posted
So in summary...27 year old Shooter told him to make corrections in his work and 50 year old Colan took it personally. Notice Colan had no proof of Shooter's dislike other than Shooter sending pages back for him to correct.
Sounds basically like what I said....
If Shooter had a personal dislike of him, why did Shooter put him on his own title, Avengers...one of the flagship titles of Marvel. Either he didn't have a personal dislike of Colan, or else what he claimed was true, that no one really wanted to work with him...except people no longer at Marvel.
And that was Shooter the writer, not Shooter the editor.
I guess we'll all believe who we choose to believe...I personally don't think it's hard to figure out why people have issues with Shooter...because he's a demanding boss, blunt...this much comes off in interviews. But I also don't think he's the anti-christ as most of his opponents claim...nor do I think he intends to personally attack anyone...he's just blunt and old school...and he was 27 years old in charge of veterans older than he was....
Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Shooter and Colan, the debate would lie over whether Shooter was requesting valid and legitimate corrections/improvements, or arbitrary and nitpicky changes that served no purpose, simply because he had the power to do so. Without seeing the pages in question, all we can do is speculate. The sheer volume of changes being requested seems excessive to me though, particulary from a skilled veteran. I also look at the fact that Colan had been drawing Marvel comics for 15 years at that point, and to my knowledge no one previously had expressed any problems with his work. Quite the contrary, his main collaborators from that era (Stan Lee, Steve Englehart, Steve Gerber, Marv Wolfman) all go out of their way to lavish praise on his work with them. It's hard to believe that he somehow suddenly became an lazy hack who had to be micromanaged to get quality work from him. To the best of my knowledge no one at DC had any complaints about his work after this trouble with Shooter either. Certainly Colan's work with Shooter is not better than what he was producing immediately before, so it seems unlikely Shooter's "corrections" were making the work better.
I also think the cliche about "where's there's smoke, there's fire" applies. If Colan was the only person ever to complain about Shooter that would be one thing, but there have been many people who had complaints about him, some of them similar in nature to what Colan reports.
In any disagreement there are two sides to a story, and I'm sure there is truth in both sides. I don't think it's wise to fully accept either side as the unvarnished truth, especially if I don't personally know either of the folks involved. I tend to give Colan's story more credence for the reasons cited above, but who can say for sure... there are probably elements of truth in both versions.
At any rate, I don't want to turn this into a bash Shooter thread. I'm a big fan of Shooter the writer, and very excited he's coming back to the Legion.
Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cheryl Lad: Regarding Shooter and Colan, the debate would lie over whether Shooter was requesting valid and legitimate corrections/improvements, or arbitrary and nitpicky changes that served no purpose, simply because he had the power to do so. Without seeing the pages in question, all we can do is speculate. The sheer volume of changes being requested seems excessive to me though, particulary from a skilled veteran. I also look at the fact that Colan had been drawing Marvel comics for 15 years at that point, and to my knowledge no one previously had expressed any problems with his work. Quite the contrary, his main collaborators from that era (Stan Lee, Steve Englehart, Steve Gerber, Marv Wolfman) all go out of their way to lavish praise on his work with them.
But unfortunately, that's no indication that they really thought as they said - because, to be true, the "American way" of not saying anything bad about your colleagues makes it difficult to find out when exactly the praises are true and when the particular writer/artist is just being nice.
Let's face it: When you're reading interviews from comics creators and they are asked about their collaborators, mostly you are hearing noting but high praises, no matter who they are talking about. "Bendis is the best", "Liefeld is such a nice guy to work with", "Byrne is so full of ideas" and so on and so forth. Shooter obviously was a little bit different - but he seems to have changed too, if you're reading his current interview concerning Manapul -> same praise, same enthusiasm, same question mark: Is he for real?
As I said before, sometimes I prefer the "bad guys" like Byrne (or Shooter back in the days) who are considered as being rude - but at least you know they're being honest...
From: Bamberg, Germany | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheryl I'll be back to address your statements later...
For now I'll just say...Chemical King had a pretty good take on it...
