tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post1153237021518718084..comments2024-02-07T15:05:08.130-05:00Comments on R. S. Martin: Jim Shooter: A Second OpinionR. S. Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-77447979251257383772020-04-06T12:25:56.653-04:002020-04-06T12:25:56.653-04:00Re: Gil Kane and original art theft. Howard Chayki...Re: Gil Kane and original art theft. Howard Chaykin and Al Milgrom were fairly pointed about the subject on Facebook this past weekend. They talk about it in the post comments.<br /><br />https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10219466232139133&id=1013081931<br /><br />A couple of selections:<br /><br />CHAYKIN: Gil [...] stole artwork from both DC and Marvel, both before and after both companies agreed to return artwork to the talent. For example, he lifted Frazetta's SHINING KNIGHT pages and got them out in the market for chump change.<br /><br />MILGROM: [...] Gil never saw a five finger discount he didn't try to take advantage of. Loved his art and had some interesting conversations with him--but it was hard to like him considering he was shamelessly stealing other people's artwork to sell. Sometime[s] you shouldn't meet your heroes.<br /><br />R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-2230876794912463532019-03-09T03:56:26.066-05:002019-03-09T03:56:26.066-05:00There is a comic by Archie Goodwin who was editor ...There is a comic by Archie Goodwin who was editor at Marvel at the time making this allegation with pseudonyms for everyone: https://imgur.com/gallery/F7NLbRxLamont Cranstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704275663099200355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-75603454680315507952019-02-20T16:03:50.447-05:002019-02-20T16:03:50.447-05:00Oh, as for Walt Simonson, those quotes have never ...Oh, as for Walt Simonson, those quotes have never been confirmed by him, and if legitimate, were never intended for public consumption. As for his attitude towards Shooter after Shooter left Marvel, I point you to his doing covers for Valiant as a favor to Shooter a few years down the road. That seems a strange thing to do for someone you despise, don't you think Or perhaps Simonson, assuming he had a grievance with Shooter at all, came to the conclusion it wasn't that big a deal.<br /><br />People who try to make a case against Shooter, such as Gary Groth, generally have to resort to cherry-picking quotes (or alleged quotes) from people whose subsequent behavior wholly contradicts the underlying sentiment of what was said. Gary, when confronted about this, goes into full bullshit-artist mode and asserts that we should focus on what people say and ignore what they do. Sorry, but when asked to evaluate people and their views, I always focus on what they do, as opposed to what they say. Talk is cheap.R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-59902116968669670302019-02-20T14:45:14.019-05:002019-02-20T14:45:14.019-05:00Shooter was testifying in court, and would be expe...Shooter was testifying in court, and would be expected to speak clearly and concisely in language appropriate for the judge and jury. That means in the context of a legal discussion, you use the legal definitions of terms. Legally, Marvel is the exclusive author of the X-Men comics Claremont wrote, and Claremont was a writer-for-hire on them. There is no ambiguity on that point. If Claremont was testifying, I would expect him to say the same thing.<br /><br />I asked Jim Salicrup, who was the Captain America editor, about that aborted three-parter. Here's what he said:<br /><br />"I clearly remember Jim explaining it [the policy] to me—he was hoping for one-part stories to create a reader-friendly Marvel Comics. If we had really great two-part stories, well, they better be great. And, if we wanted to do a three-part story, it was going to be the rare exception and it had to be as good as the “Galactus Trilogy,” by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby-- that was Shooter’s specific example. I wasn’t as thrilled with this particular Cap story as I was with previous issues, and may’ve asked for it to be just a one-parter, and might’ve even offered to let it be a two-parter, but I didn’t want it to be three parts, especially with Jim’s suggested guidelines."<br /><br />It sounds like you think Shooter was a lot more involved in this matter than he was.<br /><br />If you choose to comment again, please have a better grasp of what you're talking about. Thank you.R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-10533803056831546462019-02-12T10:01:32.833-05:002019-02-12T10:01:32.833-05:00Wow, thank you for posting such a lengthy and well...Wow, thank you for posting such a lengthy and well-researched defense of Jim Shooter. I do think his reign was probably the best we've seen post-Stan Lee and certainly he helped advance the business forward.<br /><br />All that said, it is hard to ignore how widely disliked he is among comics professionals. In your link to the "Our Nixon" piece by Groth, there's just too many negative quotes from comics professionals to make me think that Shooter's reputation is nothing but unfair character assassination. I mean, when Walt Simonson celebrates you being fired...