Search this Topic:
Mar 3 17 1:38 AM
Mar 3 17 2:31 AM
The third, and I think it may be the biggest factor, is the nature of the fan press and its readership. Almost all the major figures in the fan press either come out of 1970s adventure-comic fandom--Groth, Thompson, Fiore, MacDonald, Cooke, Morrow, Johnston, Heintjes, Dean--or they are next-generation people--Spurgeon, Howe, Hodler, Nadel--who are unusually enamored with the material from that period. Their readership reflects their orientation. Most of those people hate Shooter in part because his period at Marvel was a shift from the material they were taken with, and in part because they've lost interest in heroic-adventure material in general beyond nostalgia and can't accept it. And so they're more than happy to dwell on the complaints of the handful of Marvel alumni who left Marvel because problems with him, and talk themselves into believing that he was responsible for any number of other things they want to inveigh against re: Marvel during his tenure. Exaggerating his failures is another aspect of this, as is compartmentalizing credit for everything positive he achieved away from him. This gives them an outlet for their anger, and they get high off the feeling of righteousness. It's addictive, and it's why, thirty years after he left Marvel, they still cannot let it go.
Mar 3 17 4:21 AM
czeskleba wrote:But I can't think of anyone who attracts the depth and breadth of criticism that Shooter does, from so many different people. So why is this? If it was simply that comics creators of that era were whiny, entitled crybabies who couldn't tolerate any form of supervision, What was different about Shooter? Was it his actions, or his personality/demeanor, or something else? I tend to think it must have been a combination of both.
But I can't think of anyone who attracts the depth and breadth of criticism that Shooter does, from so many different people.
So why is this? If it was simply that comics creators of that era were whiny, entitled crybabies who couldn't tolerate any form of supervision, What was different about Shooter? Was it his actions, or his personality/demeanor, or something else? I tend to think it must have been a combination of both.
Irony and subtly are the first casualties
in the eternal battle of wits between people divided by a common language. So read between the lines or you'll fall through the cracks...
....Quoting other people is no substitute for thinking for yourself...
Mar 3 17 10:36 AM
deejayway wrote:I understand and sympathise with FYL's position on the Shooter-era comics, but he's looking at it with 20-20 hindsight, cherry-picking the best of the pre-Shooter era.What he fails to understand (I think) was just how terrible the pre-Shooter era was to Marvel superhero diehards like myself who lived through it.All the cool stuff produced under Roy's reign was on the margins of the mainstream in in genres I didn't follow so I was largely unaware of it. Besides, most of it was very short-lived.My main focus was on the iconic Marvel characters and they had been in dire straits since Stan hung up his editing reins.The main reason I kept collecting at the time was out of habit and my devotion to the characters I loved so much.The nightmare years from my POV lasted from around 1973 -1978/79, which is forever when you're a teenager.And then Shooter came along and poured all the time and resources that had gone into the fringe titles and B&W mags back into the superheroes and ushered in a renaissance, producing runs on the icons which compared favourably to their highpoints in the 60s. Yes it was deja vu all over again, but I had only experienced the splendour of 60s Marvel post facto in highly-priced back issues. It was a great buzz to get a pile of great comics every month, month-in-month-out for a sustained period. It was like the Beatles reuniting and producing at the top of the form.I don't know if that explains why the Shooter renaissance was so pleasing to the older fans at the time.
Mar 3 17 10:46 AM
Mar 3 17 10:59 AM
Mar 3 17 11:21 AM
Mar 3 17 12:04 PM
Mar 3 17 2:40 PM
Five Years Later wrote:Aspects of this relate towards my tepidly negative feelings about Shooter. Aside from a few exceptions I find the books produced during Shooter's time to be bland, cynical and reductive (Goodwin's Epic line is a rare exception - there's an example of taking away credit from Shooter). I don't feel like insulting anyone's favorites but many of the "best" runs are examples of what not to do as far as I'm concerned. By the end of Shooter's Marvel run, the interesting books were being produced at DC and the independents. So yes, on the whole I prefer Marvel's 70's output to their 80's output and attribute much of the change to Shooter's righting the ship.
Mar 3 17 2:52 PM
deejayway wrote:My main focus was on the iconic Marvel characters and they had been in dire straits since Stan hung up his editing reins.The main reason I kept collecting at the time was out of habit and my devotion to the characters I loved so much.The nightmare years from my POV lasted from around 1973 -1978/79, which is forever when you're a teenager.
Mar 3 17 3:05 PM
Mar 3 17 4:31 PM
Mar 3 17 5:10 PM
Mar 3 17 5:13 PM
Mar 3 17 5:25 PM
Mar 3 17 5:26 PM
Mar 3 17 5:27 PM
Mar 3 17 5:28 PM
Mar 3 17 5:31 PM
Mar 3 17 7:06 PM
Badger1701 wrote:To be honest, Byrne's comments regarding that cover really seem more of an emotional reaction than an actual explanation of what happened. His views on the end of that particular tenure at Marvel are clearly tinted by his feeling that Shooter was unfairly exerting his influence over him. The idea that Shooter would reject a cover just to punish him for doing Superman seems far too one-sided and likely not the full reason. After all, Shooter's job, beyond, as he says, safeguarding the intellectual properties, was to maximize sales of Marvel's books. Rejecting a good cover to spite a creator seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.