Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Visionaries of Tomorrow Mike Grell at KCCC

On Sunday, August 14, Mike Grell gave a panel presentation along with Michael Golden at the Kansas City Comic Con in Kansas City, MO. They discussed their careers in comics--how they got started and the good and bad (for Golden, mostly bad) of working for Marvel and DC.

Ye humble wanderer was in the audience and took notes. Most importantly, he got to ask a Legion question, which Grell answered at some length. Here are the Legion-related nuggets I took from the panel:

Another fan asked Grell and Golden about working with writers. Golden answered first, stating that comics is always a collaboration; while each creator has his or her own agenda, sometimes the agendas are aligned and sometimes they are at cross-purposes. He gave the example of Elektra: Assassin by Bill Sienkiewicz and Frank Miller, which made no sense unless you separate Sienkiewicz's contribution from Miller's--in which case each part was brilliant.

Grell discussed working on the Legion with Bates and Shooter. Bates, he said, was very good at being concise and explaining what each panel of the comic should focus on. Shooter, on the other hand, would write "a phone book." For a 22- to 24-page story, he turned in 90- to 100-page scripts and would do layout sketches (which Grell threw away because the layout was his job, not Shooter's).

Shooter, according to Grell, once wrote himself into a corner. The last four or five pages of the story had "more and more panels" because all of the action happens at the end. Shooter had eight or nine Legionnaires battling villains, and the next caption reads "What happens next is too horrible to contemplate." Grell drew the story as written and was told by the editor that he had left out the action scenes. Grell pointed out that he only drew the script as it was given to him.

I was the only other fan got to (or dared to) ask a question, and I began by telling Grell that I grew up on his Legion and thanking him (to which he responded, "Thank you for the food.") I then asked him about changing Cosmic Boy's and Colossal Boy's costumes in S/LSH 215, and if he had any plans to change other costumes.

He replied that most of the costumes were changed by Cockrum, except Mon-El's because Mon represented the Superman of the future and his costume worked as a functional super-hero costume. Grell changed Cosmic Boy's outfit because the original was too '50s and the pink color was considered too "queer," as they put it then. But he wanted to keep some of the recognizable elements. When he later redesigned Green Arrow's costume, he kept the green-on-green color scheme; for Cos, he kept the black part of the costume which wrapped around his torso and then gave the rest a flesh color.

According to Grell, it was Julius Schwartz who questioned how the costume stayed on. Grell came up with the "magnetic fibers" explanation on the spot.

For Colossal Boy, Grell didn't seem to remember changing the design. He said he probably drew the costume wrong once and it stuck.

Grell then added that the costume which gave him the most trouble was Shrinking Violet's. He could never figure out what the black stuff which extended from her chest to her midriff was--until a couple of years ago. While doing a commission, he pulled out the portfolio of Legion designs given to him by Cockrum and realized that the black stuff consisted of the letters "SV."

While much of this is not new information, it's always great to hear a creator's own account of why certain creative decisions were made. I particularly appreciated Grell's perspective on working with Bates and Shooter.

Another interesting tidbit: According to Grell, Mike Flynn, editor of the Legion outpost, hated the bustier costume so badly he got a job at DC just to campaign for changing it back. Once the costume was changed, Flynn quit. When Grell asked why, Flynn responded, "My work is done."

Thanks for the write-up HWW.

I'm curious about Michael Golden's bad experiences at DC and Marvel. I always liked his art and was sorry I didn't see more of it.

I'm also sorry that some hater of a 'fan' went to such extraordinary lengths just to get one of the most unique and original costumes in comics removed.

That Mike Flynn bit, if a little overboard, just goes to show how much the comics industry has changed. I doubt a (negative) fan would be hired by the company these days, let alone be able to make changes to a series at the drop of a hat.

To be fair, Mike Flynn was not just a "negative fan" who was hired and allowed to make changes. Flynn had a long history with the Legion. He and fellow fan Harry Broertjes instigated the letter-writing campaign that brought the Legion back from oblivion in the early '70s.

I also doubt that he was allowed to make changes "at the drop of a hat." Grell didn't say what his position was, but I imagine it involved some campaigning and persuasion with those empowered to make such decisions.

