Would Marvel be what it is today without Jim Shooter?

[CaptCleghorn]

I dunno if that is true or not. But I always remember how he several times mocked Shooter projects in the DC books.

The New Universe was really a concept with potential. But it seems than SHooter didn't get the talent he wanted and neither support enough, from his bosses and his employees, to push the initiative forward. Just remember how Warren Ellis (there you got another example for the previous paragraph) built a whole tale using those concepts.

This book has always seemed like a very personal attack on Jim Shooter considering it's his hometown and the Star Brand book relied on Shooter's personal knowledge of Pittsburgh.

[Thor-Ul]

Oh, for sure it was, as Byrne himself wrote it and drew it.
But also it was one of the most honest publicity stunts I remember. For sure it was not an hyperbole.

[jackolover]

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.

I feel the same goes for the Quesada/Bendis/Miller era. I felt the early 2000’s were like today - they ran out of steam. And sure like you say the heroes acted out of character, but it had been done before. The Quesada era gave Marvel a star burst of ideas and sales. If that era didn’t occur I would have abandoned Marvel. I felt Marvel needed that burst of hyper-characterisation at that time. It may have led to a sort of burnout today and maybe we need a stronger Shooter editor again for the books, much like with the MCU.

There is a strong argument that Shooter brought a firm and stable 1980’s Marvel. The 1970’s and 1990’s were certainly directionless. The quality of the Shooter era could have easily fit into the Quesada/Bendis/Millar era.

What can we say about the last 7 years in the books? If we ignore everything up to All new all different and just see post- Secret Wars as one where Marvel just started fresh, how do we judge it? I see it as a Marvel without a first family. What is going on with that? This new Illuminati had to wait for Reed Richards to get back before they formed. Will Steve Rogers be happy about the Illuminati?

[Rob London]

Shooter was definitely instrumental to shaping Marvel into what it is today. He brought a professionalism to what had been a somewhat ramshackle operation up until then.

However, he was also doomed by his own hubris. Secret Wars II and the New Universe serve as the two vast and trunkless legs of stone that memorialize Shooter's tenure at the company.

[skyvolt2000]

Isn't unfair to reduce the whole Shooter era to one comic and one editorial initiative? During every reing there are shadows and lights. Is in the Shooter era than the Dark Phoenix saga (and its historic climax) was wrote. Secret Wars, Byrne in 4F, Miller in Daredevil, Simonson in Thor.
The bigger balance seems to be positive.

For all the crying about how much of a failure New Universe was suppose to be.

In terms of issue produced seems to say there was some interest in it for awhile.

3 books went 32 issues.
3 went 12
1 went 19
1 went 13
164 issues.

Dc's New Age Heroes
1 went 30
2 went 6
1 went 8
1 went 12 18 16 13
109 issues.

DC's Impact line
105 issues

Young Animal
102 issues

Bloodlines
109 issues and 61 were Hitman alone. Anima lasted 15.

So was it really that bad? There are folks with some movies that can't get a book to last that long.

[shooshoomanjoe]

For all the crying about how much of a failure New Universe was suppose to be.

In terms of issue produced seems to say there was some interest in it for awhile.

3 books went 32 issues.
3 went 12
1 went 19
1 went 13
164 issues.

Dc's New Age Heroes
1 went 30
2 went 6
1 went 8
1 went 12 18 16 13
109 issues.

DC's Impact line
105 issues

Young Animal
102 issues

Bloodlines
109 issues and 61 were Hitman alone. Anima lasted 15.

So was it really that bad? There are folks with some movies that can't get a book to last that long.

I loved it. I can't understand the hate for it.

[gurkle]

I have mixed feelings about Shooter.

He certainly did a lot of things that needed to be done. Marvel was a mess before he came because the management was still expecting the editor-in-chief to edit the whole line, which in practice meant the comics were barely edited at all. That led to some wonderful crazy comics in the '70s but also a lot of junk. Shooter finally brought Marvel editorial into the real world by hiring a full staff of editors and trying to improve the consistency of the art. Without Shooter and the editors he hired like Louise Simonson and Ann Nocenti, I doubt "X-Men" could ever have grown in popularity for as long as it did; it would have burned out after a few years like even the best Marvel runs did in the '70s.

On the other hand I thought when I was younger that DC had better writing in the '80s, overall, than Marvel did, and I've never changed my opinion. Shooter had a basically conservative attitude to writing with a lot of rules about exposition and story structure. (Louise Simonson said editors had something they called "Shooter-proofing," where they tried to make sure an issue followed Shooter's rules so Shooter wouldn't call them out.) I'm not saying everyone had to be Alan Moore, but Dick Giordano at DC was more willing to let writers go their own way and that led to more diversity of writing style, while Moore would never have fit in at US Marvel. Shooter's writers often wrote like -- and in many cases, like Mark Gruenwald, were -- editors, always explaining everything.

[Nomads1]

I feel the same goes for the Quesada/Bendis/Miller era. I felt the early 2000’s were like today - they ran out of steam. And sure like you say the heroes acted out of character, but it had been done before. The Quesada era gave Marvel a star burst of ideas and sales. If that era didn’t occur I would have abandoned Marvel. I felt Marvel needed that burst of hyper-characterisation at that time. It may have led to a sort of burnout today and maybe we need a stronger Shooter editor again for the books, much like with the MCU.