Gene Colan was somewhat of a Grande Old Gentleman of the industry...most people aren't going to say something that would hurt the guys feelings or that he might take personally.
The fact that you can give me dozens of people that will say Shooter is blunt or harsh kind of proves my point,
That he wasn't singling Colan out...he's treated many people that way.
He doesn't have a filter between his brain and his mouth like most of us do...it's nothing personal though.
Shooter is the guy that gets personally attacked...
He hasn't been in the industry for a long time...not because he can't write, but because people don't like him personally.
Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
As I said before, sometimes I prefer the "bad guys" like Byrne (or Shooter back in the days) who are considered as being rude - but at least you know they're being honest... [/QB]
I've got no problem with Byrne being honest...but Byrne legitimately undermines or attempts to undermine the work of others, in print, using characters that don't belong to him. He takes full advantage of his star status to do this...and he uses creations owned by others to grind his axe against individuals he has issues with...he's done it his entire career.
That's unprofessional IMO...I don't care what his opinions are. I'd respect him more if he could separate his personal issues from his professional work.
Marvel didn't put him on Star Brande just to trash the book...but that's what he did, that's why he took the job.
DC didn't hire Byrne to do Legends so he could take shots at Shooter...but that's what he did.
Jim Shooter wasn't grinding a personal axe against Byrne when he refused to let Byrne use Marvel characters to undermine the work of Claremont...he was being professional. The fact that Byrne can't handle this and knows he can use his army of fanboys that support everything he does to pull this kind of stuff and grind his axe, the fact that he even attempts to do so, is extremely unprofessional of him.
Byrne cares little for the characters, fans and companies he works for...he's pretty much all about Byrne. He knows he can draw good and can sell no matter what he throws out there...and that's exactly what he does. He considers the entire mythologies of DC and Marvel to be his own personal playground and soapbox to be used for his own self indulgent purposes.
[ September 16, 2007, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Superboy ]
Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chemical King: But unfortunately, that's no indication that they really thought as they said - because, to be true, the "American way" of not saying anything bad about your colleagues makes it difficult to find out when exactly the praises are true and when the particular writer/artist is just being nice.
Well, in the case of Stan Lee, that certainly is true. I've never heard him say anything bad about anyone he's worked with. But not so with the other three I mentioned, Steve Englehart in particular. I've read interviews where he was pretty harsh on artists he'd worked with. And in the same Wolfman interview where he was praising Colan, he talked about how awful Vince Colletta's work was on the few issues of Tomb of Dracula he inked.
And there's also degree of praise. If you are just being polite, you might say something brief like "Oh yeah, Gene Colan was great to work with, he did a good job." But the guys I mentioned all went into great detail about specific things they loved about his work, and said he was one of (if not the) finest artist they'd ever collaborated with. I'm skeptical someone would be that effusive in their praise simply to be nice. And I think it's more likely people would lie about the work of a present colleague than someone they worked with years ago. Obviously you're not gonna trash someone you are still working with, but in all the cases I mentioned these were new interviews talking about work 25+ years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Superboy: The fact that you can give me dozens of people that will say Shooter is blunt or harsh kind of proves my point,
That he wasn't singling Colan out...he's treated many people that way.
But Colan was being singled out in the sense of the amount of redraws he was being asked to do. Shooter may have been blunt to almost everyone, but he wasn't asking anyone else to do that much redrawing on every job they did.
On the topic of Byrne: I disliked all the changes made in Byrne's Superman reboot (especially the elimination of Superboy), but I think you're being unfair in your characterization of him and his motives. I'm sure he's not saint and is capable of pettiness, but so too was Shooter based on things I've read. As I said before, I don't think it's a good idea to accept everything anyone says entirely at face value if you don't know them, whether it's Byrne or Shooter. At any rate, I think we must agree to disagree here, which is fine with me. The thing we all agree on is that Shooter's return to writing comics should kick ass.
