Jim Shooter Isn’t Happy with Current Marvel Comics

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Fact of the matter is, super-heroes comics are supposed to be adventure escapism, not political bull.

Hopefully Marvel goes back to that.

Ah yes, back in the days when comics wouldn't be making overtly political statements.

[Da Boat]

I don't recall Marvel: The Untold Story that well, but if I remember right, a lot of creators at Marvel hated working under Shooter. After he was fired, Marvel employees held a party at John Byrne's house to celebrate, where they smashed a pinata based on Shooter.

And Byrne never did anything worthwhile at Marvel after Shooter left. He had to left Marvel for his creative juice to flow again where he did Next Men at Darkhorse.

[Da Boat]

Ah yes, back in the days when comics wouldn't be making overtly political statements.

And next issue Superman was fighting a big monkey with three heads.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

And next issue Superman was fighting a big monkey with three heads.

In the next issue, Superman and Lois exposed and shut down a corrupt rehabilitation home.

[Da Boat]

In the next issue, Superman and Lois exposed and shut down a corrupt rehabilitation home.

And what part of this made any segment of the population mad? You see Superman helping people.

This has nothing to do with what has been happening at Marvel for the last two years.

Marvel's execution of their ideas have been meant to shock people and create controversies. You think the creators of Superman in these stories wanted to piss people off? Whole different mindset.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

And what part of this made any segment of the population mad? You see Superman helping people.

We can't tell, because there are no readily available records of how people responded to those stories.

Not that it matters here, because how many people were angered by something doesn't determine how political it is.

This has nothing to do with what has been happening at Marvel for the last two years.

You said comics were meant to be escapism and not political, and that Marvel had to go back to that.

The fact is superhero comics have been explicitly political since Siegel and Shuster.

Marvel's execution of their ideas have been meant to shock people and create controversies. You think the creators of Superman in these stories wanted to piss people off? Whole different mindset.

That's an assumption on your part.

And Superman was created to comfort some people, and make others mad. He was a New Dealer, and aligned with the politics of the Democrats at the time.

When you deride politics in comics, just be honest and say you deride certain politics you don't approve of in comics.

[phantom1592]

Well he may not be, but he is generalising in a way that suggests he isn't reading modern Marvel but instead informed by the comic press. Also the statement is incoherent when it comes to Wonder Woman. What is he actually saying about the movie he says he enjoyed? He seems to be giving it a pass because she is a lesser known hero. I just don't get this. I would love to hear a longer and more detailed interview that allowed him to get into his point more clearly while also challenging his perceptions of modern comics. I think it would be very illuminating.

Yeah, he's basically saying that Wonder Woman gets a pass because she isn't as well known. They could take her story and make changes as they saw fit without having to deal with the rabid fanboys about it 'not being right'... Like they do with Superman. EVERYONE knows Superman. They know Lois, the daily Planet, etc. etc....

Wonder Woman? She doesn't have a set mythology. EVERY time a new writer comes on that book, the first story is basically 'EVERYTHING YOU KNEW WAS WROOOOONG!!!!' Was she made from clay? What are her powers? Did she get them as gifts from the gods? By being the daughter of Zeus? From magic items that she wears? Was there a contest? Are all the amazons that strong or did Diana cheat? invisible Jet? yes or no? It's constantly in flux. Perez's WW, Marston's WW, Linda Carter's WW, Gal Gadot's WW... and whoever's writing her now have almost NO connecting threads to be a 'one true wonder woman'...

It’s funny talking about the curse of events, because I’ve just recalled that one of my earlier memories of Marvel was buying the original Secret Wars; produced under EIC Jim Shooter

So much of what is recognisable in today’s comics world, for good or ill, can be traced back to his tenure.

Secret Wars was my favorite 'event' of all time. It was pure gold in every way. Nothing since then has measured up.


I love this quote so much....

When I was a kid, I couldn’t wait to see what happened to Spider-Man next month. I didn’t give a damn if the cover was foil-embossed–because it wasn’t. It’s all about them loving Spider-Man, the character of Spider-Man, wanting to know what’s going on with Spider-Man. If they miss an issue and they don’t care, you lost.

THIS is what's happened to modern Marvel. People don't care... and they've lost. The stories are at minimum 6 issues long with parts 23 and 5 being little more than talking and set up with a little bit of climax and resolution. The fact that people CAN skip issues and not care... and wait 6-10 months for the TPB to come out means they aren't as invested as they should be. EVERY Issue should be amazing in it's own right. The company should never be explaining "Wait a couple more... it'll get better.... or Wait two years! It'll all be clear and worth the wait!!'

That's how sales go from 100,000 (before the speculator boom) to 30,000. People wait to see if they care, and by then the story's already spoiled so there isn't any point in buying it.

[Tiamatty]

Fact of the matter is, super-heroes comics are supposed to be adventure escapism, not political bull.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG!

Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope.

This is absolutely, 100% false.