On the other hand, it's clear that administration did not view their properties as sacrosanct as fans usually did. When Grell made up the "magnetic fibers" explanation on the spot, it was accepted without any further discussion. This suggests that some arbitrary changes could be made.

I'll post what I remember of Golden's discussion later.

Very cool, HWW!

Grell still turns out beautiful work now, as evidenced by his Warlord and Jon Sable stuff a few years ago. I wouldn't mind a Grell drawn Legion Annual or special.

Thanks for the clarification, HWW. I've heard Flynn's name tossed around a couple of times on the Internet concerning Legion fandom so I knew he was a big name in the community. I do have to admit that I admire his passion for the property led him to pursue a goal like that.

Thanks for the write-up HWW! Funny Shooter story - 100-page scripts! Also interesting that Mon-el's costume was considered somwhat untouchable.

Grell spent a large chunk of his time talking about Warlord (no secret there, since it was pretty much his own project). He was proud that Warlord existed in its own universe, not in the DCU, and resisted any notion of a crossover--until Dan Jurgens came along.

Grell had gotten Jurgens his start in comics. As a 14-year-old, Jurgens had written to Grell for advice on breaking into comics. Grell responded and then forgot about it. Seven years later, Jurgens wrote again and sent along a copy of his first letter. He said he had followed Grell's advice but still couldn't find work. Grell brought him in to work on Warlord.

Some time later, it was Jurgens who pushed the idea of Warlord meeting Green Arrow. Grell initially nixed the idea, but the editor of the project said it would play off the well-known fact that Grell can draw only one face. Grell got a kick out of that and agreed to do the project; that's why it involves Travis Morgan being mistaken for GA and hunted by bad guys, and then Morgan knocking on Oliver Queen's door and punching him in the face, saying, "Whatever you're doing to make people hate you, stop!"

I never read that story, but it sounds like a lot of fun.

Now, on Golden:

The most memorable revelations concerned his three-year stint as Marvel's senior art director. At most companies, Golden said, his responsibilities would have been making sure characters looked consistent, e.g., Mickey Mouse looking like Mickey Mouse. But at Marvel, he said he mainly played with himself in his office for three years!

The problem was that Marvel, under editor-in-chief Tom DeFalco, was set up with each editor serving as EiC of his or her own titles. These editors were very powerful and did not like being told what to do or coordinating their efforts with other editors. So characters did not look consistent and there was no attempt to explain to the readers what was happening from issue to issue.

According to Golden, Stan Lee, who was still active in the company, called the editors into a meeting and raked them over the coals for such problems. The editors gave what Golden described as whiny excuses about dealing with difficult artists, many of whom didn't speak English. Golden spoke up and said the editors were doing too many production-oriented tasks, like pasting covers, and not acting as editors--overseeing their titles and exerting influence over writers and artists. Stan pointed to Golden and said, "Listen to this guy!"

The editors walked out of the meeting and promptly ignored Stan. After three years of that, Golden had had enough. He had made more money as a commercial artist so he went back to that calling.

He went on to say that the above problems were the reason DeFalco was fired. DeFalco apparently had his own agenda going and was playing loose with contracts.

Golden sharply criticized Marvel as being run like a fanboy organization then and now.

Uh...I think Golden is getting his names mixed up. Tom DeFalco was Marvel EiC from 1987 to 1994. And IIRC, Golden didn't become Art Director at Marvel until circa 1996-1997, after John Romita Senior, who had been worn down by the chaos at Marvel during the first couple years AFTER DeFalco stepped down, decided to go into semi-retirement.

So I think Golden is confusing DeFalco with Bob Harras, who became EiC circa 1996 after Marvel's disastrous one-year experiment at having FIVE editors-in-chief. Now, Harras wrote my all-time favorite Avengers run, and a very underrated 7-issue story arc of Namor's solo book, BUT I still concur with the general consensus he was a TERRIBLE editor, and an even WORSE EiC. His stint as Marvel EiC lasted until the turn of the Millennium, after which he was replaced by Joe Quesada, whose legacy has been tainted by his obnoxious public persona (I think a lot of that came from being egged on by Bill Jemas, Marvel's President from about 2001 to 2005; Jemas, in my opinion, really IS as evil as his reputation, if not worse.)