There is a strong argument that Shooter brought a firm and stable 1980’s Marvel. The 1970’s and 1990’s were certainly directionless. The quality of the Shooter era could have easily fit into the Quesada/Bendis/Millar era.

What can we say about the last 7 years in the books? If we ignore everything up to All new all different and just see post- Secret Wars as one where Marvel just started fresh, how do we judge it? I see it as a Marvel without a first family. What is going on with that? This new Illuminati had to wait for Reed Richards to get back before they formed. Will Steve Rogers be happy about the Illuminati?

While I can see your point, I'd have to disagree. Shooter was all about the characters, placing the best creators with the best characters for them, however, at long term, always protecting the proprieties and the company (ironically enough,as a creator, Shooter did cause long trerm damage and did basically ruin one of my favorite Marvel characters, Hank Pym). The Quesada/ Bendis /Millar era was all about the talent, the creators. The hype was always on who they'd put on which book, even if for one story arc, and then, the next huge annoucement of who'd come next. Editorial bended backwards to please the creators, and the characters suffered for it, with blatant mischaractarizations, and with story decisions that permenantly scared and even ruined popular characters. True, I won't deny that, while it was a move that mostly didn't appeal to me, the MU never seemed (and seem is the operative word here) more cohisive, with all the books rallying around the newest companywide event, and the next, and the next, and so on... It did bring in a lot of new readers in the short term, however, how many of them stuck around when the creators they followed moved on and they had no connection with the characters, who, many times, were irecognizable by the time the next creator got his hands on them? IMHO, that created the seed for the downfall of the industry that we now seem to be experiencing where the "talent" is far from being as talented as the ones that came before, and they are treated with free reign by editoral, in much the same way (if not more) that happened in the Quesada/ Bendis/ Millar era, and who cares about the characters? Once again, IMHO, it is not an efficient business model, and Marvel (and the mainstream medium as a whole) seems to be paying the price for it, with ever diminishing returns.

Peace

[marhawkman]

the list of characters created in part by Shooter was pretty massive too.

[Zero Hunter]

While I can see your point, I'd have to disagree. Shooter was all about the characters, placing the best creators with the best characters for them, however, at long term, always protecting the proprieties and the company (ironically enough,as a creator, Shooter did cause long trerm damage and did basically ruin one of my favorite Marvel characters, Hank Pym). The Quesada/ Bendis /Millar era was all about the talent, the creators. The hype was always on who they'd put on which book, even if for one story arc, and then, the next huge annoucement of who'd come next. Editorial bended backwards to please the creators, and the characters suffered for it, with blatant mischaractarizations, and with story decisions that permenantly scared and even ruined popular characters. True, I won't deny that, while it was a move that mostly didn't appeal to me, the MU never seemed (and seem is the operative word here) more cohisive, with all the books rallying around the newest companywide event, and the next, and the next, and so on... It did bring in a lot of new readers in the short term, however, how many of them stuck around when the creators they followed moved on and they had no connection with the characters, who, many times, were irecognizable by the time the next creator got his hands on them? IMHO, that created the seed for the downfall of the industry that we now seem to be experiencing where the "talent" is far from being as talented as the ones that came before, and they are treated with free reign by editoral, in much the same way (if not more) that happened in the Quesada/ Bendis/ Millar era, and who cares about the characters? Once again, IMHO, it is not an efficient business model, and Marvel (and the mainstream medium as a whole) seems to be paying the price for it, with ever diminishing returns.

Peace

That sums it up pretty well. Shooter was about the company and the long term health of the characters. Modern editors are all about kissing the creators asses letting them do anything they want regardless of the long term harm. If it get a headline for a week for doing something crazy its worth the mess left behind in their eyes. Some creators bitch about Shooter and his style, but those came creators put out some of the best work of their careers under him.

[Agent Z]

That sums it up pretty well. Shooter was about the company and the long term health of the characters. Modern editors are all about kissing the creators asses letting them do anything they want regardless of the long term harm. If it get a headline for a week for doing something crazy its worth the mess left behind in their eyes. Some creators bitch about Shooter and his style, but those came creators put out some of the best work of their careers under him.

Anyone who thinks modern editors just let writers do whatever they want hasn't really been following what actually happens.

[kingaliencracker]

If the question is whether creative talents such as Byrne, Stern, Claremont, Miller, etc. would have found success without Jim Shooter, then the answer is yes. Talent is talent, and I believe those individuals would have still created amazing stories with or without Shooter.

If the question is whether things would have played out virtually the same without Shooter, then that's obviously more difficult to answer, but being honest I would say no. Regardless of my feelings about Shooter as a human being and boss (not from personal experience but based on what's been said about him by those who know him), he did place certain people in the right spots to get the best and most out of them. And in continuing to be honest, those creative talents I listed did not have consistent success without Shooter, although it's hard to say if that was just because they overstayed their welcome, their talents diminished, or if it was because Shooter was that great of an editor. I also give him a little bit of a break since he didn't own Marvel and had bosses to answer to also. And virtually everyone agrees that he cleaned up a lot of messy things in his first few years at Marvel.

