged his reputation with.
>
Some obscure independent comic whining "creator rights" is hardly the same
as
the largest publisher changing their policy. To conclude differently seems
quite odd. Neal Adams held his stance for years and all we did was lose his
talents to other markets. Pacific went bust. Jim Shooter allowed the changes
and I think he at least deserves a bit of credit for that. I will give him
credit for that.
>> Marvel dedicating it's
>> resources to giving creator's rights to their work was a tad bit more
>> significant than any other changes at the time. Mr Shooter may or not be
the
>> driving reason, but he allowed it to happen.
>
>Epic's OOP creator reversion deal wasn't that good a deal when it was written
--
But is was a compromise. It opened the door. They did not have to make any
changes. I'm happy that creators aren't being treated as slave labor, but it
has been a two sided coin. I prefered the product when every little voice
wasn't able to change the whole direction and nature of a character. You can
only rape, degrade and maim heroes so much before you wonder why you ever
cared to begin with.
>it was just a better financially compensatory deal than any other well
financed
>comics company in North America was offering at the time. Star*Reach,
Eclipse,
>Heavy Metal and a few others actually offered better deals first.
And where are they?
Gotta have that Elvira comic don't we :)
Really a strong force in the market after all these years. Let everyone go
work for them.
> You could
>also point out that Shooter let it happen that Marvel doesn't pay royalties
but
>incentives -- a far less creator friendly deal than what DC offered (first,
I
>may add).
>
>> If he had not allowed it to happen we might have ended up with the best
>> creators boycotting the industry for greener pastures.
>
>You mean the Marvel creators running to DC in the mid-'80s?
Now that was a desperate company. DC in the eighties. I remember that well.
DC
was hurting too badly. Marvel didn't have to change their policies. They
were
finding new talents right and left.
>> I disagree that it was the CBG's "best run of
>> letters". They were quite shallow and annoying. Regardless as to whether
Mr.
>> Shooter
>> was there as a crutch to Frank Miller in the early days, he let the man
keep
>> working for Marvel. I happen to prefer everything Frank Miller did ~before~
>> Ronin.
>
>That's nice. However, I'm sure Miller would have been just as easily
employed
>at DC so giving credit to Shooter for keeping a creative commercial asset
>employed is hardly cause for deification.
Nah, the Klaus Janson inks kept him employed until he developed a following
based on his perspective and layouts. He was also tossed into that
Deathstalker storyline that everyone had been following faithfully across
titles. If he'd remained on less compelling titles and storylines at the
beginning he'd probably be forgotten today. He earned his success, but a
seed
has to have dirt and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. DC had
very little insight during that time period. Kieth Giffen and Perez were it
for a while. Even with their talent they seem to always keep getting
forgotten.
>> I am not fond of all the things Mr. Shooter done in his career (such as
>> Secret
>> Wars), but he gets slammed by people for some pretty stupid reasons.
>
>Okay -- here're the reasons I slam Shooter. His cult-of-personality during
his
>latter years as Marvel EIC as well as his famous (black) list.
Now these are gripes I like to hear because they are the real substance.
This
is my speculation, but there are bosses and their are indians in this world.
There are people who want to make the rules but they are not willing to
address all the issues and manage the full scope of what needs to be done.
There are also people that are incapable of doing what it takes because they
don't have the knowledge or the talent. Perhaps he did have a problem
dealing
with people, but perhaps also people didn't like him excercising the skills
he
did learn and the skills that did create sales and a better product. If he
was
wrong, he's paid for it. I don't feel that what happened to him at Valiant
can
be justified in any way.
> His nonsensical
>art dictates during his tenure and micro managing artistic and editorial
>decisions.
When I am a supervisor, my employees had better be following my orders.
Employment is an agreement between an employer and the employee. A boss does
not owe their employees free reign, the power of decision, or even a job.
Any
employee has the right to go elsewhere, just as a buisiness has a right to
hire people that are working towards their common goal. I think that Jim
Shooter has some sound storytelling disciplines that achieve the goal he
wishes to achieve. It achieves the goal that many readers wish to see. There
are many ways to tell a story. I think as a supervisor Jim Shooter had the
right to dictate how the products under his helm would be produced. It seems
to me that the people who respected his knowledge and especially his
authority
had no problem with him.
> His admitted dislike and open derision of the comics audience.
