|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 20, 2021 10:40:50 GMT -5
We have not come to bury Shooter, or to praise him, but to discuss him.
As most of us probably know, Jim Shooter was Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief from 1978-1987. It’s fair to say that he was a controversial figure, but I’m wondering if people think that his tenure was good or bad for Marvel, overall. I’m not talking about his work as a writer, but just as the big boss.
Business-wise (if I may coin a term) I think that he was clearly good for Marvel. Sales and profits went way up (and after all, that is the bottom line), creator compensation went up, and books came out on time a lot more frequently. Marvel had been in rough shape shortly before Shooter came on board (to the point where Star Wars is credited with “saving Marvel”) and then they blew it and went bankrupt about 7 or 8 years after he left.
Creatively, however, I think it’s a mixed bag. He did make some good creative decisions, but he made some bad ones as well, and I do think that he tended to stifle creativity. He wanted everything up to a certain standard, but I think he tended to force everything to fit his Procrustean rules, and while this may have prevented some junk from coming out, it also prevented some really interesting and provocative works from coming out. Plus, some talented creators, such as Roy Thomas, left Marvel due to Shooter’s imperious ways. Overall, I think he had a slightly negative effect on the creative side of things.
So, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 20, 2021 10:57:08 GMT -5
I just want to say I don't think I ever heard the word Procrustean before, so thank you for the vocabulary boost!
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 20, 2021 11:03:19 GMT -5
During his tenure I moved away from Marvel and started reading more DC. And he did treat a lot of veterans like shit. There were probably good books I liked during his time, but over all a net negative.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 20, 2021 11:31:08 GMT -5
Not a black and white situation. Marvel had expanded their line too much for one editor to cover it. They should have increased their editorial side during Roy's tenure. That probably would have mitigated the chaos that ensued.
Shooter was a firm hand on the till, which got the books out on time; but, if you compare quality of art and storytelling before and after, it is a marked difference. It would have been one thing if he had just forced the books to ship on time, by hook or by crook; but, once he started dictating layouts and story structures, it created a generic feel to Marvel and turned the line into the equivalent of an MCL cafeteria, after being a neighborhood bistro. Sure, there was plenty of favorite food; but, it was bland as hell.
Many of the innovations that Shooter was credited with had been initiated under Archie Goodwin or he had done the heavy lifting. Star Wars came to Marvel because of Roy, not Shooter. The royalty incentives came about because of the DC program, and the increase in opportunity in the Direct Market, not because of altruism on Shooter's part.
Shooter did move heavily into the Direct Market and focused on it early enough to give Marvel a distinct advantage, though he was often at odds with his own sales department in that area. Carol Kalish was working with retailers to try to boost the market, as a whole, but Shooter took actions to try to monopolize it. He also showed favoritism to certain retailers, like Mile High, with whom he has maintained very cordial relationships for decades.
So, it's a pretty grey era. What is more black and white is that Marvel started bleeding talent, by 1980. Also, Jenette Kahn's innovations and DC started paying off, around that same time and they had a steady rise up to their 50th Anniversary year (1985) where they rose like the phoenix (See, I can do mythological allusions, too!). Shooter's management style worked directly in their favor by driving talent to them, if only for a better working environment. At the same time, the broad Marvel line of publication rose in sales, which meant the mid and lower range titles were selling more, while X-Men was the top book and a few others were enjoying superstar sales. Epic gave creators a chance for ownership, but Epic was really Goodwin's baby and it was the relationships he built and his reputation, as an editor and writer, that fostered the successes there. However, it was very clear that Epic was subordinate to the main Marvel line, in terms of marketing, unless the books featured a Marvel superhero, like in Elektra Assassin.