Superhero comics are not "meant" to be anything. They are "meant" to be whatever the creators want them to be. Some are going to go with escapist adventure. Some are going to get real deep into political commentary. Both approaches are equally valid.

YOU do not get to decide what superhero comics "should" be. You get to decide what you want to read. And if you just want to read escapist adventures with minimal political content? That's fine. No one gets to tell you you're wrong for that. Your preferences in entertainment are valid for you.

That does not mean your preferences are the way things "are supposed to be." Because if someone else loves their superhero comics with loads of political commentary, then guess what? That's valid for them! If they want a superhero comic that delves into the ways in which capitalism exploits labourers, that's valid for them.

Also! Everything is political! All art is political! The extent a piece of art tries to avoid politics is, itself, a political statement. A book that includes a trans character is making a political statement. A book that doesn't include any trans characters is also making a political statement, albeit one the creators likely never thought about or intended. Art is political because life is political.

Additional point: Comics have always been political! Superman's very first foe was a corrupt landlord. Superman was the power fantasy of a couple poor Jewish kids in 1930s America. Politics was very much a big part of the character's creation. And it didn't stop there. Superhero comics got into the Civil Rights Movement of the '60s. They got into activism on university politics. They got into Watergate. The X-Men have long been an allegory for marginalized communities, whether it be Jews, people of colour, the queer community, or any number of other groups. Superhero comics have a long and proud history of political content.

As for replacing characters with minorities: Monica Rambeau took on the Captain Marvel codename, and Jim Rhodes became Iron Man (and hey, people bitched about that, too). Of course, those happened in the '80s, so they're automatically OK and totally different from the current examples which are all the worst things ever.

[Kintor]

WROOOOOOOOOOOOONG!

Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope.

This is absolutely, 100% false.

My, such a visceral reaction to what should be a self-evident truth. Comic books are a form of entertainment, to be enjoyed and amused by its readers first and foremost. This can be achieved through drama as well as humour but entertainment still remains the central goal of every story. Marvel's sin is that they have mistaken politics for drama, sucking the fun out of the whole enterprise. A good creative team should be able to weave an entertaining story without revealing their political beliefs in any sort of heavy-handed diatribe. Marvel has lost that talent long ago and now the quality of their books is suffering as a result, Jim Shooter is right to point this out.

[Tiamatty]

My, such a visceral reaction to what should be a self-evident truth. Comic books are a form of entertainment, to be enjoyed and amused by its readers first and foremost. This can be achieved through drama as well as humour but entertainment still remains the central goal of every story. Marvel's sin is that they have mistaken politics for drama, sucking the fun out of the whole enterprise. A good creative team should be able to weave an entertaining story without revealing their political beliefs in any sort of heavy-handed diatribe. Marvel has lost that talent long ago and now the quality of their books is suffering as a result, Jim Shooter is right to point this out.

Still wrong. This is, in fact, a fundamental misunderstanding of what both art and entertainment actually are.

This idea that there's any one thing that art is "supposed to be" is straight-up bullshit. Pure, 100% wrong. Art is not "supposed to be" anything. Entertainment is not "supposed to be" anything. Art is what it is. It's what the creator makes it, it's how the audience interprets it. If creators wants to drop heavy-handed political commentary? That's their choice to make, and each reader gets to choose for themselves whether they enjoy it or not. Some do, some don't. If it turns out the audience for it isn't big enough to sustain it, it doesn't mean the creators were wrong for doing it. They made their choice and took their chance, and it doesn't always work out.

What people find enjoyable varies. Some people enjoy the politics.

So, no, the "superhero comics should be escapist" mindset remains wrong.

Edit: By the way, nowhere in that interview does Shooter mention "politics," or even anything remotely along those lines. He criticized Captain America being a Nazi, because he felt that was antithetical to the core of the character. Which was the big complaint that everyone made about it. But that's not about politics. I'm pretty sure Shooter would be down with a story where Captain America punches the current-day "alt-right" Neo-Nazis, because that's core to his character. Steve being replaced by Sam as Captain America isn't antithetical to either character, or the very concept of Captain America, so again, something Shooter likely had no problem with.

Shooter doesn't mention "politics." He doesn't mention characters being replaced. His biggest complaint is decompression, writing for the trade. He thinks the stories, as a whole, should have tighter plotting.

This idea that "politics" is ruining comics is just ridiculous. Big Two comics have a lot of problems these days, and most of them are down to the direct market. The thing that's keeping the Big Two alive is also killing them.

[Kintor]

Still wrong. This is, in fact, a fundamental misunderstanding of what both art and entertainment actually are.

This idea that there's any one thing that art is "supposed to be" is straight-up bullshit. Pure, 100% wrong. Art is not "supposed to be" anything. Entertainment is not "supposed to be" anything. Art is what it is. It's what the creator makes it, it's how the audience interprets it. If creators wants to drop heavy-handed political commentary? That's their choice to make, and each reader gets to choose for themselves whether they enjoy it or not. Some do, some don't. If it turns out the audience for it isn't big enough to sustain it, it doesn't mean the creators were wrong for doing it. They made their choice and took their chance, and it doesn't always work out.