It is one thing to generalize on the negative qualities of a group and
openly
deride them. It is another to genuinely loathe the fans. Many insiders in
the
industry mock and show derision for the fans in the industry in one form or
another. We are after all reading stories with pictures. Isn't that what
children do? His dedication to quality and meeting certain standards, and
adding depth to his material should at least show that he takes the comics
business more seriously than a large number of the other creators in the
industry.
> His
>reinvention and distortions of his past dealings as EIC at Marvel (Kirby art,
>etc.).
I don't see any reinvention and distortion. I've seen him say "Yes, I did
'x',
but I was limited by 'y'" He has said that he was an employee and had
authorities to answer to. I see a pattern of people who have no respect for
a
designated authority whining about another person who does. This creates a
sympathy in my mind for Mr. Shooter... not the little employee that didn't
get
his way and had to redraw a panel. I don't see Mr. Shooter as some angel, I
do
see him as someone who has a vision of how things should be done and a
problem
selling that vision to others. I think if more people cooperated and
listened
to him, they learn something and comics would be better for it.
> His screwing over his creative partners in Broadway.
I have not read about any problems with Broadway closing their doors. I've
actually heard very positive comments about Defiant closing their doors and
paying for the art they never published. I know at least one of those
creators
at Broadway is still on good terms and there wasn't a very long list of
names.
I'll work off the assumption you have information that I am lacking. If
problems existed when Broadway shut their doors, I think it is small in
comparison to negative feelings that many other defunct publishers left
behind. I've heard some very nasty comments about some of these smaller
publishers that are at deaths door (if not gone already). These complaints
include not paying artists for work they did etc.
> I've reasons to
>despise him for things he's done in his private life, but won't list here.
You may have valid reasons and that is your right. Many people have
skeletons
in their closet.
>There are things that he's done that are worthy of comment -- I've heard that
he
>was instrumental (with DC) in getting Archie Goodwin decent medical insurance
>when Archie was facing cancer.
Archie Goodwin it seems was respected by many creators.
>
>He's no demon, but he falls very, very short of being a saint.
Much like the rest of us.
>Richard
>--
>I've added over twenty more images of my artwork to my gallery for your
viewing
>pleasure!
>- http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
Pick up Jim Starlin's "Wyrd" by Slave Labor and his view of the corporate
machine. The corporate world has many things that you can grow to hate. I
don't think that Jim Shooter should be personified as the embodiment of all
evils in the comic industry. Between Jim Shooter and Rob Liefeld you'd think
they were in a race to be given that title.
Quite often in any disagreement, the truth is not in the hands of one person
or another. The truth often lies in-between.
CFS
Richard Pace
> >===== Original Message From Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> =====
> >CFS wrote:
>
> >> Most of the CBG's published letters rambled on
> >> mindlessly whether the death of Captain Marvel was the first graphic novel
> >> or not. Regardless of whether it was technically the first or not, it was a
> >> significant change in the way comics were being made.
> >
> >No, it wasn't. If it wasn't the first then it didn't make a significant
> change
> >it just recognized and capitalized on a change that was already occurring.
> That
> >Shooter was business savvy enough to go with this doesn't absolve him of any
> of
> >the things he's smudged his reputation with.
> >
>
> Some obscure independent comic whining "creator rights" is hardly the same
> as
> the largest publisher changing their policy. To conclude differently seems
> quite odd. Neal Adams held his stance for years and all we did was lose his
> talents to other markets. Pacific went bust. Jim Shooter allowed the changes
> and I think he at least deserves a bit of credit for that. I will give him
> credit for that.
Starlin didn't get any creator rights with TDoCM. DC changed their creator rights
policy first, had a better royalty and reversion deal and still has one. How does
this make Shooter the good guy -- anyone sitting in the chair at that time would
have made similar and possibly better changes to Marvel's creator rights and
royalty system.
I think you're confusing the graphic novel format with creator rights here.
You're also all over the map with your points -- Neal made his choices because the
industry wasn't prepared to accept a minimum acknowledgement of the creators. I'm
concluding differently because I know several professionals who were there when
this all was happening and seem to have a more solid grasp of what occurred. How
is this "odd"?
> >> Marvel dedicating it's
> >> resources to giving creator's rights to their work was a tad bit more
> >> significant than any other changes at the time. Mr Shooter may or not be
> the
> >> driving reason, but he allowed it to happen.