I honestly can't say I care for Mike Grell as a person. I know I rant and rave a lot about people like James Robinson and Scott Lobdell even though I've never met them, but I HAVE met Grell in person and while he was nice to me, he insulted a friend of mine. Not knowing this person's a friend of mine, I smiled and thanked him for signing my books and left the table before I could lunge at him. Needless to say, it wrecked the rest of Baltimore Comic Con for me.

Interesting. Perhaps Golden meant that DeFalco's legacy at Marvel (editors serving as EiCs) carried over into the era in which Golden served as senior art director. In any case, he stated that he blamed Marvel's problems on DeFalco.

Golden also mentioned Harras as the next "scapegoat" Marvel appointed to the top spot.

EDIT: According to this site, Golden became SAD of Marvel in November 1997, so your memory jibes.

Not to make this thread go too far off-topic (don't hurt me, Teeds), but I think there is a clear dividing line between Marvel in the first half of the 90s, with DeFalco as EiC, and the second half of the 90s, right after after DeFalco stepped down. I consider the turning point to be Incredible Hulk #426, which was the first issue after DeFalco stepped down, and was also the last half-decent Hulk issue of Peter David's Hulk run for years (PAD would agree with me; he's said many times that his and other Marvel writers' upcoming plots all got derailed around that exact time.)

And not to be too judgmental of Golden, but his memory really does seem faulty to me.

Ah, okay. Good. Thanks, He Who.

DC and Marvel really do seem like they were toxic workplaces for a lot of people.

I've always loved, loved, loved the early work of Trevor Von Eeden (who drew Green Arrow's first excellent mini in the early 80s) and always wondered why I never saw more from such a talented artist. The Beat recently linked to some articles about his experiences as DC's first black artist:

http://www.comicsbeat.com/the-long-strange-journey-of-trevor-von-eeden/

He seems like a very traumatized person unfortunately.

I'll read that article tomorrow. Thanks for the link, Blacula. And I have to ask -- do you like Batman Annual #8 (1982), which Von Eeden drew (and which was written by Mike W. Barr, who also wrote the aforementioned Green Arrow mini?) That's the story where Batman and Ra's Al Ghul have their final confrontation (or, rather, what IMO should have been the final one; none of Ra's appearance since then have satisfied me nearly as much.)

I know what you mean. Ra's has never felt like a character who lives up to his reputation. For someone who's supposedly one of Batman's greatest enemies he always comes across as a generic terrorist than anything else.

I can't entirely agree on that point, Sarky. I think all the Ra's stories from his debut circa 1970 through what I believe should have been his irreversible death in 1982 are never less than good, and often great. It's the post-1982 appearances that I have problems with.

I own that issue but unfortunately haven't read it yet FL!

I've never read that pre-New Adventures of Batman era of Batman so I've been trying to fill in my collection so that I can read them all uninterrupted. I'm only a few issues off finishing now. I actually didn't know there was a Von Eeden-drawn book in there so that's something else to look forward to!

I've heard a lot of good things about his work on Thriller too but that's another book I've never read.

Ah, okay. I look forward to finding out what you think of that Batman issue.

Von Eeden's artwork on Thriller is very good. Unfortunately, the creative team was completely changed about halfway through the run -- even though it was a 12-issue limited series! So I can only recommend the first few issues of Thriller with strong reservations, as they don't end up going anywhere.

That's what I mean. I have that annual, but all the other comics I have with him are ones from the 90s up until now.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that, Sarky. Sorry I misunderstood.

Just a nod to von Eeden's terrific work on the Green Arrow mini. It was easily good enough to see him draw an ongoing with Green Arrow. His work in World's Finest was also excellent. But the mini really popped.

I was less keen on the art of Thriller the longer it went on. Mainly, it was the story but Blacula's link, and the link from that link explains a lot about what was going on there. I recall that Fleming was far from thrilled about what was going on with the book either (by which I mean the powers above, and not the art).