Worst Editor in Chief?

[charlesthehammer]

You can't see the possibility that being too constrained to a continuity might get in the way of effective, entertaining story-telling?

Nope. That is the business Marvel is in, telling stories of characters with history.

[Jim Thompson]

Nope. That is the business Marvel is in, telling stories of characters with history.Actually, Marvel's in the business of selling a product that consumers enjoy enough to keep buying -- and they seem to be doing all right with that without tightly following what you've outlined here.

[charlesthehammer]

Actually, Marvel's in the business of selling a product that consumers enjoy enough to keep buying -- and they seem to be doing all right with that without tightly following what you've outlined here.

That seems to be moving the goal post a bit, but you are correct in that. Doesn't change anything I said though. I never argued success.

[Jim Thompson]

That seems to be moving the goal post a bit, but you are correct in that. Doesn't change anything I said though.Merely pointing out the inaccuracy of one of your statements.

And you're correct; nothing I've said changes what you believe to be true, but I'm not sure you've yet been able to demonstrate why you're way of looking at things is correct, and why others are "stupid" for not looking at things as you do.

[Darrell D.]

I like looser, less constrained continuity.
For me, it makes for more interesting stories, as the writers seem to flourish more in a less restrained environment.

[strathcona]

I don't know as you're talking about continuity as much as you're talking about consistent characterization -- which is something I would agree is important.

Yes, consistent characterization is probably a better word. Thanks.

[Jim Thompson]

I like looser, less constrained continuity.
For me, it makes for more interesting stories, as the writers seem to flourish more in a less restrained environment.Generally speaking, I'm the same way. For me, consistent characterization is important, as well as a story that follows its own internal logic.

[charlesthehammer]

Merely pointing out the inaccuracy of one of your statements.

And you're correct; nothing I've said changes what you believe to be true, but I'm not sure you've yet been able to demonstrate why you're way of looking at things is correct, and why others are "stupid" for not looking at things as you do.
Works both ways. I haven't seen really any convicing argument on the other side. In fact oddly enough Darnell seems to agree with me, as even he said he would be annoyed if its out of character. First rationalizing why Hawkeye did whatever he did, and then saying having another character do that be annoying. Its not even that hard to stay in continuity, just do not drastically change a character and try not to contradict an earlier story. That is it. I also was not calling his opinion stupid, I just did not find the logic behind it very convincing.

[Jim Thompson]

I also was not calling his opinion stupid, I just did not find the logic behind it very convincing.Well, I think there's a world of difference in saying one's reasoning isn't very convincing and saying one's reasoning and/or outlook is "rather stupid".

[charlesthehammer]

Well, I think there's a world of difference in saying one's reasoning isn't very convincing and saying one's reasoning and/or outlook is "rather stupid".
Fair enough.

[strathcona]

Generally speaking, I'm the same way. For me, consistent characterization is important, as well as a story that follows its own internal logic.

And the internal logic of the universe in which the story is taking place. That is also key, otherwise why bother writing it within that universe?

[strathcona]

How do you feel about reveals, which very often are, by their very nature, playing with a character's back-story and continuity?

I find they are part and parcel with the superhero genre. They are to be expected, and can often lead to some great stories. However, they are not exempt from having to make sense with what came before. If you are going to reveal something that was previously unknown, then make sure it makes sense with what was known, or tell us how the known stuff has changed because of the new info.

[Jim Thompson]

And the internal logic of the universe in which the story is taking place. That is also key, otherwise why bother writing it within that universe?Yeah, I'd agree with that. And it can actually be used to help a story along on occasion. Kurt Busiek, for example, leveraged some the differences between the internal structures of the MU and the DCU in his JLA/Avengers story, having Iron Man note at one point what they were getting ready to do wouldn't have worked in the Marvel Universe.

[Jim Thompson]

I find they are part and parcel with the superhero genre. They are to be expected, and can often lead to some great stories. However, they are not exempt from having to make sense with what came before. If you are going to reveal something that was previously unknown, then make sure it makes sense with what was known, or tell us how the known stuff has changed because of the new info.My way of saying this would be there ought to be a lot of fore-thought given to reveals -- that they shouldn't be done on the fly.

For example, I think the beginning and end of the Clone Saga show how things can work and how they can go awry without a lot of fore-thought. Ben's return actually was pretty well thought out (at least if one believes DeFalco) and I thought that showed in the structure of those initial stories. But the reveal of Norman Osborn at the end of the saga sort of came out of left field, and it looked for al the world that it hadn't been given a lot of fore-thought before it was done.

