|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2021 5:52:27 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. But devil's advocate, maybe Jim just didn't like what he was presented with either. And he rankled folks, but did the books sell? I keep feeling like there's an argument DC gave a creative outlet and boosted sales, but if Marvel still outpaced them, Jim had to be doing something right even in his later years there. I feel like the arguments against Jim are more "he became harder to work with" versus Marvel withered under him, and sometimes a "kindly father figure at the helm" sounds lovely but just isn't reality to running a business and managing creative talent that probably had no shortage of strong personalities either. I'm not trying to blindly defend Shooter, I have no doubt about there being flaws and missteps, but if the argument just comes down to "he wasn't likeable", he had to steer a ship and in my experience everyone thinks they know better how to steer than the actual person keeping everything afloat. It may have been perceived he was "interfering", but as an example, Byrne could have used some interfering with in the period before he left for DC, he was going off the rails creatively in FF despite his earlier brilliance. And when he came back post-Shooter and clearly had some "freedom", he wrote some horrible stuff like the whole Vision/Scarlet Witch mess. All that said...who knows, as the 80's progressed everything was transforming so quickly, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Even hindsight isn't 20/20 on the era really.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 22, 2021 8:02:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 22, 2021 8:05:16 GMT -5
The sales argument only goes so far. The question becomes, how much of the sales can be attributed to Shooter as EIC and how much to the creative team? The highest sellers came from veteran superstars, who pretty much ignored his story dictates, because they could. X-Men, Thor, Fantastic Four and Daredevil were the top dogs, in that time frame, with Spidey in that mix. It was pretty much down to those creators doing their thing and the market eating it up. Shooter had more influence on things like Avengers, where he was a writer or co-writer, and other titles, with younger talent who were having stuff dictated to them. His biggest direct influence is New Universe and that was a colossal failure, though the final product was a far cry from the initial concept. So, if Shooter's management is responsible for the big sales, then it is also responsible for the dismal sales of the failed projects. Ultimately, as the boss, he is the one accountable for the sales; but, I don't think you can credit him with having that direct affect, except in cases where he was the actual writer or dictated a change in creative team that directly changed the sales pattern of the title (for good or bad). Remember, those books all had individual editors, under Shooter, who had more direct involvement in those titles.
You could point to the greater success of Marvel, during that period as being down to either or a combination of two factors: the Direct Market and the introduction of sub-editors. Taking the first, the Direct Market The Direct Market comes into being in the early to-mid-70s, though it starts to become a force in the late 70s. Marvel starts selling to Phil Seuling, on a non-returnable basis, during that period (I can't find exact dates that their relationship began, but Seuling started up in 1972) prior to Shooter being EIC. By Shooter's tenure, the Direct Market accounts for about 25% of Marvel's sales. In particular, lower tier sellers become more viable as the Direct Market sales are more consistent than newsstand, where over-printing is the norm. Shooter's team takes advantage of that factor and starts to offer select titles as Direct Market Only, where they then print to order, reducing the costs of producing the titles, since they don't have to over print for the newsstand market. When those titles prove successful under that model, marvel increases its Direct Market publishing, including a flood of reprint titles, designed to push the emerging independent publishers off the stands in comic shops. Carol Kalish, who started at Marvel's sales department in 1982, spearheads the expansion into the Direct Market. She worked directly with retailers, offering business advice to often neophytes, sponsoring a cash register program (as her travels found few had registers for their operations), as well as order guidance to fulfill customer demands but not tie up cash with over-ordering. She brokered deals to get Marvel titles into Waldenbooks and B Dalton stores. In her capacity, she often butted heads with Shooter, according to anecdotes from peter David, who worked under her, at that time. In particular, she blocked efforts by Chuck Rozanski and Mile High Comics to manipulate the system in his favor, at the expense of other retailers. Rozanski maintained a close relationship with Shooter and used that to try to leverage his position. So, you have a new distribution system that is expanding rapidly (specialty shops increased in number about 500%, between 1974 and 1980) and providing an ever increasing source of revenue to Marvel, to the point that marginal titles are viable to continue, as print runs can be tailored to demand. Thus, you have to ask, was it Shooter's dictates that were responsible for mid-level titles being more profitable or the circumstances of the Direct Market? The weight of evidence suggests that the Direct Market is a bigger factor in the overall sales of Marvel than Shooter's editorial direction. Now, you can credit him with pursuing that direction, which is a smart decision, though much of that work is down to Carol Kalish.
Taking up the sub-editor factor, Archie Goodwin introduced assistant editors to help lighten his load, including Jim Shooter. Shooter expands things and makes the Assistants into full Editors, with other assistants. Now, titles have individual editors (or writer/editors, under Marv & Roy's contracts), who have the time to give attention to their books, rather than trying to cover the entire publishing line, which was the largest factor in EIC turnover, between Len Wein and Archie Goodwin. This frees up Shooter to focus more on Marvel's direction, rather than whether or not Spidey should fight Doc Ock again. Some of the editors prove to be exactly what creators needed, leading to creative explosions on their titles, such as Roger Stern and Louise Jones Simonson. Others are rookies who develop into the role, like Mark Gruenwald and Mike Carlin, to the point they become senior executives in the next decade. However, we often see a reluctance on Shooter's part to let them do their thing. With the rookies, it is proper that Shooter might take a more direct role in mentoring them and might be more involved with their titles; but, it is less proper with experienced editors like Louis Simonson. She had more experience than Shooter, as an editor, with her time at Warren. Those are the type of people you give you vision for the company and those titles and let them run with it, or let them pitch their own visions and approve, modify or reject. So, in that sense, you could say that Shooter was both a positive and negative influence, as he developed young editors, but also interfered with experienced editors. AS EIC, it is within his rights to interfere; but, a good leader empowers his subordinates and lets them get on with their work, trusting them to do their best work, for the company. That is part of why I say Shooter was a good manager; but, not necessarily a good leader.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2021 8:54:46 GMT -5
I'll start a "what do you think about Stan Lee" thread to freshen things up.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 22, 2021 8:58:52 GMT -5
I'll start a "what do you think about Stan Lee" thread to freshen things up. Pfff.................Don Heck created everything!
