Would Marvel be what it is today without Jim Shooter?

[James Cameron]

Shooter was not without his share of controversies (the Pym slap, Bruce Banner in the gym) . He made enemies and burned a lot of bridges. However, it's an undeniable fact that when he became Editor in Chief, Marvel was struggling. At the time, the editor in chief didn't do much editing, freelance work-for-hire writers would often act as their own editors. Writers would send plots to pencilers without any editorial approval. Editors did not see an issue until it was already inked and lettered. The EIC did not do a lot of real management and had no real control over the direction of the books. The 70s could be considered one of Marvel's messiest decades. Lots of fill ins and consistently late books. Marvel was generally considered disorganized with a high turnover rate. Once Shooter came on board, the quality of Marvel's output increased dramatically. There was a real direction and consistency across all the titles. Some of Marvel's greatest runs are from the Shooter era. Claremont on X-Men, Byrne on F4, Stern on Spidey and Avengers, Simonson on Thor, Miller on Daredevil, I mean I'm not trying to give Shooter credit for all of these creative decisions, but is it safe to say that Marvel would not be what it is today without him? I'd imagine Marvel would still be successful and popular, but would it be AS successful and popular? I'm curious what everyone thinks.

[Alan2099]

Marvel could really use a guy like him these days. He ran the company like it was an actual business and didn't just let whoever the hot new talent was do whatever they pleased.

[Anthony W]

Marvel's problem is they put out too much garbage. I once said that Marvel only had the talent to put out 25 to 30 books. That number has dropped to about 16.

[James Cameron]

Marvel could really use a guy like him these days. He ran the company like it was an actual business and didn't just let whoever the hot new talent was do whatever they pleased.

For sure. But he was a creative at heart, as well. He had storytelling rules that every writer had to adhere to. People called him a dictator, but without him, the 80s would not have been Marvel's heyday. He made some business decisions that were definitely playing it safe (banning all LGBTQ stuff from the books for instance) but at the end of the day he cared about the characters and telling good stories. I miss that.

[DrNewGod]

For sure. But he was a creative at heart, as well. He had storytelling rules that every writer had to adhere to. People called him a dictator, but without him, the 80s would not have been Marvel's heyday. He made some business decisions that were definitely playing it safe (banning all LGBTQ stuff from the books for instance) but at the end of the day he cared about the characters and telling good stories. I miss that.

Eh. Mussolini made the trains run on time too. Kidding

His highs were high and his lows were low. I don't know how much veracity there is in some of the stories, but he wanted to do some nutty stuff as the tales go (e.g. wanting to kill Shang-Chi so they could replace the star of Master of Kung Fu [inherently Chinese] with a Japanese ninja).

I absolutely agree with your take that his regime co-occured with an improvement at Marvel, and not one that was coincidental.

[DrewHLMW]

Marvel could really use a guy like him these days. He ran the company like it was an actual business and didn't just let whoever the hot new talent was do whatever they pleased.

This times 1000x.
I'm fed up hearing creator's say that their pitches just keep getting approved no matter how crazy or out there the ideas are.
It's at the point where I wonder does the EiC actually do anything or are they just a pointless figurehead. do your job.

[Sutekh]

I don't agree with every decision he made, but he sure seemed to make them! I've felt like no EiC since has had half the willingness to step in and say, 'No. I'm not approving that. That character wouldn't do that. That story cuts off too many options.' and just let the writers do whatever they want with Marvel's IP, for short term numbers, with no concern for the long-term health of the company.

[Rincewind]

Marvel's problem is they put out too much garbage. I once said that Marvel only had the talent to put out 25 to 30 books. That number has dropped to about 16.

Rose colored glasses. There was plenty of crap during Shooter's reign.

As an editor, he alienated lots of talent that left Marvel or just avoided Marvel.

As a creative, he gave us Carol Danvers falling in love with the man who gaslit her into giving birth to him, Northstar being an Asgardian fairy since gay people didn't exist in comics, and the New Universe.

[HaveAtThee]

Shooter was not without his share of controversies (the Pym slap, Bruce Banner in the gym) . He made enemies and burned a lot of bridges. However, it's an undeniable fact that when he became Editor in Chief, Marvel was struggling. At the time, the editor in chief didn't do much editing, freelance work-for-hire writers would often act as their own editors. Writers would send plots to pencilers without any editorial approval. Editors did not see an issue until it was already inked and lettered. The EIC did not do a lot of real management and had no real control over the direction of the books. The 70s could be considered one of Marvel's messiest decades. Lots of fill ins and consistently late books. Marvel was generally considered disorganized with a high turnover rate. Once Shooter came on board, the quality of Marvel's output increased dramatically. There was a real direction and consistency across all the titles. Some of Marvel's greatest runs are from the Shooter era. Claremont on X-Men, Byrne on F4, Stern on Spidey and Avengers, Simonson on Thor, Miller on Daredevil, I mean I'm not trying to give Shooter credit for all of these creative decisions, but is it safe to say that Marvel would not be what it is today without him? I'd imagine Marvel would still be successful and popular, but would it be AS successful and popular? I'm curious what everyone thinks.