[charlesthehammer]

My way of saying this would be there ought to be a lot of fore-thought given to reveals -- that they shouldn't be done on the fly.
I think this is fair.


For example, I think the beginning and end of the Clone Saga show how things can work and how they can go awry without a lot of fore-thought. Ben's return actually was pretty well thought out (at least if one believes DeFalco) and I thought that showed in the structure of those initial stories. But the reveal of Norman Osborn at the end of the saga sort of came out of left field, and it looked for al the world that it hadn't been given a lot of fore-thought before it was done.

I also agree on both reveals.

[Nomads1]

My way of saying this would be there ought to be a lot of fore-thought given to reveals -- that they shouldn't be done on the fly.

For example, I think the beginning and end of the Clone Saga show how things can work and how they can go awry without a lot of fore-thought. Ben's return actually was pretty well thought out (at least if one believes DeFalco) and I thought that showed in the structure of those initial stories. But the reveal of Norman Osborn at the end of the saga sort of came out of left field, and it looked for al the world that it hadn't been given a lot of fore-thought before it was done.


I agree with this. If you're going to put something like this out there, you need to be sure of your endgame and you need to stick with it. The Crossing was another exemple of an idea that wasn't thought through to the end. I can't belive that nobody thought that there had to be consequences to Tony turning murder and that Teen Tony was the pay-off they thought of since the beginning. That's why you need writers and editors (and EIC) working hand in hand, so that when one of them gets lost in the imediate story, the other can pull back and look at the big pictures. When either of them gets free reigns, stuff like this are more common to happen.

Peace

[Regino]

No surprise who is winning this. I'm shocked how well he is doing now at DC. He destroyed my love of comics for years.

[West]

Of course that is another Pet Peeve of mine, resurrections.
What's the issue, if someone wants someone back they'll come back

[Frank]

I would cut Quesada's run in half and say 2005-2010 he has been the second-worst after Harras. Because 2000-2004 was pretty good.

[Frank]

Yeah the only difference i have seen is a marked improvement on the main X-books which is a relief.

Actually Alonso has been running the mutant line for quite a while now and it has mainly sucked under his guidance.

[jphamlore]

What's the issue, if someone wants someone back they'll come back

Considering that Marvel at listed least once, I believe to the SEC, one of their major assets being their "shared universe," by definition the value of Marvel increases when their characters actually share being in the same universe, instead of some majors ones being locked away for arbitrary reasons forever.

[carabas]

I would cut Quesada's run in half and say 2005-2010 he has been the second-worst after Harras. Because 2000-2004 was pretty good.
Dito.
The difference here seems to be Bill Jemas being replaced by Buckney.

[Frank]

Ohh sorry...thanks for correcting me. I had thought you had taken the concept for Marvels II and changed it to make Astro City. Thanks for the correction there.



Claremont wasn't at the height of his powers. I think his height was the "Outback" era . That was it...then as he was pushed to bring all the characters back and do crossovers like X-Tiction Agenda ...his powers had wained a lot.

Some have said perhaps Claremont should have been given a year of rest to recharge his batteries and let some new guy come in awhile.

But under Harras the franchise became even bigger ...and was perhaps the only part of Marvel not suffering from sucking too bad in the 1990's.

In my opinion when Jim Lee came on board the X-Men run, Claremont seemed recharged creatively and I thought X-Men 1-3 were some great comics. It could have been the start of a great new era.

[Frank]

Dito.
The difference here seems to be Bill Jemas being replaced by Buckney.

Jemas was the uncompromising a-hole shaker that was needed for that time.

What damaged him was that that attitude that made him make Marvel a creative juggernaut was also the thing that got to his head where he started fighting creators(firing Mark Waid on FF) and got new unreal ventures greenlight like the new creator-owned Epic line. The higher ups thought this last thing in particular was a bad business decision, they canned it, it was seen as a failiure for Jemas and they used the opportunity to fire him.

But yea Marvel has never been the same since he left.

[carabas]

Jemas was the uncompromising a-hole shaker that was needed for that time.

What damaged him was that that attitude that made him make Marvel a creative juggernaut was also the thing that got to his head where he started fighting creators(firing Mark Waid on FF) and got new unreal ventures greenlight like the new creator-owned Epic line. The higher ups thought this last thing in particular was a bad business decision, they canned it, it was seen as a failiure for Jemas and they used the opportunity to fire him.