> >
> >Epic's OOP creator reversion deal wasn't that good a deal when it was written
> --
>
> But is was a compromise. It opened the door. They did not have to make any
> changes. I'm happy that creators aren't being treated as slave labor, but it
> has been a two sided coin. I prefered the product when every little voice
> wasn't able to change the whole direction and nature of a character. You can
> only rape, degrade and maim heroes so much before you wonder why you ever
> cared to begin with.
No -- in North America the door was opened by smaller publishers -- it was a case
of doing the same or losing all your top talent to smaller publishers. Witness
Image. Witness Marvel post Image. And the story and character changes you're
decrying are company driven, not freelancer driven -- many of which actually
started under Shooter's tenure.
> >it was just a better financially compensatory deal than any other well
> financed
> >comics company in North America was offering at the time. Star*Reach,
> Eclipse,
> >Heavy Metal and a few others actually offered better deals first.
>
> And where are they?
> Gotta have that Elvira comic don't we :)
> Really a strong force in the market after all these years. Let everyone go
> work for them.
Where's Marvel's deal now? It's long gone. DC, Dark Horse, Image and a few other
companies are offering quite healthy options to working at Marvel or for any work
made for hire Shooter start up.
Shooter was also pretty ineffective at starting any creator friendly deals at any
of his subsequent companies. He only made a failed attempt at Broadway then
refused to release them back to their creators when the axe was about to fall. Of
course, Jim Shooter's inept business management was the primary reason for
Broadway's collapse and he WAS doing everything he could to hang on to his job as
everyone else was being fired.
> > You could
> >also point out that Shooter let it happen that Marvel doesn't pay royalties
> but
> >incentives -- a far less creator friendly deal than what DC offered (first,
> I
> >may add).
> >
> >> If he had not allowed it to happen we might have ended up with the best
> >> creators boycotting the industry for greener pastures.
> >
> >You mean the Marvel creators running to DC in the mid-'80s?
>
> Now that was a desperate company. DC in the eighties. I remember that well.
> DC was hurting too badly. Marvel didn't have to change their policies. They
> were finding new talents right and left.
You're not remembering the same DC I am. Teen Titans was selling close to X
numbers and Batman and Superman always sold well -- add to that several critically
well received series and the burgeoning talent pool streaming from the UK and you
had a company far from hurting.
> >> I disagree that it was the CBG's "best run of
> >> letters". They were quite shallow and annoying. Regardless as to whether
> Mr.
> >> Shooter
> >> was there as a crutch to Frank Miller in the early days, he let the man
> keep
> >> working for Marvel. I happen to prefer everything Frank Miller did ~before~
> >> Ronin.
> >
> >That's nice. However, I'm sure Miller would have been just as easily
> employed
> >at DC so giving credit to Shooter for keeping a creative commercial asset
> >employed is hardly cause for deification.
>
> Nah, the Klaus Janson inks kept him employed until he developed a following
> based on his perspective and layouts.
????? That is not the case, my friend.
> He was also tossed into that
> Deathstalker storyline that everyone had been following faithfully across
> titles.
Just who is this Deathstalker character, again?
> If he'd remained on less compelling titles and storylines at the
> beginning he'd probably be forgotten today. He earned his success, but a
> seed has to have dirt and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. DC
> had
> very little insight during that time period. Kieth Giffen and Perez were it
> for a while. Even with their talent they seem to always keep getting
> forgotten.
Miller writing and drawing Daredevil made it a success -- I doubt he would have
been as succesful drawing Stern's Doctor Strange, but considering how his creative
impulses have hit the medium over the last twenty years it's almost inconceivable
to think he wouldn't have been a creative powerhouse without Janson's inks on
Daredevil.
> >> I am not fond of all the things Mr. Shooter done in his career (such as
> >> Secret
> >> Wars), but he gets slammed by people for some pretty stupid reasons.
> >
> >Okay -- here're the reasons I slam Shooter. His cult-of-personality during
> his
> >latter years as Marvel EIC as well as his famous (black) list.
>
> Now these are gripes I like to hear because they are the real substance.
Thanks.
>
> This
> is my speculation, but there are bosses and their are indians in this world.
> There are people who want to make the rules but they are not willing to
> address all the issues and manage the full scope of what needs to be done.
> There are also people that are incapable of doing what it takes because they
> don't have the knowledge or the talent. Perhaps he did have a problem
> dealing with people, but perhaps also people didn't like him excercising the
> skills
> he did learn and the skills that did create sales and a better product. If he
> was wrong, he's paid for it. I don't feel that what happened to him at Valiant
> can be justified in any way.
