Jim Shooter blog

[pariah-1972]

I think all his unpopularity can be explained by this quote from Christopher Priest. And it isn't even about Shooter:



The Priest quote, and seeing Shooter's style in action, makes it easy to see why freelancers like Moench and Byrne hated him so much, why previous EICs didn't last long, why Stan's salesman skills were the key to his success, and EICs since Shooter have allowed an industry to become toxic to new readers.

It wasn't that Shooter lacked people skills, it was that a creative industry needs either truly exceptional people skills or an industry structured around massive power disparity (as early comics where you could treat Kirby like dirt, or Hollywood where the financial stakes are higher). IMO.

Funny how a little thing like professional honesty can destroy an industry. Had Shooter not been so hated he would not have been forced out, and when he left his way of working would have been respected (as it brought results). Then when he very nearly succeeded in buying Marvel he probably would have succeeded (surely being hated must have played a role). Who knows, maybe Valiant and Malibu would have been different, providing a viable and non-suicidal alternative to DC/Marvel/Image (and not being reliant on strait-jacket bound licensed properties like other publishers).

What might have been...

Peter has almost always been drawn with a square head that was just Ditko's style and it transferred from there even after he left.

I couldn't even tell you when it stopped happening, but i would guess it was probably in the 90's.

[Polar Bear]

FYI, there's a very interesting Jim Shooter as Marvel-EIC article at Hooded Utilitarian, definitely falling into the pro-Jim camp (which describes me, also). The comments are well worth reading, as they include extensive work by comics historian Robert Beerbohm.

[Shellhead]

It's true that Shooter did a lot to improve the compensation and rights of the creators working for Marvel. And it's interesting that despite his efforts, many creators were disgruntled with his editorial style and eventually left. To me, that suggests that the creators were more concerned with their ability to tell good stories than their ability to be compensated well for those stories. Shooter might have felt justified in his heavy-handed editorial mandates because of his other accomplishments, but creative restrictions were the worst thing to impose on creative people.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

It's true that Shooter did a lot to improve the compensation and rights of the creators working for Marvel. And it's interesting that despite his efforts, many creators were disgruntled with his editorial style and eventually left. To me, that suggests that the creators were more concerned with their ability to tell good stories than their ability to be compensated well for those stories. Shooter might have felt justified in his heavy-handed editorial mandates because of his other accomplishments, but creative restrictions were the worst thing to impose on creative people.

Speaking as a relatively creative person--sometimes "restrictions" should be placed on Creative People.

Bill Finger was infamous for blowing deadlines.

In the 70s, far too many of DC's books had dry, BORING stories--so many that some of my fellow comic book fans at the time called DC either "Dull Comics" or "Dopey Comics"!

An editor could have STOPPED Robert Crumb from producing so many racist and misogynistic comics which have tainted his legacy

Before Shooter, Marvel's people FREQUENTLY ran into "The dreaded deadline doom"!

Marvel made numerous mis-steps after Shooter's departure, leading to bankruptcy

And there is no doubt in my mind that Shooter might have nixed some of the harebrained plots that have come out of Marvel in the last ten years!

Looking back, and I may be wrong, but I think Shooter's departure had more to do with how he chose to handle the Kirby Art Hostage Controversy than whether or not creators had a problem with him. Even with Dark Knight coming out, Frank Miller returned to Marvel for several projects while Jim was still there, so I don't think Jim's Weisinger-like style was a factor. Heck, Shooter honored his agreement with Miller concerning Elektra--it was those who came later who violated it. (Elektra-Skrull anyone?)

[JKCarrier]

In the 70s, far too many of DC's books had dry, BORING stories--so many that some of my fellow comic book fans at the time called DC either "Dull Comics" or "Dopey Comics"!

That goes against your point, though, since DC had very active, "hands-on" editors in that era.

[LEADER DESSLOK]

That goes against your point, though, since DC had very active, "hands-on" editors in that era.

You're probably right but I think with DC, some editors were still stuck in the 60s in terms of ideas and letting creators come up with not just imaginative stories but also exciting ones! The stories didn't have to be as violent as Marvel's were but there is more to action than just having Superman fly to the North Pole and back! I just thought Shooter himself was more imaginative at Marvel than either Weisinger or Infantino. Good editorial direction is a balancing act. Shooter was good at not only making sure creators made their deadlines but he was also open to new ideas--but he would nix a bad one whenever necessary. I was upset at first but I see that killing off the Dark Phoenix was a good thing. You can't have a mass-murderer like Phoenix go tipping through the tulips with Scott Summers without answering for her crime!

After having said all this, please don't tell me he was on board with the idea of bringing Jean Grey back for X-Factor!