Shooter rode a wave of success into the 80s; but, by the mid-80s, his management style had driven away top writers and artists and he became increasingly intractable, with anecdotes of temper tantrums and thrown office equipment. The story goes that another writer had been assigned to Secret Wars, until Shooter learned that the toy company was going to include the first issue with the action figures and took over the assignment, when he calculated the royalties. If true, that is a blatant conflict of interests. Shooter blamed his ousting on the owners of the company looking to sell and Shooter fighting for quality, while they wanted a fast profit. The evidence to support that position is debatable. Others have pointed a direct finger at the loss of talent and wavering sales, as competition ate at their marketshare, coupled with complaints about Shooter's behavior. Likely, it was a "Little from Column A and a Little from Column B" scenario.
So, I would say, in the short run, Shooter was what Marvel needed; but, he became a detriment as his tenure wore on. The subsequent bankruptcy has more to do with the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of Marvel's parent company, the McAndrews Group, than Marvel, itself. Those guys used Marvel as a cash cow, then pocketed the profits, while accumulating debt, by buying up Marvel's merchandising partners and the Heroes World self-distribution fiasco. The bankruptcy was just a financial maneuver to get out of the debt, which ended up leading to a change in ownership.
If you want to talk Valiant, I would say you have more of a clear-cut case that Shooter was completely positive and was stabbed in the back; but, not Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Jul 20, 2021 11:32:29 GMT -5
He was good for maintaining high sales and he kept the books coming out on time. But having that many people hating your guts must mean something...
Honestly, I like the guy. He seemed enthusiastic, and I enjoyed reading the blog he used to have. But MAN, a lot of people hated that guy's guts.
Reluctantly going with "good."
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 20, 2021 11:40:04 GMT -5
Early on, I think he brought some much-needed professionalism to the organization. He saw his job as putting out "Marvel Comics" and that's just what he did.
But that also meant that Marvel wasn't going to come up with a Watchmen, a Dark Knight, a Vertigo...
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 20, 2021 11:47:53 GMT -5
Early on, I think he brought some much-needed professionalism to the organization. He saw his job as putting out "Marvel Comics" and that's just what he did.But that also meant that Marvel wasn't going to come up with a Watchmen, a Dark Knight, a Vertigo... But isn't that the bottom line? I know we see it as more than a business transaction because it's a passion for us. I am not at all versed in comic history from the business side, but in the end, did what he did at a professional level really save Marvel? As in would there be a Marvel in any capacity this many years latter if not for him? I always enjoy knowing the non-artistic side of comics, as not all writers, editors and artists had a passion for the industry. For many it was a paycheck much like many of the average joe's mundane jobs.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jul 20, 2021 11:48:07 GMT -5
Marvel - 1978-87 was a period where my collecting was narrowed down to a few titles--far below my 1970s level. Shooter has credited Star Wars with "saving" Marvel, and according to John Jackson Miller of the site Comichron: Comics' History By the Numbers, Star Wars was Marvel's #1 title from 1977-78, and falling only to #2 in 1979 (the Goodwin/Infantino period, barely behind The Amazing Spider-Man), so that lends weight to Shooter's claims. Personally, I found the early 80's a period of great resurgence of TASM, The Avengers, and What If?, with the only mutant-related title--X-Factor--being of interest.
Ironically, for a company built on the adventures of the characters, among the most compelling titles were not narrative books: The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (1983-84), Marvel Age (launching in 1983) and The Official Marvel Index series (launching in 1985)--so history and behind the scenes information were often more interesting than the publisher's bread and butter titles. Perhaps that was due to Shooter (allegedly) attempting to world-build the company and creations in a way not seen since the demise of FOOM in 1978; so much behind the scenes information and title history made the company feel like a larger entity with a rich history. If Shooter was responsible for that, then I would say that was a major success during his run as EIC.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 20, 2021 12:06:33 GMT -5
I just want to say I don't think I ever heard the word Procrustean before, so thank you for the vocabulary boost! I had to wait 20 years to find an opportunity to use it!