That's certainly speculation.
> > His nonsensical
> >art dictates during his tenure and micro managing artistic and editorial
> >decisions.
>
> When I am a supervisor, my employees had better be following my orders.
> Employment is an agreement between an employer and the employee. A boss does
> not owe their employees free reign, the power of decision, or even a job.
> Any employee has the right to go elsewhere, just as a buisiness has a right to
> hire people that are working towards their common goal. I think that Jim
> Shooter has some sound storytelling disciplines that achieve the goal he
> wishes to achieve. It achieves the goal that many readers wish to see. There
> are many ways to tell a story. I think as a supervisor Jim Shooter had the
> right to dictate how the products under his helm would be produced. It seems
> to me that the people who respected his knowledge and especially his
> authority had no problem with him.
What part of "nonsensical" didn't you get?
He practically did the same thing at Broadway -- he photocopied almost the
entire body of Watchmen and poorly annotated it so his writers and artists knew
what he wanted them to draw. This isn't management it's needless interference.
He hired people who knew the nine-panel grid better than he did, yet he forced his
understanding of it down their throats. At some point you have to let the
professionals you hire do their jobs.
> > His admitted dislike and open derision of the comics audience.
>
> It is one thing to generalize on the negative qualities of a group and
> openly deride t them. It is another to genuinely loathe the fans. Many insiders
> in
> the industry mock and show derision for the fans in the industry in one form or
> another.
So this makes it okay when Shooter does it in an interview?
> We are after all reading stories with pictures. Isn't that what
> children do?
You, sir, have unnecessarily insulted everyone in this news group.
> His dedication to quality and meeting certain standards, and
> adding depth to his material should at least show that he takes the comics
> business more seriously than a large number of the other creators in the
> industry.
He kept an inept and unreliable letterer on staff and used a colourist with no
experience with the technology at Broadway. He spent thousands a week on hours
long business lunches every week getting nothing done but half in the bag. He
allowed different members of his staff to proceed with aspects of the same project
independent of story or promotional concerns of another staff members or creative
personnel. This is just at Broadway. He doesn't take the fans or the business
seriously.
> > His
> >reinvention and distortions of his past dealings as EIC at Marvel (Kirby art,
> >etc.).
>
> I don't see any reinvention and distortion. I've seen him say "Yes, I did
> 'x', but I was limited by 'y'" He has said that he was an employee and had
> authorities to answer to. I see a pattern of people who have no respect for
> a designated authority whining about another person who does. This creates a
> sympathy in my mind for Mr. Shooter... not the little employee that didn't
> get his way and had to redraw a panel. I don't see Mr. Shooter as some angel, I
> do see him as someone who has a vision of how things should be done and a
> problem selling that vision to others. I think if more people cooperated and
> listened to him, they learn something and comics would be better for it.
He had absolute control of Marvel until his failed coup. Since then he's had
complete editorial control of every situation he's been involved in, despite pleas
to the contrary or his Nintendo and WCW licenses. Everyone co-operated with Jim
-- it was either that or you were out the door. Just look at Shooter's record:
Marvel -- fired for a failed coup, Valiant - ousted after another failed power
grab, Defiant -- mismanaged to death, Broadway -- mismanaged to death. Daring
? How long's it been since he announced it? Two years.
> > His screwing over his creative partners in Broadway.
>
> I have not read about any problems with Broadway closing their doors. I've
> actually heard very positive comments about Defiant closing their doors and
> paying for the art they never published. I know at least one of those
> creators at Broadway is still on good terms and there wasn't a very long list of
>
> names.
> I'll work off the assumption you have information that I am lacking. If
> problems existed when Broadway shut their doors, I think it is small in
> comparison to negative feelings that many other defunct publishers left
> behind. I've heard some very nasty comments about some of these smaller
> publishers that are at deaths door (if not gone already). These complaints
> include not paying artists for work they did etc.
So, Shooter's record of screwing people is okay because it's not as bad as other.
smaller publishers -- but his record on creator rights is better because it
happened at a larger publisher? try to be consistent.
> > I've reasons to
> >despise him for things he's done in his private life, but won't list here.
>
> You may have valid reasons and that is your right. Many people have
> skeletons in their closet.
>
> >There are things that he's done that are worthy of comment -- I've heard that
> he was instrumental (with DC) in getting Archie Goodwin decent medical insurance
>
> >when Archie was facing cancer.