[ September 16, 2007, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Cheryl Lad ]
Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's the "American way" to be polite about colleagues. From experience on cross-functional/gographical teams in the past, most people tend to favor saying something moderately polite about people whom there have been conflicts with. Here in Asia (which I think holds true anywhere else in the world to some degree), apart from the kind words masking the real status quo there is the added element of words said behind one's back and a really active role in trying to bering someone down...quite unfortunate, actually. :-(
I appreciate the distinction made between "writer-Shooter", "editor-Shooter" and "publisher-Shooter". Humans are rarely (if at all) one-dimensional and I've yet to come across someone who has a consistent attitude across all the roles that we take on in our lives. Besides, people change over time so Shooter from 10-15 years ago may not be the same person from the one working today.
Nonetheless, I think DC to some extent is cognizant of Shooter's checkered past which is why they've given him a relatively isolated part of their universe to play in. It allows him to tell (potentially) good stories while keeping him a safe distance away from other personalities currently working at DC whom he may have had some conflict with.
Bottom line, the good thing about getting "writer-Shooter" is that we can assess his merit solely on his published output.
An aside: It's wonderful to see the level of maturity in this discussion versus the infantile behavior one sees in other message boards. Long Live the Legion and Legion World! :-)
-------------------- Igee The Mighty!
From: Manila, The Philippines | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Chemical King is somewhat right about the "American Way". We are much more PC than the rest of the world. And the media may be to fault. I've seen interviews in europe were the person is much more frank yet not insulting. People understand what they mean. Here the media will twist everything and make it 100times worse.
Re: Stan Lee. Stan always had a mask on for the media. Always said nice and funny things. I heard behind closed doors he was a bit of a tiger. To the creator's face ofcourse. I've read stories where he calls someone into his office and there was lots of yelling. And there is nothing wrong with that. I respect an editor with b@11$ rather than the ones that let the creative celebrity just do what they want.
From: Tampa | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Jorge: Chemical King is somewhat right about the "American Way". We are much more PC than the rest of the world. And the media may be to fault. I've seen interviews in europe were the person is much more frank yet not insulting. People understand what they mean. Here the media will twist everything and make it 100times worse.
At least that's the expression you get about (US) American (comic and film) creators. Watching DVD extra material ("It was so wonderful to do this movie, we were like a family, everybody was just so nice..."), reading comic creator's interviews - it tends to sound all alike. I read the Legion and Titans Companions by Glen Cadigan. He interviewed so many comic creators. Most of them did not say one negative word about anyone - even if they had lots of reason to. Wolfman by example was obviously still p.o.'d about the editor who f*** up his Titans run after Peterson left in the sooner 90s. Did he say anything about it? No, he did not even mention his name - which in it's way is probably his way of coping, but I really am astonished about things like that. Wolfman can talk openly, he does no longer work in the field (or hardly), it's been years now and this editor totally destroyed his life's work (anybody read New Titans after #90 or so? It is ridiculous...). But still, he does not let out his anger.
But I totally digress
As for Shooter: I think he was the only one in the Legion Companion that anybody wrote a bad word about. Mort Weisinger, maybe - but he is dead so noone can say a bad word about him any longer anyway. So IF Shooter has inspired ANY american creators do say ANYTHING, he certainly must have been quite... hard to work with...
From: Bamberg, Germany | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chemical King: Wolfman can talk openly, he does no longer work in the field (or hardly), it's been years now and this editor totally destroyed his life's work (anybody read New Titans after #90 or so? It is ridiculous...). But still, he does not let out his anger.
The impression I get (from his blog and message board a few years ago) is that Wolfman would like to do a lot more work in comics today, but (like a lot of other veteran creators) has trouble getting regular work, due to ageism or the perception his work is old fashioned and not appealing to today's fan. In that climate, I can see where he would be reluctant to criticize a former editor, since that might give people the impression he was difficult to work with and make it even harder for him to find work. I would bet that's a big part of his reticence in the interview you mention.
[ September 17, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Cheryl Lad ]
Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could also be that Wolfman, et. al., simply see no reason to air dirty laundry in public. Really, what good does it do to publicly criticize another professional? Such comments not only disparage the person being criticized, but can reflect badly on the one doing the criticizing. It also takes away from the work in question. If Wolfman, for example, criticizes the work of Joe Artist, Wolfman is merely expressing his subjective opinion, which may or may not be any better than that of Jim Fan's, but Jim Fan may start to think less of Joe's work because a respected professional said something negative about it.
