|
Post by tonebone on Jul 20, 2021 16:55:37 GMT -5
There's a lot of good and bad about Shooter out there... All I know is, when he was EIC I loved Marvel and read everything I could get my hands on. When he left (unbeknownst to me), lost interest in Marvel and moved over to the more innovative and interesting DC.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jul 20, 2021 17:16:10 GMT -5
I can't and won't go into discussing what makes a "successful" boss. Whatever the business is, the managing of staff versus productivity versus profit is what it truly comes down to. What hasn't been noted is that MARVEL/DC are in the business of creating comic books because they make money for the owners/parent companies involved. That goes for ANY company that in the past/present/future that prints comic books. NOBODY can or will do so out of their own pocket. Shooter was made middle management to ensure this.
If it isn't selling, no company will print for very long. Shooter had the unenviable job of carrying out demands from above and managing the creators in order to fulfill the companies priorities. No doubt he (like any boss) had favorites as well as those he disliked. Did he do right by everyone? No, he didn't and couldn't do that. He was in a position which guaranteed some creators will "hate" him while others would "praise" him.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,049
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 20, 2021 17:53:19 GMT -5
I feel under-qualified to answer the question, but what I do know is that an awful lot of my favourite Marvel comics were published during his tenure as CEO. So, even if a lot of the Marvel talent disliked him, he must've been doing something right...right?
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jul 20, 2021 18:00:08 GMT -5
I started reading comics in the DeFalco era. I'm only familiar with the Shooter era through back issues. I used to have a copy of the Comic Book Journal that dealt with Shooter's run as EIC. My defining memory from the CBJ story is that after he was fired, Claremont threw a "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" party. It's always interesting to hear Shooter's take on things. I have a lot of sympathy for him. You could make a Netflix drama about Jim Shooter. I can't speak for everyone, but personally, losing interest in the Marvel books had a lot do with my age and when I started reading comics. If I had been a certain age when Shooter took over, I probably would have gravitated towards the DC mature readers titles or independent comics. In the late 80s, I was heavily into Marvel and ate up the Shooter back issues. A few years later, I was done with Marvel completely. Was that editorial, or because of my cool older friends who turned me onto different types of comics? I don't know. I think it was inevitable. I was a teenager and starting to get into music in a big way (among other things.)
A few years ago, I re-read the Marvel G.I. Joe series, which I really loved up until a certain point. I never finished reading it and tried to wrap it up the other day, but I couldn't stomach the art. G.I. Joe never got the best artists, but the final issues are full of Liefeld-clones, right down to his annoying panel layouts. That style was hot at the time, so it makes sense from an editorial standpoint to use artists like that on a book where the sales were flagging, but man, what a turn off. So, I think it's a bit of both -- I got older, and couldn't keep up with the trends, but the books weren't fulfilling for me, either.
My general recollection is that there were a lot of great runs during Shooter's era, especially on the flagship titles. Would they have been better without Shooter's meddling? Perhaps they would have been worse. Can you imagine some of these artists and writers in the 80s completely unchecked? How many of them went on to do better work after Shooter left? How many of them ended up getting screwed over worse than they did by Shooter?
80s comics are my youth, so I tend to view them as another Golden Age, but I can totally see how that wouldn't be the case if you discovered comics in the 70s. I wonder if there's anyone who feels that way about 90s comics. I'm sure there has to be.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 20, 2021 20:26:20 GMT -5
Shooter learned his lessons, bad and good, from Mort Weisinger. I'd like to say his approach might have worked better at DC - in the 60s! I can't imagine how he would have interacted with Alan Moore in the 80s: I suppose it's possible that, since Moore's DC books did well commercially, he would have been happy to give him free reign, so perhaps it would have worked out. But would anything like Vertigo ever have happened under a Shooter regime at DC? I think he was a creative disaster at Marvel but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he saved the company by tightening up the administrative side of things - but if that's what it took, I'd have preferred to see the company die a natural death.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 20, 2021 21:16:49 GMT -5
It’s very much in Shooter’s self interest for the story to be that Marvel was only saved by a licensed Star Wars comic and he had to right the otherwise sinking ship.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 20, 2021 21:53:52 GMT -5
One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that, by the mid-1970s, both DC and Marvel were not making their money publishing comics; they were earning far more through licensing their characters. DC was ahead of Marvel in that area, largely because they had the longstanding, iconic characters, who had appeared in multiple media. Marvel struggled across the 60s and into the 70s, trying to get their characters more high profile gigs. Spidey got a big boost from the Electric Company, as well as his cartoon; but, not much of the rest of the line did (despite the FF cartoon and the Marvel Super Heroes cartoon) until the Hulk tv series, which dovetails with Shooter's ascendency to EIC. So, while Star Wars led to a huge influx of cash to Marvel, it still didn't make publishing their top source of income. Remember, the publishing of the comics was largely funded by advertising, not necessarily the profit from previous sales.