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jul 22, 2021 9:39:44 GMT -5
I'm thinking an Infantino art in the 70's or a Robbin's art thread should change things up?
Sometimes it feels like fans "must" put their own opinions forward to talk about debating a horse race where the horses are dead. History is written by the winner and the loser rewrites it. Between the two you might find some kernels of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jul 22, 2021 9:48:35 GMT -5
I read a John Byrne interview from the CBJ recently where he was rubbishing the work that Roy Thomas and Gene Colan were doing at DC after they left Marvel. I guess at the time he was fiercely loyal to Marvel and Thomas and Colan went to work for "them." A few years later, Byrne did the same thing. Then he had a falling out with DC people too. So how can we trust the creators' word over Shooter?
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jul 22, 2021 9:56:41 GMT -5
I read a John Byrne interview from the CBJ recently where he was rubbishing the work that Roy Thomas and Gene Colan were doing at DC after they left Marvel. I guess at the time he was fiercely loyal to Marvel and Thomas and Colan went to work for "them." A few years later, Byrne did the same thing. Then he had a falling out with DC people too. So how can we trust the creators' word over Shooter? It's all he said she said and we'll probalbly never know, but it does seem like creators can be petty at times. By the way, Roy Thomas's work at DC in the 80's was some of his best ever.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 22, 2021 10:07:27 GMT -5
I read a John Byrne interview from the CBJ recently where he was rubbishing the work that Roy Thomas and Gene Colan were doing at DC after they left Marvel. I guess at the time he was fiercely loyal to Marvel and Thomas and Colan went to work for "them." A few years later, Byrne did the same thing. Then he had a falling out with DC people too. So how can we trust the creators' word over Shooter? Everyone is the hero of their own story.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 22, 2021 10:11:48 GMT -5
I read a John Byrne interview from the CBJ recently where he was rubbishing the work that Roy Thomas and Gene Colan were doing at DC after they left Marvel. I guess at the time he was fiercely loyal to Marvel and Thomas and Colan went to work for "them." A few years later, Byrne did the same thing. Then he had a falling out with DC people too. So how can we trust the creators' word over Shooter? Well, by the same token, given that Shooter has had conflicts at every company he has worked, how can we trust his word against the cumulative word of others? Everything is based on anecdotes, with the biases of the storyteller; so, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle; but, it is more often the case that when an individual constantly ends up in conflict with others, the problem lies with that individual. Comics are driven by ego, on the creative side (as in any creative endeavor) and that is going to color everything. The Comics Journal is a questionable source for criticism of Shooter, as they criticized everything he did and pretty much everything in mainstream comics (they considered him the poster child for everything wrong with the mainstream). I read the Journal and liked much of its content; but, it's editorial stance was often hard to swallow and I usually balanced it out with Comic Buyer's Guide, Comics Interview, Comics Scene and their own Amazing Heroes, which was less "Mainstream sucks, only our idiosyncratic comics are worth reading", since they were selling to the mainstream audience. CBJ criticized everything Shooter did, practically to the point of his clothing choices and would print anything from a disgruntled ex-employee, as long as it fit their agenda. However, you got similar statements at other sources, when it came to interpersonal conflicts. Shooter certainly didn't help matters during Jack Kirby's fight to regain his art, without conditions. Shooter made some statements that were insulting, at best, which the fan press ate up. Kirby was the only one presented with a thick legal document to absolve Marvel for the theft of his artwork, by employees (directly or by abetting others) and he refused to sign, since no other artist had to sign such a waiver. He and Marvel went into a standoff, with Shooter as the front man for the company. The rest of the industry was pretty solidly behind Kirby. In the end, Marvel blinked and returned what remained of Kirby's art, without conditions. Sean Howe's book suggested that Stan lit some fires behind the scenes to settle the dispute, as it was bad for Marvel's image. Now, Shooter probably unfairly takes the brunt of criticism for that, when it was likely a decision by the company higher ups and their legal counsel, with Shooter stuck as being the mouthpiece for the company. The EIC job title was a misnomer, because even Stan didn't have final say in running the company. There was always someone higher up dictating things, from Martin Goodman, to Cadence Industries, to New World, to the Mc Andrews Group, to Ike Perlmutter, to Disney. Sean Howe's book also features anecdotes of every single EIC running into roadblocks from those bosses, whether it was pay rates, benefits, royalties, titles, job positions, movies or what have you. The Editor-In-Chief was not the High Chief.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2021 10:12:13 GMT -5
I'll start a "what do you think about Stan Lee" thread to freshen things up. Pfff.................Don Heck created everything! Ha ha...love it!
|
|