>
> Archie Goodwin it seems was respected by many creators.
Partly because he was always honest -- even when he was EIC.
> >He's no demon, but he falls very, very short of being a saint.
>
> Much like the rest of us.
When I start destroying people's lives out of spite or cowardice and lying about
what I've done THEN I'll accept that.
rtl...@my-deja.com
.
>
> He practically did the same thing at Broadway -- he photocopied almost the
> entire body of Watchmen and poorly annotated it so his writers and artists knew
> what he wanted them to draw.
Huh? Watchmen? I missed something here...
> >
I think I missed this one. What are you refering to?
.
>
> > > His
> > >reinvention and distortions of his past dealings as EIC at Marvel (Kirby art,
> > >etc.).
> >
> > I don't see any reinvention and distortion. I've seen him say "Yes, I did
> > 'x', but I was limited by 'y'" He has said that he was an employee and had
> > authorities to answer to. I see a pattern of people who have no respect for
> > a designated authority whining about another person who does. This creates a
> > sympathy in my mind for Mr. Shooter... not the little employee that didn't
> > get his way and had to redraw a panel. I don't see Mr. Shooter as some angel, I
> > do see him as someone who has a vision of how things should be done and a
> > problem selling that vision to others. I think if more people cooperated and
> > listened to him, they learn something and comics would be better for it.
>
That's what he claimed when he was at Valiant and Miller didn't have a
problem doing the Unity covers for him. I assume that the way it was
restated those couple years later pissed Frank off or Frank's politica
are just got more extreme.
> He had absolute control of Marvel until his failed coup. Since then he's had
> complete editorial control of every situation he's been involved in, despite pleas
> to the contrary or his Nintendo and WCW licenses.
Well, it's excepted fact amoung most people I know that EIC have limited
to little power in their companies and that it's the people with the
actual money that control things. Why would he try a "coup" as you said
if he had absolute power? According to Jim he wanted to do heroes instead
of those lisences at Valiant. If you look at what got published and how
it was done that doesn't seem unreasonable...
Everyone co-operated with Jim
> -- it was either that or you were out the door.
I can't see that as much of a price to pay on his last three companies
(which kept a vast majority of talent on) since they could just get
picked up by bigger companies (a lot of them did).
Just look at Shooter's record:
> Marvel -- fired for a failed coup, Valiant - ousted after another failed power
> grab, Defiant -- mismanaged to death, Broadway -- mismanaged to death.
The industry went through a bomb/bust stage. A vast majority of
companies no matter how they were managed didn't make it.Comic companies
rise and fall for a lot of reasons (dumb luck being a big factor) and
rearely is it the fault of any one person.
Daring
> ? How long's it been since he announced it? Two years.
Wait for it. He's been busy.
> > > His screwing over his creative partners in Broadway.
> >.
Could you be specific?
CFS
>CFS wrote:
>> Some obscure independent comic whining "creator rights" is hardly the same
>> as
>> the largest publisher changing their policy. To conclude differently seems
>> quite odd.
(snip)
>I think you're confusing the graphic novel format with creator rights here.
I'm talking the whole package deal of changes, not individual points.
>You're also all over the map with your points
Exactly. The readers were not presented points when we went to buy our
purchases. We were presented either what we wanted or what we did not want.
Shooter was balancing everything including the final product, his bosses
etc.
You can say he didn't do something in one arena but you are looking at small
portions of the big picture. He was balancing a much larger picture than
whether Jack Kirby got his art back or not. That's my biggest gripe with
all
the complaints.
-- Neal made his choices because the
>industry wasn't prepared to accept a minimum acknowledgement of the creators.
I'm
>concluding differently because I know several professionals who were there
when
>this all was happening and seem to have a more solid grasp of what occurred.
How
>is this "odd"?
If you owned a company and someone said "we're going to significantly
increase
the employees pay and let profits suffer immediately", you'd laugh at them.
Companies that do business want to see justifications for making any
changes.
Marvel tested the waters and found that some creators could gain an increase
in sales based on their name. This is a balancing act. It takes a reasonable
amount of business sense because it could just as easily backfire. Pacific
evidently made a few bad gambles. Mr Shooter should be credited with making
the balance practical so that it could perpetuate. When you are trying to
publicly credit a man for doing his job, you don't really want to go into
the
whole complicated dynamics of why his contribution was significant. You
point
at actions and results and you draw lines to connect them when they are
related. I do not consider that altering the truth. Were the circumstances
more complicated that the press reports stated? Sure they were. That does
not
negate the connection.