(One could argue that Wolfman's experience as a writer makes his opinion credible, but it's still his subjective preferences.)
I always question it when a celebrity "disses" another celebrity in public. Does the first celebrity have an axe to grind? Is he or she trying to make himself or herself look better by criticizing someone else? Is he or she trying to court publicity (*cough*Rosie O'Donnell*cough*)? Bottom line: nobody comes away clean in a pissing contest.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Superboy: Marvel didn't put him on Star Brande just to trash the book...but that's what he did, that's why he took the job.
Forgive me if I interject on this one point, Superboy:
Having been a fan of the New Universe, I recall that when Byrne was brought on that title, Marvel had just cancelled half the line! To give the remaining titles a chance, Marvel had to go in a new direction with everything about the line, and it worked...for a time.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the New U after this "recharge"--it was exciting and unpredictable, and Star Brand was right in the center of it as the changes basically spread from that title as its literal ground zero.
Personally, I think the other three surviving titles (DP7, Psi-Force and Justice) were better, but certainly, Star Brand was nothing special, IMO, before Byrne took it over. It was okay, but far from a Shooter classic.
So maybe Byrne did everything he did on the title to trash Shooter, or maybe not. But certainly it's hard to "trash" a title when it was already such a low-seller (and only 10 issues old at that) before he ever came aboard. As a fan of the New U, I don't think Byrne did anything with the character that was inconsistent with the limited continuity that had been established.
[And actually, Byrne shifted the focus from the character to the Brand itself, even putting a "The" in front of the title.]
So, anyway, Superboy, I'd say Star Brand isn't the best example of Bryne's hate for Shooter, IMO. And, besides, if the hate for Shooter was that rampant at Marvel when he left, I doubt that few who worked there at the time were terribly sad to see a character modeled after him desecrated.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Superboy: Marvel didn't put him on Star Brande just to trash the book...but that's what he did, that's why he took the job.
Forgive me if I interject on this one point, Superboy:
Having been a fan of the New Universe, I recall that when Byrne was brought on that title, Marvel had just cancelled half the line! To give the remaining titles a chance, Marvel had to go in a new direction with everything about the line, and it worked...for a time.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the New U after this "recharge"--it was exciting and unpredictable, and Star Brand was right in the center of it as the changes basically spread from that title as its literal ground zero.
Personally, I think the other three surviving titles (DP7, Psi-Force and Justice) were better, but certainly, Star Brand was nothing special, IMO, before Byrne took it over. It was okay, but far from a Shooter classic.
So maybe Byrne did everything he did on the title to trash Shooter, or maybe not. But certainly it's hard to "trash" a title when it was already such a low-seller (and only 10 issues old at that) before he ever came aboard. As a fan of the New U, I don't think Byrne did anything with the character that was inconsistent with the limited continuity that had been established.
[And actually, Byrne shifted the focus from the character to the Brand itself, even putting a "The" in front of the title.]
So, anyway, Superboy, I'd say Star Brand isn't the best example of Bryne's hate for Shooter, IMO. And, besides, if the hate for Shooter was that rampant at Marvel when he left, I doubt that few who worked there at the time were terribly sad to see a character modeled after him desecrated.
I agree with you 100% about why Marvel put Byrne on the book...
Where we disagree is why Byrne wanted to do the book.
As for why the New U failed...Shooter gave a pretty good reason for it when he said just look at who the guys writing it were, and who the artists were...they were staff guys at Marvel and new or unknown artists. That was because Marvel cut the budget for the project.
The concept worked pretty good when Shooter renamed it and relaunched it as the Valiant line a few years later.
Byrne took Shooter's book...
Byrne did this for 2 reasons...
#1. Simple one upmanship...to prove he could succeed where Shooter failed...he failed at that BTW, and
#2. To pour Salt in the wounds.
Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
