|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jul 21, 2021 11:29:57 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.
DC got a sales bump from the Crisis and the immediate fallout.
I'd say Marvel did destroy itself though in a more subtle way. The proliferation of senseless X-titles, the lack of diversity in the storylines, chasing away their prime talent … all of those led to my stopping reading Marvel entirely in the mid-80s and I have never really returned to the line.
I acknowledge of course that he made some good business decisions, and gaining fifty readers while losing one makes good business sense. But the Marvel that I loved as an adolescent was mad and anarchic and creative, and that was gone.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 21, 2021 11:32:13 GMT -5
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. I'd dispute that. It depends on the time frame you are talking. Through the 80s, DC was innovating and experimenting, taking no prisoners while they rebuilt their market share and it was working. They took back a significant chunk of the market in that decade. However, once they had a hit Batman movie and saw that speculators were buying up whole cases of gimmicks and first issues, they went just as nuts as Marvel. They were still in there fighting, but, they got enamored with both the Big Event and the Gimmick. So did Marvel. The nature of the landscape changed, though, with the foundation of Image. Marvel lost a lot of superstar talent and Malibu gained a big influx of cash, from distributing the initial year of Image. They used that to create Ultraverse and they grabbed a big chunk of the non-Marvel market, while Image was with them, and still held a portion after Image was solo. Valiant came on strong around that time, too, and Dark Horse grew to be a major player by that point. So, the Market became more diluted. DC was making money, hand over fist, in Bat merchandise and ended up spending a lot of time feeding that. However, they were still gunning for Marvel. The Malibu purchase, by Marvel, was actually done to prevent DC from buying it (they were in early negotiations, when Marvel swooped in), which would have put DC fairly close to near parity. It wasn't the color system Marvel wanted, but the market share. McAndrews then touched off a firestorm when they tried self-distribution, leading to the demise of Capital and DC making an exclusive deal with Diamond, to counter their access to the market. That killed off both indie publishers and retailers, as, suddenly, everybody had to spend cash to catch up and most didn't have it. That led into Marvel's bankruptcy, to try to reorganize their debt (not because they weren't profitable) and the shareholder war over their junk bonds. DC was not satisfied with being number 2, but there were a lot more factors in the market than there had been, plus, DC had to serve Warner more, than in past. That leads to more conservatism in decision making, more than any personality trait in Paul Levitz.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 21, 2021 12:05:34 GMT -5
Levitz himself said he was happy to be second. I’m sure his DC bosses did t agree but that’s what he said.
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Jul 21, 2021 13:17:37 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. Top tip: I recently discovered the beauty of listening to podcasts at 1.5 speed. They're still completely understandable, and you can get through far more stuff that way.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 21, 2021 13:22:26 GMT -5
Top tip: I recently discovered the beauty of listening to podcasts at 1.5 speed. They're still completely understandable, and you can get through far more stuff that way. I do that for YouTube videos; I usually listen to podcasts while doing housework or yardwork, and also while taking the dog for walks, so I don't feel the need to rush through them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2021 13:47:04 GMT -5
Levitz himself said he was happy to be second. I’m sure his DC bosses did t agree but that’s what he said. Jenette Kahn said she was happy with Levitz being second. Oh wait, different topic...
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 21, 2021 14:06:16 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. Thanks for the reference! I didn't know about that interview, or that channel, for that matter. It's fascinating! Apparently there are many more people praising Shooter than the prevailing narrative would have it. He comes across as well-spoken and pretty level-headed, although it's not a surprise that he could also be a tough director. I was surprised to learn that the Rutland crowd featured in Thor and other Marvel comics weren't actually all friends in real life. I knew Wein and Wolfman were buddies, but not that they had such problems with Conway. Oh, the drama of behind-the-doors revelations!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2021 14:17:02 GMT -5
In terms of financial success in the latter part of the 80's, I thought the X-titles dominated other than a bump for Batman in 89-90. Did DC really gain that much ground after Crisis? Watchmen didn't really fully top the sales chart I thought despite the huge buzz on it. I'm trying to dig through historic sales info to discern this better (I see a little immediate post-Crisis love for the Superman relaunch, but nothing sustained).
