Jim Shooter Interviews

[Rob]

I am not much of a behind the scenes on comics guy. I didn't know who Jim Shooter was before I read these. Pretty amazing story; for me anyway, because the story of his career, in many ways is the story of Comics in general for my lifetime. The guy has done it all. From being hired by Marvel at age 14 to write Legion of Superheroes to Being Editor in Chief of Marvel by Age 30 to starting his own comics company. It's a pretty amazing tale.

Part 1

Part 2

About his Gold Key Relaunch

[Largento]

As a comic book reader old-timer, the name Jim Shooter does not recall positive thoughts, but I'll check out the interview.

I'm guessing it probably doesn't mention all of the extremely negative aspects of Shooter that led to his demise at Marvel (after he'd chased some big names away to DC.)

[JR]

I remember Jim Shooter.  He actually wrote Legion of Super Heroes for DC, but he also wrote the Avengers for Marvel.  Even though I heard that he was a dick to creative types at Marvel, I think some of the best stuff Marvel (Miller's Daredevil, Byrne's Fantastic Four, Simonson's Thor, Epic Comics) did in the 80's was under his watch as Editor in Chief.  However, I've never had much interest in either Valiant or Defiant.

[Rob]

Actually much of the interview is him explaining why his rep is so bad and so on. He makes a lot of excuses but he also names a lot of names and points a lot of fingers so the excuses (at least to me) sound plausible.  :-\

[Largento]

I believe it's John Byrne who says that the straw that broke the camel's back and made him leave Marvel was when Jim Shooter called him in and told him that he should look at Shooter's "Secret Wars" as a perfect example of how to write a comic.

I was in high school when "Secret Wars" came out. It was terrible. Byrne and Miller and the other folks he ran off from Marvel were way more talented than Shooter even at their weakest.

When Byrne left Marvel and went over to DC, he did a mini-series for DC (called Legends, I think, it's been too long) and featured a comical villain that was basically Jim Shooter and lampooned the whole Beyonder/Secret Wars and then-current New Universe debacle.

If you start Googling, you'll find that:

Roy Thomas left Marvel for DC because Jim Shooter refused to renew the writer/editor part of his contract. Thomas' contract stated that he would edit the books he wrote. This had nothing to do with money, it was all about Shooter being a jerk and lying ...to the guy he says saved Marvel.

Jim Mooney left because Jim Shooter sent him a one-word thank you note for all of his service to Marvel. It said, "Retire."

Gene Colan left Marvel "because of Shooter." "He was difficult and threatening, and he doesn't have a good reputation." "He was making life too difficult for me. He made it too difficult for a lot of other people, as well."

Gil Kane left Marvel because "they had become another company. I think Shooter had come into the situation as being totalling in charge, and a new set of editors, and it wasn't quite... Roy was gone."

Steve Englehart left Marvel because Shooter "came in and decided that since he was Editor-in-Chief, he should be able to write whatever he wanted to write, and so he told me he was taking The Avengers away from me, and he told Steve Gerber he was taking The Defenders. Neither of us... I mean, we didn't like it, and basically that's why I left."

George Perez left Marvel because Marv Wolfman lured him to DC.

Marv Wolfman left Marvel because "things changed" when Jim Shooter took over.

The list goes on. Shooter was a micro-manager and that's poison to creatives.

[Rob]

Well without being much of a comics person (and I'm really not.... I like to read them and I have a certain artistic style that prefer but I simply don't know "names" like you and some people do... it's like sports... I don't really watch sports either but the experience of going to a live game is fun... but I don't know player or coach names either) a lot of the organizational and business challenges he talks about were familiar to me in some of my own business dealings. So I can relate to the way he describes it from his perspective.

But this is just his side of the story.

But I get what you are saying about creative people. When it comes to organization they are like oil and water.

When I used to be in a band in college I had these older guys in the band, professionals with successful day jobs and then there was my friend who was basically a college student and myself who was somewhere in between (because of my time in the service I ended up being much older then the average college student). We all showed up on time and did what we needed to do.

So we started auditions for a new lead guitarist. My friend was having a tough time singing and plying lead and he wanted someone more talented on lead so he could focus on rhythm and singing.

So we get this one guy in; and he's amazing. Hot licks like crazy and he just grooves. The music is right and the songs are sounding hot. Plus he knows a lot of the cover stuff we want to do. But there's a problem.

We want to record and so he's playing the song and then he gets to the solo or whatever and says "listen to this" and then he plays something fantastic and we're all like "yeah man that was great." But eventually I'm also saying "but what you played last time was great too!"

Ends up we can't get the guy to play the same song the same way twice. He just keeps wanting to fiddle with stuff which screws everyone else up and I'm paying $25 an hour for the practice room.

So this goes on for awhile and finally I'm like "dude listen... you've got to pick a way you want to play the song and stick with it. No one else can practice the song with you changing your licks every time. And we would like to record so we need to decide how the song is going to sound and stick with it... if you want to  go off the track at a show then more power to you but right now we need some consistency."

And he quits.

To be honest it was a sort of "do it or leave" sort of moment for him but he decided to leave.

And as he's leaving he says... and I'll never forget this, "I don't understand why you have to be so controlling... you're all like 'this guy is the drummer' and 'that guy is the bassist'... why can't we just jam and see what happens?"

My answer was of course... because that guy IS the drummer and that guy IS the bassist and I'm paying $25 an hour for you to dick around on your guitar when the rest of us are here to accomplish something."

He wasn't the only crazy musician I dealt with and once I got into comics I met a whole new breed of crazy  with artists (no offense guys, love you to death but the majority of you are batshit insane LOL). Paranoia, self esteem/confidence issues, stubbornness, lack of work ethic... you name it.