>> But is was a compromise. It opened the door. They did not have to make any
>> changes. I'm happy that creators aren't being treated as slave labor, but
it
>> has been a two sided coin. I prefered the product when every little voice
>> wasn't able to change the whole direction and nature of a character. You
can
>> only rape, degrade and maim heroes so much before you wonder why you ever
>> cared to begin with.
>
>No -- in North America the door was opened by smaller publishers -- it was a
case
>of doing the same or losing all your top talent to smaller publishers.
Smaller publishers may have been a threat, but none of them would have made
a
dent in comparison to Marvel adopting the cries of the creators.
Witness
>Image. Witness Marvel post Image.
Different Climate. Different attitudes had years to develop. I rather ask
you
to compare what Shooter did with Valiant taking it to multimillion dollar
status from scratch. I contend that he was instrumental in that success and
that the momentum he created lasted much longer than even his presence.
>Where's Marvel's deal now? It's long gone.
Jim Shooter has been long gone from there also. It a moot point to compare
their current policy to policies established under a completely different
climate.
> DC, Dark Horse, Image and a few other
>companies are offering quite healthy options to working at Marvel or for any
work
>made for hire Shooter start up.
Typically a company that wishes to pay the most intends on making a lower
profit margin. Don't equate good pay with wise business decisions. I'd
rather
have an employer that was making choices for the long haul rather than the
company that was throwing money at me. In a work for hire situation, it
doesn't really matter unless every bridge is burned and everyone is out of
business. I'm sure some of the lesser known artist out there would really
love
to be employed right now. Marvel will be able to find people and continue
with
or without a big name. If they adopt guidelines and standards for the
finished
product, they will cultivate their star artists just as they have always
done.
>
>Shooter was also pretty ineffective at starting any creator friendly deals at
any
>of his subsequent companies. He only made a failed attempt at Broadway then
>refused to release them back to their creators when the axe was about to
fall.
Don't know about that, but as a reader I'd rather buy comics the way they
were
produced. Comics were better then. A name artist will garner greater sales,
but if the company isn't getting anything tangible for their investment they
don't need to be in business. An artist can leach off Marvel and make a name
for themselves on a proven character, but I think the whole industry has
suffered because of it. Marvel and DC let it happen, and that was their
choice. I don't feel sorry for them. When the readers don't care anymore has
anybody won? .. sure.... Todd McFarlane did....Oh Joy.
Of
>course, Jim Shooter's inept business management was the primary reason for
>Broadway's collapse and he WAS doing everything he could to hang on to his
job as
>everyone else was being fired.
I disagree with that. Most people buying his comics were quite pleased. I
still see people asking about Fatale. Defiant failed because of the card
sets
annoying all the comic fans. Broadway failed because of all the negative
sentiment from Defiant being a flop. Defiant was getting better after
Shooter
was out of the courtroom. Dogs of War by Defiant ranks as some of my
favorite
stories ever. Starseed by Broadway was excellent.
>> Now that was a desperate company. DC in the eighties. I remember that well.
>> DC was hurting too badly. Marvel didn't have to change their policies. They
>> were finding new talents right and left.
>
>You're not remembering the same DC I am. Teen Titans was selling close to X
>numbers and Batman and Superman always sold well -- add to that several
critically
>well received series and the burgeoning talent pool streaming from the UK and
you
>had a company far from hurting.
Perez was the main thing keeping them competitive.
The UK talent was better than what they were getting from Marvel anyway. I
think starting every title over at a number one classifies as hurting. It
took
Marvel many years to get that desperate themselves. You aren't remembering
Madame Xanadu and the lame titles they pushed on the market every month in
hopes of finding something.
>> Nah, the Klaus Janson inks kept him employed until he developed a following
>> based on his perspective and layouts.
>
>????? That is not the case, my friend.
Klaus Janson had a heavy inking there. To contradict is merely speculation.
Miller's Hulk covers are not highy sought after work. Miller's reputation
was
his layout and perspective. His use of shadow. It always has been.
>
>> He was also tossed into that
>> Deathstalker storyline that everyone had been following faithfully across
>> titles.
>
>Just who is this Deathstalker character, again?