I agree Marvel had a lot of missteps as well and I could criticize a lot there. But Marvel still felt more "Marvel" to me throughout the decade even though the latter part I don't enjoy as much, whereas I felt like DC had all this big event stuff (I mean, they did make significant history when you take them case by case), and got sales bumps at times, but progressively felt like a mess to me. And if they didn't really beat Marvel overall financially either during the period, I'm not sure how that's a major success? I may be way off base, please correct me if I don't understand the sales from this era. I still feel like Shooter positioned Marvel best in the 80's overall.
One last comment...in the practical business world, I've found many times a number of leaders who seem fairly unlikeable on the surface but tend to be much more decent individuals behind the scenes than you might think, and many leaders who seem all people friendly and likeable being pretty cutthroat behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 21, 2021 14:22:08 GMT -5
Since I'm usually so down on Shooter I'll share one positive thing I remember reading about him: it was in an interview with Marv Wolfman, who was not generally a Shooter supporter and was in fact one of the many well-known Marvel creators that left the company largely because of Shooter's management.
But anyway, Wolfman said that Shooter beheaved very profesionally when called as a witness in a legal dispute Wlfman was having with Marvel in regards to the ownership of some of the characters he created or co-created while working for them. Even though he was a hostile witness, Shooter stated the facts as he knew them and Wolfman didn't think he said anything untrue or unfair, though of course he disputed the interpretation and was looking at the question from the completely opposite POV.
This was in contrast, BTW, to John Byrne, who was also involved and whose behaviour at the time, according to Wolfman, was completely unprofessional. I don't want to say more since this is all from memory and I don't want to slander Byrne without getting my facts straight. But I do remember that much.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 21, 2021 16:02:14 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. While that is true, I wonder how much, if at all, COIE itself is responsible for that success.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 21, 2021 16:03:50 GMT -5
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!) You and me both! I think COIE is the worst thing to happen to DC! Businesswise that's obviously not true, but as far as I am concerned, it is.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 21, 2021 16:05:08 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. I read most of Shooter's blog, and while it's obviously his biased view of things (as would anybody's view be biased if they created such a blog) much of what he said sounded reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 21, 2021 22:01:04 GMT -5
Here is a quote from John Romita Sr, about Shooter, from TwoMorrows' John Romita and All that Jazz:
"John Romita Sr. said: Shooter had been great for the first two or three years. He got the creative people treated with more respect, got us sent to conventions first-class with our ways paid, and we thought the world of him. Then his Secret Wars was a big hit, and after that he decided he knew everything and he started changing everybody's stuff."
John Byrne echoed that sentiment, on his web site and added an interesting twist....
"Shooter came along just when Marvel needed him — but he stayed too long. Having fixed just about everything that was wrong, he could not stop "fixing". Around the time I left to do Superman, I said that I thought Shooter and Dick Giordano should trade jobs — it was DC that needed fixing then -- and do so about every 5 years or so. Shooter had put Marvel into a place where all that was needed was a kindly father figure at the helm —- and that was not Shooter! ... Secret Wars ... was when the trouble really kicked into high gear"
So, by that evidence, it would seem that most didn't have a problem with him from 1978-1981, with a few exceptions. Steve Englehart quit in 1976, after a dispute with new EIC, Gerry Conway. Marv Wolfman left in 1980 and Roy around the same time, when their writer/editor contracts were up for renewal and Marvel was only offering a writer gig, eliminating writer/editors. Gerber left 1978ish, after being fired off the Howard The Duck newspaper strip. Doug Moench left in 1982, George Perez worked both, until the JLA/Avengers fiasco, and Perez went exclusive with DC around 1981-82. Gene Colan left in 1981. John Byrne left in late 1985, to do Superman and didn't return to work until after Shooter's ousting. Pat Broderick left in 1981, after disputes with Shooter. Frank Brunner left in 1979. So, the timing of a lot of departures tends to support the idea that, after 3 years, Shooter started alienating people and they quit. Secret Wars was in 1984 and there are stories after of artwork and scripts coming back to people with notes telling them to see Secret Wars for a guide of how to do it, which rankled the veterans.