Almost like a steady/firm hand in editorial created a very coherent overall universe and didn't "stifle creativity" as many have argued. Some actual editorial control would be welcome. Instead on one character you have different creative teams telling considerably different stories (not a horrible thing), but with drastically different characterization.

[Anthony W]

Rose colored glasses. There was plenty of crap during Shooter's reign.Universe.

What was crap in that era becomes passable in this era

As an editor, he alienated lots of talent that left Marvel or just avoided Marvel.

He didn't make everyone happy. And?

As a creative, he gave us Carol Danvers falling in love with the man who gaslit her into giving birth to him

Which remains her most popular comics story because the modern talent can't do anything with her other than give her ugly costumes and get her cancelled

Northstar being an Asgardian fairy since gay people didn't exist in comics,

It was the 1980s and unlike today Marvel Comics was an actual mainstream company with ads for kid products in their comics. Do the math.

and the New Universe.

At least that came out of a desire to do something new. Unlike that Second Ultimate universe that we all know doesn't matter and will get rolled up like an old newspaper in three to five years. We all gave it a chance because so many of the 616 comics suck. Oh by the way, Marvel bought Malibu and drove it into a ditch. They also went through Neil Gaiman's trash and found Angela.

[Alan2099]

He didn't make everyone happy. And?

I think a lot of criticism for Shooter comes from this. He was working with a lot of creative people with wild ideas and he was the one that had to step-up and tell them "no" sometimes.

Which is pretty much the opposite of how it seems to work to day.

[Anthony W]

I think a lot of criticism for Shooter comes from this. He was working with a lot of creative people with wild ideas and he was the one that had to step-up and tell them "no" sometimes.

Which is pretty much the opposite of how it seems to work to day.

Heaven forbid!

[Agent Z]

I think a lot of criticism for Shooter comes from this. He was working with a lot of creative people with wild ideas and he was the one that had to step-up and tell them "no" sometimes.

And yet, he said yes to Avengers #200.

[Nomads1]

Answering the OP's question, no way to know for sure, however, IMHO, it's doubtful. Marvel under Shooter did work like a real business, intrested in expanding and building up the industry, which, he did. Shooter not only uped Marvel's game, but also the competition's. As a reaction to Shooter's reign, DC really reorganized it's publishing arm, experimenting, showcasing new talents and new concepts. New publishing companies took flight. All in all, Marvel and the industry as a whole benefited from Shooter's rule. Was it perfect? No, nothing is. Many projects didn't give the expected results. Did he displease some creators? Sure. however, this is a business riddeled with gigantic egos, and quite a few are bound to be bruised (even Shooter's, which was also reported to be quite huge). All in all, the list of epic (no pun intended, given that the Epic line started under him) runs that Shooter's editorship gave us is almost endless. Starlin's Dreadstar, Miller's Daredevil, Simonson's Thor, Stern's Avengers, Claremont's X-Men, Byrne's FF, etc...
Personally, I'm not that much of a fan of Shooter as a creator, however, I cannot help but respect the man.

Peace

[Agent Z]

What was crap in that era becomes passable in this era

Like what?

He didn't make everyone happy. And?

No editor does. By this logic, current editors should also get a pass.

Which remains her most popular comics story because the modern talent can't do anything with her other than give her ugly costumes and get her cancelled

You can complain about Carol's costumes til the apocalypse. It doesn't change the fact she's infinitely more popular now than she was back when the most people knew of her was getting her powers drained by Rogue and put in a coma. The only good thing that came out of Avengers #200 was Chris Claremont blasting everyone involved in that story's creation through Avengers Annual #10.

It was the 1980s and unlike today Marvel Comics was an actual mainstream company with ads for kid products in their comics. Do the math.

I once again refer to Avengers #200.

At least that came out of a desire to do something new. Unlike that Second Ultimate universe that we all know doesn't matter and will get rolled up like an old newspaper in three to five years. We all gave it a chance because so many of the 616 comics suck. Oh by the way, Marvel bought Malibu and drove it into a ditch. They also went through Neil Gaiman's trash and found Angela.

Uh-huh and how long did the New Universe last again?