The character planted Miller on the map. Daredevil #158. Readers knew that
issue very well and it had absolutely nothing to do with Miller's budding
talent. The character probably died in that issue making it even more
significant at the time. It had to do with the writing. I have no idea who
wrote it. It could have been Shooter :)
>Miller writing and drawing Daredevil made it a success -- I doubt he would
have
>been as succesful drawing Stern's Doctor Strange, but considering how his
creative
>impulses have hit the medium over the last twenty years it's almost
inconceivable
>to think he wouldn't have been a creative powerhouse without Janson's inks on
>Daredevil.
It's highly conceivable to me. Why put such a heavy inker.... better yet an
embellisher.... if someone wasn't trying to dress the art up? I'm not trying
to question Miller's talent or ability because he's earned his reputation.
I'm
talking about what it took to get the doors open and get steady work. If you
can't get the door open and keep it open... you will be forgotten. I think
Janson deserves far more credit than he gets. Most good inkers do.
Is it inconceivable to think Steranko or Barry Windsor-Smith might draw in a
Kirby style to get employment? Check out their early stuff.
>> >Okay -- here're the reasons I slam Shooter. His cult-of-personality
during
>> his
>> >latter years as Marvel EIC as well as his famous (black) list.
>>
>> Now these are gripes I like to hear because they are the real substance.
>
>Thanks.
>
>>
>> This
>> is my speculation, but there are bosses and their are indians in this
world.
>> There are people who want to make the rules but they are not willing to
>> address all the issues and manage the full scope of what needs to be done.
>> There are also people that are incapable of doing what it takes because
they
>> don't have the knowledge or the talent. Perhaps he did have a problem
>> dealing with people, but perhaps also people didn't like him excercising
the
>> skills
>> he did learn and the skills that did create sales and a better product. If
he
>> was wrong, he's paid for it. I don't feel that what happened to him at
Valiant
>> can be justified in any way.
>That's certainly speculation.
I'll openly admit that.
>
>> > His nonsensical
>> >art dictates during his tenure and micro managing artistic and editorial
>> >decisions.
(snip)
>What part of "nonsensical" didn't you get?
To someone with a structure to their project, little things are not
"nonsensical". I just disagree with the tag altogether.
>He practically did the same thing at Broadway -- he photocopied almost the
>entire body of Watchmen and poorly annotated it so his writers and artists
knew
>what he wanted them to draw. This isn't management it's needless
interference.
I think a house style gives a reader some expectations as to what the
quality
will be within a line of comics. If his goal is crossover sales and keeping
the reader involved in larger magnitude projects, you have to have every
link
in the chain. There is a business advantage to offering house styles. It
undermines a larger plan if you have one comic looking like Rob Liefeld and
the next link looking like Brian Bolland. One of the comics is probably not
going to appeal to the reader. I do not see that as nonsensical. I think
he's
had some licensing clients that had had even higher expectations for their
properties than you describe.
>He hired people who knew the nine-panel grid better than he did, yet he
forced his
>understanding of it down their throats. At some point you have to let the
>professionals you hire do their jobs.
He's looking at storytelling in a style that blends together to form a
larger
package. I don't want people I hire winging it. I know it gets tough when
creators bump heads, but honestly, when two talented people do bump heads,
the
product is often better than what one or the other would have created on
their
own. I don't view conflict as a negative thing. It is often quite
constructive.
If I was a writer and the artist ignored my input, I'd go find another
artist
whether they were adept at the 9 panel grid or not.
>> > His admitted dislike and open derision of the comics audience.
>>
>> It is one thing to generalize on the negative qualities of a group and
>> openly deride t them. It is another to genuinely loathe the fans. Many
insiders
>> in
>> the industry mock and show derision for the fans in the industry in one
form or
>> another.
>
>So this makes it okay when Shooter does it in an interview?
I've heard some insults attributed to him and I agreed with him. I don't see
the big deal.
>> We are after all reading stories with pictures. Isn't that what
>> children do?
>
>You, sir, have unnecessarily insulted everyone in this news group.
No, I'm illustrating a sarcastic point. I'm included in that group, so I've
insulted myself. Comics are not some art form that approaches godliness. It
is
merely another form of communication. I do not get upset when people
criticize
me. I don't need defendants telling me how offened I should feel.
>> His dedication to quality and meeting certain standards, and
>> adding depth to his material should at least show that he takes the comics
>> business more seriously than a large number of the other creators in the
>> industry.
>He kept an inept and unreliable letterer on staff and used a colourist with
no
>experience with the technology at Broadway. He spent thousands a week on
hours
>long business lunches every week getting nothing done but half in the bag.