I think from Shooter's point of view, he was fair and reasonable; but, like anything else, communication is a mixture of what the speaker says and the listener hears. he probably was a champion of the creators at the start and smoothed out Marvel's biggest problems; but, as he became more entrenched in the position, rather than let creative people do what creative people do, he felt he had to have his hands in things, even when it wasn't required. His ego seemed to feed the idea that he was a literary genius and only he knew how to tell a story and the sales of Secret wars reinforced that, ignoring the fact that a good portion of its sales came because the first issue as packaged with the toys and the mini-series was still a ew concept, especially when it involved nearly everyone.
I don't know about Byrne's crack about switching companies, as I think he was wrong about DC needing fixing, at the point he indicates. Their fixes were working. I do think that Shooter probably needed to step back from directly interfering in the books, unless they were going off the rails, as that was a job for the book's editor. He was better served handling Marvel's specialty projects and working with others developing new titles, licenses and such; the big picture stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jul 21, 2021 22:09:22 GMT -5
Just a side note, but I had most of the first series of Secret Wars figures (was only missing Wolverine), and none of them came with comics, Secret Wars or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 22, 2021 5:48:30 GMT -5
Here is a quote from John Romita Sr, about Shooter, from TwoMorrows' John Romita and All that Jazz: "John Romita Sr. said: Shooter had been great for the first two or three years. He got the creative people treated with more respect, got us sent to conventions first-class with our ways paid, and we thought the world of him. Then his Secret Wars was a big hit, and after that he decided he knew everything and he started changing everybody's stuff." John Byrne echoed that sentiment, on his web site and added an interesting twist.... "Shooter came along just when Marvel needed him — but he stayed too long. Having fixed just about everything that was wrong, he could not stop "fixing". Around the time I left to do Superman, I said that I thought Shooter and Dick Giordano should trade jobs — it was DC that needed fixing then -- and do so about every 5 years or so. Shooter had put Marvel into a place where all that was needed was a kindly father figure at the helm —- and that was not Shooter! ... Secret Wars ... was when the trouble really kicked into high gear" So, by that evidence, it would seem that most didn't have a problem with him from 1978-1981, with a few exceptions. Steve Englehart quit in 1976, after a dispute with new EIC, Gerry Conway. Marv Wolfman left in 1980 and Roy around the same time, when their writer/editor contracts were up for renewal and Marvel was only offering a writer gig, eliminating writer/editors. Gerber left 1978ish, after being fired off the Howard The Duck newspaper strip. Doug Moench left in 1982, George Perez worked both, until the JLA/Avengers fiasco, and Perez went exclusive with DC around 1981-82. Gene Colan left in 1981. John Byrne left in late 1985, to do Superman and didn't return to work until after Shooter's ousting. Pat Broderick left in 1981, after disputes with Shooter. Frank Brunner left in 1979. So, the timing of a lot of departures tends to support the idea that, after 3 years, Shooter started alienating people and they quit. Secret Wars was in 1984 and there are stories after of artwork and scripts coming back to people with notes telling them to see Secret Wars for a guide of how to do it, which rankled the veterans. I think from Shooter's point of view, he was fair and reasonable; but, like anything else, communication is a mixture of what the speaker says and the listener hears. he probably was a champion of the creators at the start and smoothed out Marvel's biggest problems; but, as he became more entrenched in the position, rather than let creative people do what creative people do, he felt he had to have his hands in things, even when it wasn't required. His ego seemed to feed the idea that he was a literary genius and only he knew how to tell a story and the sales of Secret wars reinforced that, ignoring the fact that a good portion of its sales came because the first issue as packaged with the toys and the mini-series was still a ew concept, especially when it involved nearly everyone. I don't know about Byrne's crack about switching companies, as I think he was wrong about DC needing fixing, at the point he indicates. Their fixes were working. I do think that Shooter probably needed to step back from directly interfering in the books, unless they were going off the rails, as that was a job for the book's editor. He was better served handling Marvel's specialty projects and working with others developing new titles, licenses and such; the big picture stuff. The story of Moench was that MOKF was almost at the bottom of all the books sales wise and Shooter suggested that he change the setting of the series. Moench refused and threw a fit accusing Shooter of interfering with a good series. He didn't understand that it was either change the status quo or the book is cancelled. The suits upstairs were asking for that book and I think Dazzler be discontinued for low sales. You could run a list of people that left Marvel but there were many who stayed. It was common in that era for talent to go back and forth between the two companies.
|
|