The state of the market in the mid-70s was dismal, for most periodicals. Post-Vietnam inflation, the Recession and economic impactors like the OPEC embargo hurt a lot of industries. Comics also had a paper shortage, in that decade, that affected output. Many traditional outlets for comics disappeared, as outlets began examining their real estate to best use it to promote their top sellers. Many drug stores, grocery stores and toy stores reduced their periodical displays and more space was given to more profitable magazines. That hurt everyone, but Marvel was in a better position, by that point, because DC had mismanaged themselves out of the top slot. With Star Wars, marvel had a product that sold itself, as the comics were one of the few pieces of merchandise you could get, when the film debuted. It took time for things to move beyond iron-on transfers, posters and screened t-shirts. The Marvel Comics were sold through multiple distribution channels, with many of the deals brokered by Lucasfilm, via Charles Lippincott, rather than Marvel. The comics were sold in bagged sets, like the Whitman sets, in toy stores, grocery chains and convenience stores, as well as toy departments in department stores.
In regards to the "Every comics is someone's first" line, that is as old as comics. There are creator anecdotes of hearing that at DC and Marvel, as well as other companies who had a continuing narrative. I've heard similar things attributed to Julie Schwartz and I'm sure it was a line that Weisinger used on young Jim Shooter.
In regards management; there is a difference between management and leadership. Shooter was a manager, not a leader. A leader is someone who takes the responsibility to achieve an organization's goal. They do it by modeling the behaviors they want to foster, praising efforts in public, and punishing the failures in private. Their responsibility is the welfare of their subordinates, in all things. They inspire, coach, teach, cajole, and hold people accountable for the work they do. In terms of comics, Jenette Kahn was a leader, while Paul Levitz and Dick Giordano managed the operations and handled the details. Jenette empowered people at DC, gave them freedom to achieve and it paid off. She fought the entrenched system to get to that point and had to un-trench a good portion of management to do it. By contrast, Shooter managed the operations; but, didn't necessarily walk the walk. he learned from Weisinger, who was not a leader; lots of shouting, scolding, negative reinforcement. Doug Moench tells of being shown by the sales people that Master of Kung Fu had the highest sell-through (copies sold as a percentage of total copies printed) of any Marvel title; but, Shooter adamantly refused to increase the print run for the title. According to Moench, he blatantly told Doug that it would never happen under his watch. others have spoken of decisions that reflected ego, rather than business reasons (though previous EICs had similar criticisms lobbed at them). Shooter was an authoritarian and it didn't help retain talent, which is why you see such turnover and recruitment of younger talent (the easier to mold to your storytelling style). That was another thing, Shooter's style was to get others to write like he did, rather than help them develop their style, as Archie Goodwin did. Every creator who I have ever read speak of Archie, as an editor, said they learned more from him than anyone in the business. he helped them become the best writer or artist they could be, but not the best Archie Goodwin imitation. Shooter's later story dictates were to copy his style, which any editor with a good track record will tell you will not work. Stephen King can imitate Mickey Spillane, but it will be neither a STEPHEN KING work nor a MICKEY SPILLANE work.
Re, the party: Gerard Jones' revised Comic Book Heroes stated that John Byrne threw a big party, with Shooter burned in effigy (with either the figure stuffed with New Universe comics or the fire fueled by the comics, though I may be misremembering that part). He further stated that Byrne demanded being in on The Pitt, when they decided to tear the line down, choosing Pittsburgh as the site of a disaster, because it was Shooter's hometown. That's a lot of hatred.
I think part of the problem is Shooter's social development, coupled with his apprenticeship in comics. By his own accounts, he had health problems and a pretty humble upbringing. He said his first writing check for the Legion bought a rebuilt engine for his father's vehicle, so he didn't have to walk miles to work anymore. His unusual height and skin issues (acne or similar pock mark scarring) likely didn't help in adolescence and he was earning money by working for one of the nastiest SOBs in comics, who taught him the editorial side of things. I think those were very formative influences in how he operated at Marvel. Jones' book also painted a picture of Shooter playing at the high-paced New York lifestyle, alongside Wall Street types, in the "Greed is Good" 80s. I read something about him making a most eligible bachelor list. I suspect, if that is true, it affected him in his work, especially if he was dabbling in the popular substances that permeated 1980s New York nightlife.
Now, I have never met the man and the anecdotes are just that; not from any definable sources. I have seen interviews where he seems the opposite of the criticisms lobbed at him; but, then again, those are different environments. He was at the center of conflict at Marvel, Valiant, Defiant, and later at Dark Horse and DC, as a writer.