But yea Marvel has never been the same since he left.And funny enough, they created a creator-owned imprint anyway, although the singular motivation for ICON seems to be to keep exclusive talent really exclusive.

[Frank]

What is funny is the guy who said something about the Liefeld X-Foilfest crossovers etc. except that Liefeld was nowhere near Marvel during those times. He had left a year or so before!!! Funny how he gets the blame for things he wasn't even involved in...

As to the Avengers books being good in that time period... ie the mid to late 90s... forgive me but they were anything but good. The Harras writing years were a travesty and then the run up to Onslaught was some of the most atrocious work I've seen. Teen Tony? Blech. Psycho, Kang warped Tony? Yechy. The Avengers costumes at the time... egads those were bad.

As to the comment that Byrne's best days were behind him during DeFalco's era... it is debateable. I would say his artwork on AWC & Namor was far better than his days on X-Men & Fantastic Four & he was just coming off his defining Superman run.


Good Lord no way, Byrne's X-Men and FF was the very peak of Byrne's career. He's never done as good before, after and since. He started to decline around Superman and when he got to Namor especially you could really see the shadow of a once great artist. He had trouble with anatomy, could hardly draw background stuff, we could hardly distinguish between his female characters, males characters and characters from various age. It got worse on Next men but it got saved by truly stellar writing. As far as WCA it shouldn't even be named in the same ballpark, after promising promo pieces of Vision's Quest, the result was less than good because Mike Macklan inked Byrne and the coloring was atrocious.

[Frank]

And funny enough, they created a creator-owned imprint anyway, although the singular motivation for ICON seems to be to keep exclusive talent really exclusive.

I think what Jemas had in mind though was something much bigger where EVERYBODY would get to have stories printed at Marvel. It was something bold and I wonder if that could have worked if given the time.

[carabas]

I think what Jemas had in mind though was something much bigger where EVERYBODY would get to have stories printed at Marvel. It was something bold and I wonder if that could have worked if given the time.
That's definitely what he had in mind, and I think it would have been glorious, and would have finally given Marvel some street cred back.

[ShadowDemon]

Jemas was the uncompromising a-hole.

Should have stopped with this right here.

Jemas started the whole "hate the fans" thing that Marvel still has going on.

[MonteMike72]

Stories like:
Sins Past
Avengers Disassemble
Unthinkable
Xorn
Winter Solder
and Many others are the reasons I think Quesada was the WORST EIC. I didn't like any of them and are the reason I quit reading Marvel books.

[Predabot]

Y'know... just realized that I feel Jemas was probably more instrumental in the later good parts of Harras run as EIC... in fact, I think I do feel as if 99-2000 was pretty much ALL Jemas, and hardly no thanks to Harras, that pretty much turned the company into sewage.

Jemas was certainly instrumental in Quesadas early years, and the high quality of out-put back then, and probably a great help for him in defining the look and feel of the MU of the 2000's.

Yeah... Jemas was some good stuff. Apparently he was some bad stuff as well... but that's what happens when you're bold, sometimes you get a bit too bold, but without that boldness, the EIC's he worked with, would have been far, far lesser men.

[Frank]

Y'know... just realized that I feel Jemas was probably more instrumental in the later good parts of Harras run as EIC... in fact, I think I do feel as if 99-2000 was pretty much ALL Jemas, and hardly no thanks to Harras, that pretty much turned the company into sewage.

Jemas was certainly instrumental in Quesadas early years, and the high quality of out-put back then, and probably a great help for him in defining the look and feel of the MU of the 2000's.

Yeah... Jemas was some good stuff. Apparently he was some bad stuff as well... but that's what happens when you're bold, sometimes you get a bit too bold, but without that boldness, the EIC's he worked with, would have been far, far lesser men.

Yea Harras was burned out on the idea of Marvel getting in bed with another company putside of Marvel after the Heroes Reborn debacle and it's probably Jemas in the late 90s that decided that Marvel teaming with Quesada on Marvel Knights was a good idea.

[Joe Acro]

I moved all the discussion of Bucky's return here (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=397907).

[Probably_not_a_Nurgling]

Speaking of Jemas, I get the distinct impression Quesada worked under him with his teeth firmly clenched. His leadership styles with and without Jemas were downright bipolar.

[carabas]

Speaking of Jemas, I get the distinct impression Quesada worked under him with his teeth firmly clenched. His leadership styles with and without Jemas were downright bipolar.Or he's working under Buckley with his teeth firmly clenched.

He did seem much happier back then.