What people find enjoyable varies. Some people enjoy the politics.

So, no, the "superhero comics should be escapist" mindset remains wrong.

That's all well and good except for the fact that Marvel is an established business, with certain exceptions from its loyal readership. Marvel built its reputation on their shared universe, that people can keep buying Marvel products safe in the assumption that a consistent cast of characters and tone would be maintained across the decades of continuity that have already been established. Yet Marvel today has forgotten all this, they recklessly replace their most iconic characters and mire every story in more heavy-handed politics. The Marvel that currently exists is nothing short of perversion from its intended form, more concerned with maintaining political group think then telling entertaining stories.

[Coin Biter]

Re Jim Shooter in Marvel: the Untold Story, there certainly is a lot of criticism reported from people who were working for Marvel at the time. It's extremely difficult to know how justified those complaints were some 30 odd years after the event.

We should probably remember the context of Shooter acting to cut down on delays, the burgeoning growth of issues regarding creators' rights as creators became wholly understandably resentful of their comparatively small remuneration for what were in many cases very profitable franchises, the lack of established creator-owned routes to comics publishing, and finally the fact that some of the personalities involved were just as outsized and outspoken as Shooter's. All of this seems contributed to the bad temper in much of the late 80s discussions and the casting of Shooter as some kind of demon king, particularly in the pages of the The Comics Journal. Well, I'm not in the industry and I've got no personal knowledge, but that does seem to have been the... vivid background behind a lot of the criticisms

Not to mention, of course, that there were those who worked there at the time who have more positive accounts of Jim Shooter - such as Christopher Priest, who wrote an account of his time as Spider-Man editor on his website that is largely positive about Shooter, and Vince Colletta, who wrote what was an extraordinary letter to Marvel castigating the treatment of Jim Shooter after he got fired.

There are sections of the Sean Howe book with which Shooter was unhappy I understand - in particular the bit in which Howe speculates that Shooter might have held some affinity with the vastly powerful, ostensibly villainous but tragically misunderstood characters that tended to appear in his fiction, such as Michael Korvac. I have to say I thought that a little snide when I read it myself.

[Gaastra]

. Yet they did not need to kill off characters and replace them for it with fake diversity

[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

No marvel never did that then.

That's not tony in secret wars 1!

I miss the second captain marvel in avengers.

[Rincewind]

Not to mention, of course, that there were those who worked there at the time who have more positive accounts of Jim Shooter - such as Christopher Priest, who wrote an account of his time as Spider-Man editor on his website that is largely positive about Shooter, and Vince Colletta, who wrote what was an extraordinary letter to Marvel castigating the treatment of Jim Shooter after he got fired.

1. I read the account by Priest, and I do not think Shooter came off well in it. Priest writes about how Shooter kept after him to make improvements and changes, especially on the Defalco/Frenz Amazing Spider-Man. When Priest finally fired Defalco/Frenz, Shooter was surprised. Priest said that Shooter told him to do it and Shooter responded "Yeah, but I never thought you actually would do it." Not exactly a stunning endorsement.

2. While Shooter did make sure Vince Colletta has work at Marvel, most artists wanted to keep Colletta as far away from their books as possible. Colletta was an inker known for his speed, but also for leaving out the pencil details of the original artist to speed up his inking process. Shooter's devotion to Colletta is an example of Shooter caring more about the schedule over the quality of the final product.

[WebLurker]

That's all well and good except for the fact that Marvel is an established business, with certain exceptions from its loyal readership. Marvel built its reputation on their shared universe, that people can keep buying Marvel products safe in the assumption that a consistent cast of characters and tone would be maintained across the decades of continuity that have already been established. Yet Marvel today has forgotten all this, they recklessly replace their most iconic characters and mire every story in more heavy-handed politics. The Marvel that currently exists is nothing short of perversion from its intended form, more concerned with maintaining political group think then telling entertaining stories.

The "loyal readership" expect different things, I've found. Some people don't really like the legacy character thing, others find that a more interesting premise. Personally, I never read Wolverine material until they replaced him and I'll be depressed and done with that series if and when she gets replaced by the original (while others can't wait for that to happen). Go onto the Spider-Man sub-forum; there's a lot of disagreement over what that character should be.

As far as politics go, I've heard it both ways on whether it's taking over all the comics or hardly any, so the readership hardly believes the same thing as far as that's concerned (I also find that the former have such a broad definition of what political content is that the label has lost it's meaning; it's been used to explain everything, so explains nothing). Does Marvel still tell entertaining stories? Heck, yeah! The stuff I buy is entertaining (and very politics light, if you can believe that).

Long story short: You're using a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It's incorrect (and arrogant) to believe that the fandom faction you represent speaks for the fanbase as a whole.