Still, it's hard to separate the negative from the positive. I tend to focus on the latter and not dwell on the bad stuff.

[Zero Hunter]

Anyone who thinks modern editors just let writers do whatever they want hasn't really been following what actually happens.

Most modern editors are just empty chairs compared to the 80s and 90s. The Quesada era ushered in the "let them do what they want we will just fix it with retcons latter" attitude that is still so pervasive in especially Marvel today.

[Sutekh]

Most modern editors are just empty chairs compared to the 80s and 90s. The Quesada era ushered in the "let them do what they want we will just fix it with retcons latter" attitude that is still so pervasive in especially Marvel today.

Agreed. As much as I love some of the big swing ideas of the current Krakoan experiment over in the X-books, it's just chockfull of massive writer fiats that an EiC like Shooter would have 'shot' down.

Moira was always a mutant and never really died! (Even though we saw her dead in Dead X-Men.) Cerebro not only detects mutants, sometimes, unreliably, and misses way, way more than it catches, but actually it's recording every thought and memory of every mutant on the planet, almost every day, even when Xavier is dead, off-planet or the mansion has been blown up, or that mutant has historically not been susceptible to telepathy at all? Sure, whatever! Krakoa wasn't created during an atomic test, it's been around for thousands of years and has history with Apocalypse! Krakoa wasn't 'not really sentient, it was all Xavier planting those images in the X-Men's heads' as per Deadly Genesis, but yes, it was actually sentient, again... Just lots of wild 'new canon,' which I personally was willing to swallow when it led to some amazing storytelling and deep dives and exposure for characters who don't traditionally get it (Prodigy in X-Factor, Tempo in Marauders, Frenzy, Wiz Kid, the mad beauty that was Hellions, or even using some strange alchemy to make me love *Nekra*), but a whole lotta 'stuff that's always been true' had to be thrown in the woodchipper and sort of blithely accepted because this writer had a big, big idea that didn't really 'work' with X-canon as it was, and had to throw out a bunch to explore this big, big idea.

This feels very much like editorial sat back and said, "Whatever! Go for it Big Idea Writer, change whatever you want. We'll hit the factory reset button later."

[jackolover]

While I can see your point, I'd have to disagree. Shooter was all about the characters, placing the best creators with the best characters for them, however, at long term, always protecting the proprieties and the company (ironically enough,as a creator, Shooter did cause long trerm damage and did basically ruin one of my favorite Marvel characters, Hank Pym). The Quesada/ Bendis /Millar era was all about the talent, the creators. The hype was always on who they'd put on which book, even if for one story arc, and then, the next huge annoucement of who'd come next. Editorial bended backwards to please the creators, and the characters suffered for it, with blatant mischaractarizations, and with story decisions that permenantly scared and even ruined popular characters. True, I won't deny that, while it was a move that mostly didn't appeal to me, the MU never seemed (and seem is the operative word here) more cohisive, with all the books rallying around the newest companywide event, and the next, and the next, and so on... It did bring in a lot of new readers in the short term, however, how many of them stuck around when the creators they followed moved on and they had no connection with the characters, who, many times, were irecognizable by the time the next creator got his hands on them? IMHO, that created the seed for the downfall of the industry that we now seem to be experiencing where the "talent" is far from being as talented as the ones that came before, and they are treated with free reign by editoral, in much the same way (if not more) that happened in the Quesada/ Bendis/ Millar era, and who cares about the characters? Once again, IMHO, it is not an efficient business model, and Marvel (and the mainstream medium as a whole) seems to be paying the price for it, with ever diminishing returns.

Peace

I know what you mean. There is a lot of people who disliked the Quesada/Bendis/Millar era, and didn’t read as much ever since. Even that they think this era caused the downfall of both comics companies, Marvel and DC. I can echo some of that sentiment. Why would Jonathan Hickman destroy the Marvel Universe in Secret Wars? Why do this and bring it back just as it was? I don’t get it. Is it because they wanted to change something, like ignore the passage of time? They could have done that anyway without the Quesada era being the cause of it.

But it does make it look like the Quesada era fomented a degradation of the Marvel Universe resulting in its destruction. That’s what I got from it. I still have to admit I was fully on board with it though, because it catered to my desires. It felt new, dangerous, and threatened the superheroes without it descending to the degrees of the Watchmen. That is until it totally destroyed all superheroes.

All that being admitted, I still feel the Shooter era was recognisable as similar to the Quesada era, without all the CW and Time runs out. I think the Byrnes, Simonson, Frank Millar, Claremont, stories could have been done in the 2000’s with better art techniques. And they are just as high class as Bendis, Millar and Hickman, so editors of both era’s had just as difficult a time with either group. And I put a high value on the work by Brevoort over this whole period. He oversaw the continuity of every book on a big wall map somewhere, that kept everything tied in together.

Sadly, though, your last comment seems to ring true. I’ve never bought less comics than in the last 4 months.