But I will say that every once in awhile an artist can take those moments of complete artistic freedom that they so often seek; where they are beholding to no one and without limitations, and come up with something absolutely outstanding. It does happen. But in my experience it's usually pretty rare and the artist often already has the discipline to work within that world of limitations and expectations when that moment of freedom presents itself. Most others just squander it and then you get a lot of excuses and "you just don't understand my vision" sort of nonsense.

I think the debate of whether or not art needs structure to blossom is about as old as art itself. And I'm not just referring to the artists personal discipline but the organizational structure that is imposed when an artist is working within a company with a specific goal. I think there's enough evidence to show that it can fail or succeed in both ways. And you'll get no argument from me that there are organizations that seem to actively snuff out creative thought (and this is what you most often here from artists when they are complaining about the restrictions placed upon them). The only thing I'd say is that there are as many pitfalls on the other side of things (creative freedom) and you hear a lot less about those.

The shooter articles speak to me only because I've had personal experiences that I can relate to his. The guy could be a real bastard (and probably is) for all I know. I just found it interesting how he imposed order on this chaotic institution and rather than stifling it, saw it flourish like no comic company ever had before. I'm particularly fascinated by all the back door wheeling and dealing that he talks about at the higher levels. You really don't hear about people on the board of a corporation sleeping with each other and playing dirty tricks to screw their partners and employees over very often. I mean, we all know it happens, but you don't often hear about it. And his assertion that it was other people who were doing so many of these bad things but because of his position he couldn't talk about and had to take the hit on sort of rings true with me. Even as a store manager for Blockbuster I had corporate pull some wildly unpopular crap on my employees and as management I just had to shrug and close ranks with the rest of the management (even though my own personal opinions were often far more sympathetic to the employees and I often really wanted to tell them that it wasn't my idea and I didn't agree with it but couldn't).

So like I said, the guy could be the worst boss ever (and Secret Wars... which I also owned... was kind of lame except for it giving us Venom... although I think his origin was changed wasn't it)... all I was saying was that I enjoyed the behind the scenes feel of the article. I'd love to see him get back together with all his old Marvel employees on a panel and talk about what REALLY happened back in the day now that he's free of the yoke of management and can say whatever he wants. If he was in the wrong it would probably show up pretty fast in that environment.

[Largento]

I do think you're kind of projecting your experiences onto it, Rob. :-)

The primary difference is that these were creative *professionals*. They weren't amateurs with egos who couldn't produce... These were hard working, extremely talented folks who were the primary resource of Marvel ...and who were chased out of the building because Jim Shooter believed he knew better than anyone else.

This isn't a he said vs. he said. This is a he said vs. lots and lots and lots of folks said.

In other words... he's not telling the truth.

His claim about it being him that came up with all of the names and backstory for Transformers is false. Denny O'Neil named Optimus Prime. And, that original premise that the two of them worked on was largely rejected by Hasbro! It was Bob Budiansky who came in and took on the project and got it to the point we all saw (including naming many of the characters, including Megatron.) Jim omits these facts.

Jim touts how victorious his leadership was at Marvel despite the reality that Marvel fell behind DC Comics by the end of his time and it was largely because they had the talent that he had chased off. People wanted to work at DC, but the didn't want to work for Jim Shooter.

And bottom lining it, Jim Shooter was *fired.* No other Editor-in-Chief of Marvel prior to that had been fired.

[JGray]

It is kinda simple. You judge the person in charge by how well their company does during their tenure.

Marvel gave us Secret War. Lame but fun, it established what a mini-series could do for Marvel. Eventually that evolved into the "annual crossover" events and the modern "theme year" events. He did tighten the editorial reigns and, as a result, deadlines were met more often. X-Men grew into a force to be reckoned with during his tenure as editor and Miller's Daredevil run is legendary. Simpson's run on Thor very likely saved the character. He made creator royalties standard. He worked to insure art was returned to artists instead of archived, destroyed, or sold. He also alienated a lot of top talent of the time and wrote the rape of Ms. Marvel storyline (in which she fell in love with her rapist) and the scene where Bruce Banner is almost raped by homosexual men in the YMCA.

Around the same time period, DC gave us Crisis on Infinite Earths. It changed pretty much everything. Wolfman and Perez's New Teen Titans' book was consistently the industries best-seller. Superman and Wonder Woman were rebooted with more modern ideas, uncluttered by Silver Age storylines that were often hampered by the Comics Code Authority. Miller did Dark Knight, Moore did Watchmen, and there was an influx in "edgy" British talent that eventually resulted in Vertigo.

And then both companies moved into the EXTREME!!!! 90s with collectors covers. Image and other 3rd company publishers popped up with breast-tastic artwork and everyone got pockets pockets pockets! And guns! Cable, the mutant whose power is GUNS!

Or something like that.

In the end, Shooter futzed up a lot but he really did establish business practices that made Marvel a company and not just a bullpen.

[Rob]

In the end, Shooter futzed up a lot but he really did establish business practices that made Marvel a company and not just a bullpen.

Thanks J. I a nutshell J has described how I felt about the article right there. As I said though Largento... I was definitely relating my own experiences to the article. The could be a total D-Bag, lying through his teeth and I wouldn't know the difference. I just don't read enough about comics. The only "team" I ever took notice of was Dixon, McDaniel and Story when they launched the Nightwing solo mag in Bludhaven because at the time I thought those might have been some of the most perfect comics ever made and when they broke up that team the book was just never the same for me.

But even with those guys I couldn't tell you their first names or what other books they worked on because I just don't pay attention to that sort of stuff.... and they were my favorites! LOL.