He
>allowed different members of his staff to proceed with aspects of the same
project
>independent of story or promotional concerns of another staff members or
creative
>personnel. This is just at Broadway. He doesn't take the fans or the
business
>seriously.
I'd rather own anything Broadway published over anything Marvel has
published
in the last few years. If you want someone to learn to be a good letterer...
you let them do it. I think he had a handle on what he was trying to
produce.
>He had absolute control of Marvel until his failed coup. Since then he's had
>complete editorial control of every situation he's been involved in, despite
pleas
>to the contrary or his Nintendo and WCW licenses. Everyone co-operated with
Jim
>-- it was either that or you were out the door.
If I was in charge, I'd have it the same way.
>Just look at Shooter's record:
>Marvel -- fired for a failed coup
Questionable.
>, Valiant - ousted after another failed power
>grab
I don't see it that way. I had a letter from a creator on the inside that
painted a different picture. Nope, the letter wasn't from Jim. I don't
really
know the man, but he did do me some favors that I would not have expected so
I
am appreciative. I saw all of Valiant's staff at a local convention right
after Jim was ousted. None of their expressions and uneasiness match this
picture you paint.
> Defiant -- mismanaged to death
By a card company?
>, Broadway -- mismanaged to death.
Hmmmm? bought out = mismanaged? I question that also.
> Daring
>? How long's it been since he announced it? Two years.
Yes, and I have press pack relating to the project. It takes money to make
money. I'll support it whether he gets to that point of critical mass or
not.
>So, Shooter's record of screwing people is okay because it's not as bad as
other.
Just saying I haven't seen evidence.
>smaller publishers -- but his record on creator rights is better because it
>happened at a larger publisher? try to be consistent.
I have seen no such evidence.\
>> >He's no demon, but he falls very, very short of being a saint.
>>
>> Much like the rest of us.
>
>When I start destroying people's lives out of spite or cowardice and lying
about
>what I've done THEN I'll accept that.
>
>Richard
I am not discounting what you say, but I'm not openly adopting or endorsing
it
either.
Blake
> > Daring
> >? How long's it been since he announced it? Two years.
>
> Yes, and I have press pack relating to the project. It takes money to
make
> money.
Press pack!? What exactly does this include???
CFS
It has outline of stuff that he was planning to do with Daring. It has some
articles and resume info to get you up to speed on his experience in the
industry. It was to be used as reference material in a Jim Shooter interview
I
arranged for a local publication. It's a nice package, but my friend has it
because I turned it over to him so he could write the article. The
article/interview has not materialized, much to my frustration. We received
it
well before the Unity 2000 storyline was announced. Whether the interview is
already outdated or not..... I do not know. I wasn't present when the
interview was conducted. I may have to inflict shock therapy on my friend
for
not completing what he told me he would do.
I would not feel comfortable releasing ~ALL~ the details because it was
intended for the article. The local publication that was going to publish it
is entertainment related, not specifically comics related.
I am very appreciative that Mr. Shooter took the time. It is my hope that
his
time was not wasted. I'll have to see the results of that shock therapy.
DanCSM99
>problems
>resulting from a brain injury in an accident years ago, that doesn't seem
>likely ever to happen....>>
According to some recent Tony's Online Tips, Mantlo's condition has sadly
worsened.
and I suppose no other writer or editor particularly
>wants to talk about him in an interview, especially since anything remotely
>negative might seem like attacking someone who can no longer respond.>>
Hey, Barry Windsor-Smith has no problem with accusing Mantlo of swiping his
story.
--Dan
Todd VerBeek
>> interesting subject for an entire issue. I'd particularly be keen to hear the
>> man himself go in detail about what he did or did not do. Anyone other marvel
>> fans see that as a very provocotive issue.
My pal Blake said:
>I too would love to see this type of evidence presented to the public.
>Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to do so without there being
>some sort of special interest involved. Regardless, it's all just
>gossip. All that really matters is what the person has created, and
>whether or not it's good, quality material.
While I agree with this point in specific (I don't think Shooter's closet is
worth rooting around in for skeletons), I'd be careful about applying it too
broadly. After all, if we judged a certain late German Chancellor only by
what he created (he was a poster artist by trade), we'd come to a less
critical assessment of him than if we considered his political career as
well.
Cheers, Todd
--
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. Just pick it up and say "Hello?"