|
|
dave
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by dave on Jul 20, 2021 12:48:07 GMT -5
Shooter era > Jemas era, that's all I know The one thing I've heard about Shooter's philosophy that I've consistently liked is the whole "every comic is someone's first" line. I don't even know if this was really him, but I've always heard this POV attributed heavily to Shooter. I don't even think the books from the Shooter era necessarily followed this philosophy very gracefully--rolling along with increasingly complicated continuity and "solving" this by jamming a lot of junk exposition into the front pages of each issue--but I do wish this philosophy still applied, at least to the mainstream, character-driven titles.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jul 20, 2021 12:54:20 GMT -5
Shooter is basically like every boss I have had in over 30+ years. Has good points and bad points. He is human with the ability to err. He had to answer to his own bosses higher up the totem pole. He had to guide (or control) the staff. Though he had his start as a youth writing comics he forgot what it was like being a creator in the trenches (so to speak) as the true money making aspect. He ended up stepping all over the workers to make the bosses happy and in doing so enforced rules where there were few before. Never going to be liked for that.
Out of chaos he placed structure and expectations to improve productivity of the company, that while necessary also limits creativity and delivers dissent. Rules can be flexible or inflexible depending on how they are used and who is doing the guiding and ruling. Being the boss in the middle means trying to please both sides and in the end you are the bad guy to either or both sides.
Been there done that. Credit to Shooter in that today many years, nay many decades, his time at Marvel is still discussed. Like it or not that is considered a success, since he is not forgotten or lost in the annals of history.
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Jul 20, 2021 13:19:41 GMT -5
As someone who came into comics after the fact, all I know is most my favourite Marvel runs were under him as EiC. I get the impression the place was more of a "boy's clubhouse" than a professional workplace before his arrival (writers editing their own work, "it's done when it's done" approach to deadlines, some dubious payroll practices, e.t.c.), so I'm not surprised there was some push back/bad feelings when someone came in and expected them to actually treat their time in the office like a job rather than a party.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 20, 2021 15:25:05 GMT -5
Yes, Shooter definitely increased the professionalism of the Marvel "bullpen". However, creative/artistic types don't always like to be forced to wear the metaphorical tie, if you get my meaning.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 20, 2021 15:56:47 GMT -5
Early on, I think he brought some much-needed professionalism to the organization. He saw his job as putting out "Marvel Comics" and that's just what he did.But that also meant that Marvel wasn't going to come up with a Watchmen, a Dark Knight, a Vertigo... But isn't that the bottom line? I know we see it as more than a business transaction because it's a passion for us. I am not at all versed in comic history from the business side, but in the end, did what he did at a professional level really save Marvel? As in would there be a Marvel in any capacity this many years latter if not for him? Shooter is basically like every boss I have had in over 30+ years. Has good points and bad points. He is human with the ability to err. He had to answer to his own bosses higher up the totem pole. He had to guide (or control) the staff. ....He ended up stepping all over the workers to make the bosses happy and in doing so enforced rules where there were few before. Never going to be liked for that. Out of chaos he placed structure and expectations to improve productivity of the company, that while necessary also limits creativity and delivers dissent. Rules can be flexible or inflexible depending on how they are used and who is doing the guiding and ruling. Being the boss in the middle means trying to please both sides and in the end you are the bad guy to either or both sides. There's a whole discipline around "managing creatives" as opposed to managing manufacturing or retail or something, and there's another level in comics in that most of these people are freelance, not employees. (BTW, "creatives" aren't just artists/writers/designers, but also folks like research scientists.) And it's hard to get the right balance between thinking outside the box and making sure the trains run on time.
People like Bill Gaines, or, more likely Al Feldstein, were able, at EC and later for 25 years at MAD, able to find, keep, and nurture talent while building a smooth-running organization. Ditto the people behind Archie.
Also, though the industry was a mess when Shooter became EIC, Marvel was on top--as a leader, that's a position where you want to do things better, not different. The folks at DC were the ones shaking things up and taking risks--the opposite of the situation 15 years before.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 20, 2021 16:08:00 GMT -5
Shooter learned his lessons, bad and good, from Mort Weisinger.
|
|