[SpideyCzar]

Someone seriously voted for Stan Lee? ha ha

[Nomads1]

Speaking of Jemas, I get the distinct impression Quesada worked under him with his teeth firmly clenched. His leadership styles with and without Jemas were downright bipolar.


Or he's working under Buckley with his teeth firmly clenched.
He did seem much happier back then.

I didn't know Quesada swung that way.

Peace

[Probably_not_a_Nurgling]

Or he's working under Buckley with his teeth firmly clenched.

He did seem much happier back then.

I say under Jemas because under Buckley he seemed to get/be allowed to do a lot more of what he wanted (less mutants, for instance, and the Avengers becoming the premiere title).

[squashmaster]

So far its a tie between Alonso and Harras.

[Predabot]

Hey Nomads, I know you're a fan of Harras in his role as comic-book creator, but I haven't quite gotten yet what you feel about his general era of Marvel Comics, and his overall ability as EiC?

What are your thoughts on him taking the lead in the poll as well?


Someone seriously voted for Stan Lee? ha ha
I did.

And why the h*ll not? Marvel's very finest comics where produced under his watch, IMNSHO whatsoever.

A fantastic promotor, writer, and general idea-man. He's an engine of creative ideas that has made him one of the most successful men in all of comic-book history.

The man deserves the accolades.

Oh wait...

...this is for the WORST EiC! XD Yeah... ok, then it kind of makes sense. I think I recall me voting for either DeFalco or Harras... not quite sure which one I picked.


So far its a tie between Alonso and Harras.

That's pretty unfair, dont you think?

Alonso's barely gotten into the chair, and only now ( like with the X-relaunch) are we even beginning to see what his ideas for the line will be, since he had to complete Joe's last story-beats and initiatives first.

Give the dude a chance, he hasn't even had time to warm his seat even.

[Rasputin9977]

That's pretty unfair, dont you think?

Alonso's barely gotten into the chair, and only now ( like with the X-relaunch) are we even beginning to see what his ideas for the line will be, since he had to complete Joe's last story-beats and initiatives first.

Give the dude a chance, he hasn't even had time to warm his seat even.

Not unfair at all. Look how terrible Alonso has made the x-titles and how Marvel has been on a downward spiral since he became EiC.

[Nomads1]

Hey Nomads, I know you're a fan of Harras in his role as comic-book creator, but I haven't quite gotten yet what you feel about his general era of Marvel Comics, and his overall ability as EiC?

What are your thoughts on him taking the lead in the poll as well?



I think that, like most EiC he had his good and bad moments. Like most EiC, also, he takes a lot of falk for things that are beyond his control (tendencies of the 90's, Heroes Reborn - it was already a done deal before he came in, and editorial had little say in it -Marvel's bankruptcy). However, one of Marvel's greatest creatives periods came under his watch (Heroes Return) and what Marvel was putting out when some of it's greatest proprieties were on loan to Liefield, Lee and Co was awsome ( H4H, Ka-Zar, Quicksilver, Thunderbolts, Alpha Flight, etc...). Though far from my favorite period, he kept the X-franchise on top after Claremont left, and oversaw one of the greatest cross-overs undertaking ever: AoA. He seems to be doing pretty well over at DC, and, although he has a reputation of not being a great "people's person" many of the people who worked under him at Marvel seemed more than willing to follow him to DC and are doing great work there, also. Plus, he was the one that oversaw Marvel out of bankruptcy, not Quesada. Marvel was firmly back on tracks when he came in, he just took it further.
Yes, he does have the eternal taint of the Clone Saga getting out of hand under him.
So, throwing in positives and negatives, I'd say Harras is far from the worst Marvel ever had. IMHO, he is, in fact, one of the best (though not my favorite).

Peace

[squashmaster]

That's pretty unfair, dont you think?

Alonso's barely gotten into the chair, and only now ( like with the X-relaunch) are we even beginning to see what his ideas for the line will be, since he had to complete Joe's last story-beats and initiatives first.

Give the dude a chance, he hasn't even had time to warm his seat even.

Ok, yes, it may be somewhat unfair, because he isn't ever going to get to do any real editing-in-chief since Marvel is so obsessed with movies, and their comic line will basically eventually do nothing but support their movie line.

[Global Honored]

Nostalgia's effect. Everything always seemed better in black and white as this poll indicates.

We are trying to steer away from these "worst of" type of negative leaning threads. I know, what good is the Internet if you can't bash someone or something? This thread and poll has had a long run but now it is time to close shop. Based on these results Harras wins. Now perhaps we can debate who was the best.....Stan who?