I have seen some people defend him, including those who worked with him at Valiant (other than those who ascended after he was out) and Larry Hama, in particular, at Marvel. Paul Levitz maintained good relations with him, which led to his coming back to DC to write the Legion, but conflict brought that to a halt unexpectedly.
One thing is for certain, the EIC job isn't one that makes friends, because of the way comics were published, vs other media. Comics were very much about making the owners a big profit by underpaying the talent, at just about every company, right up to today. magazine and book publishing were far more lucrative because there was more of a professionalism in those industries, not that they didn't exploit rookies and talent, where they could. That was one of the things about Jenette Kahn's tenure at DC, in that she tried to build that professionalism and work incentives, to drive creativity at DC.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 22:03:39 GMT -5
I have a very simplistic view...under Shooter, Marvel never destroyed itself like DC did with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Leadership is not a beauty pageant, Shooter overall delivered despite some very fair criticisms mentioned here.
|
|
|
Post by Graphic Autist on Jul 20, 2021 22:23:58 GMT -5
I have a very simplistic view...under Shooter, Marvel never destroyed itself like DC did with Crisis in Infinite Earths. Leadership is not a beauty pageant, Shooter overall delivered despite some very fair criticisms mentioned here. Ironic that DC became VERY successful post-COIE. I know the event royally screwed up continuity, but the company thrived afterwards for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2021 22:48:11 GMT -5
I have a very simplistic view...under Shooter, Marvel never destroyed itself like DC did with Crisis in Infinite Earths. Leadership is not a beauty pageant, Shooter overall delivered despite some very fair criticisms mentioned here. Ironic that DC became VERY successful post-COIE. I know the event royally screwed up continuity, but the company thrived afterwards for a while. Yeah, all true. But yuck I say! (I have so become that whiny fanboy who can't move past 1986!)
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,707
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 21, 2021 0:30:40 GMT -5
I've always maintained that Jim Shooter is like every actual genius I've ever known: brilliant, but doomed to mostly fail because he knew he was brilliant. If, 70% of the time, your idea is better than everyone else's, you're probably going to end up dismissing 100% of ideas that aren't yours, and that's going to mean both that some really great ideas get axed AND that you're going to breed a ton of resentment from others. It also means you're going to have some truly terrible ideas and won't have the ability most others have to step back and judge which ideas are brilliant and which ideas are crap because you're used to them almost always being brilliant ideas. Geniuses make poor team players and even worse managers.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 21, 2021 6:43:22 GMT -5
I've always maintained that Jim Shooter is like every actual genius I've ever known: brilliant, but doomed to mostly fail because he knew he was brilliant. If, 70% of the time, your idea is better than everyone else's, you're probably going to end up dismissing 100% of ideas that aren't yours, and that's going to mean both that some really great ideas get axed AND that you're going to breed a ton of resentment from others. It also means you're going to have some truly terrible ideas and won't have the ability most others have to step back and judge which ideas are brilliant and which ideas are crap because you're used to them almost always being brilliant ideas. Geniuses make poor team players and even worse managers. I will admit to being a big fan of Shooters, so your mileage from my comments will vary. I watched a 7 hour interview that he was part of and he explained a lot of the " controversies" that he is blamed for. A lot of it sounded reasonable. I was a boss for about 5 years in my job and It's not easy by any stretch. Unless you let the employees do whatever they want, you can be perceived as the bad guy. In the interview, he stated that 4 or so creators REFUSED to work with Gene Colan. And it got nasty from that point.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 21, 2021 7:43:48 GMT -5
I will admit to being a big fan of Shooters, so your mileage from my comments will vary. I watched a 7 hour interview that he was part of and he explained a lot of the " controversies" that he is blamed for. A lot of it sounded reasonable. (...) I'm assuming you're talking about the Comic Book Historians interview. It was actually just short of 8 hours, and then another 3 and half hour supplemental interview was recorded. I converted them both to mp3 format and listened to them over the course of a few days. It's pretty fascinating stuff.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 21, 2021 8:42:24 GMT -5
Shooter learned his lessons, bad and good, from Mort Weisinger. Weisinger's world: Books for 7-12 year old readers who turn over every five years. Long-term writers and artists who were talented and creative but were OK w/ the status quo.
Shooter's world: Hardcore fans. Artists and writers who didn;t want to just play in the sandbox but "shake things up".
Not a formula for success.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 21, 2021 9:52:36 GMT -5
Shooter learned his lessons, bad and good, from Mort Weisinger. Weisinger's world: Books for 7-12 year old readers who turn over every five years. Long-term writers and artists who were talented and creative but were OK w/ the status quo.
Shooter's world: Hardcore fans. Artists and writers who didn;t want to just play in the sandbox but "shake things up".
Not a formula for success.
[br But it was successful. Everything comes to an end. At the same time DC under Levitz was happy to be second.
|
|