<br /><br />And Groth does use Shooter's own testimony to illustrate how he feels about creative people working for Marvel:<br /><br />Q: Would you say that the X-Men's principal author is Chris Claremont?<br />SHOOTER: The author of that series is Marvel Comics. Chris Claremont is a writer for-hire.<br /><br />Yikes, pretty cold and definitely not someone that sounds like he has high regard for the creators working under him.<br /><br />That said, your arguments on what he's done for creative people seem inarguable. Conditions overall did improve for creators at Marvel with him at the helm.<br /><br />I wonder if a lot of it had to do with his personality, if he came across as a grouch or hardass or something. Maybe if he had a sunny Stan Lee or Archiw Goodwin disposition, people might have felt differently? <br /><br />Despite being a creative person, maybe he didn't understand how creative people wanted to be treated on a personal level? One story I recall is Shooter suddenly putting out a mandate that all issues were to be self-contained after Roger Stern had written a three-part Captain America story. Stern agreed to implement this policy going forward but had already done the work for the three-parter, which is the story that his run had built up to by that point. But Shooter stuck to his guns and Stern left the book.<br /><br />Now to me, that's pointless -- you have a successful creative team in place and rather than be prima donnas, they're willing to compromise and ultimately let you have your way -- just let them have the minor victory.<br /><br />Now given how messed up and disorganized Marvel's offices were when Shooter took over, they probably did need a hard-ass to whip things into shape. But it seems Shooter might not have known how to pick his battles and when to let people have a minor win for overall morale.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16045274386653160760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-9754329359417674252018-08-09T10:29:07.635-04:002018-08-09T10:29:07.635-04:00Statement of Ownership forms filed with the U. S. ...Statement of Ownership forms filed with the U. S. Postmaster General were the main source. R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-58375007845557900402018-07-18T12:09:18.176-04:002018-07-18T12:09:18.176-04:00"Less than a quarter of DC’s line was eligibl..."Less than a quarter of DC’s line was eligible for theirs, and people at Marvel knew it"<br /><br />I'm curious as to what the source about DC Comics' sales are. Where did you get it? Goldeneyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02799310957194525492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-38861572330913462782017-11-10T09:38:23.570-05:002017-11-10T09:38:23.570-05:00Thanks. Interestingly, I discovered (through the h...Thanks. Interestingly, I discovered (through the help of some people who knew a lot more than I did on this subject) that Ted McKeever's created a strip in Pencil Head #3 (2016) using "obvious" fictional character names, but going into some detail on art walking out the doors. I'm not big on creating more bandwidth usage for bloggers, but there are scans online of the story. GCD also has a brief entry on it's site. You should have my email - if you haven't read it or need to be pointed in the direction of where they are, email me and I'll send you the images.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615243070150563718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-82052604183003316412017-11-09T04:14:54.239-05:002017-11-09T04:14:54.239-05:00Oh, I see. This is about Kane. There's not a l...Oh, I see. This is about Kane. There's not a lot that's on the record. People for the most part aren't willing to discuss it for public consumption. They'll at most obliquely refer to it, such as Howard Chaykin with negative references to Kane's "ethics," or Jim Shooter describing theft incidents involving "an artist who shall remain nameless," or Al Milgrom explaining Kane's 1982 blackballing at Marvel as being due to his not being qualified as a human being to work there. But off the record, people with direct knowledge of the situation get pretty pointed when discussing him and his conduct. When I say it was "well known," I mean it was "well known" to people who were there at the time. If you don't want to accept that, I understand. I'm not big on anonymously sourced statements myself.R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-2622121647869495942017-11-08T22:34:28.792-05:002017-11-08T22:34:28.792-05:00Hi, so I tried to find out about the "well kn...Hi, so I tried to find out about the "well known" claims you allege involving "Gil Kane stealing art from Marvel offices" and came up with nothing. Well, I kind of hit a wall because I asked on a message board that is supposed to have an eclectic, varied and deep membership of expertise in the area of original art, and while some said they had heard "rumors", one guy who has been an "artdealer" for 40 years thought I was denigrating Kane's name/legacy for even asking. This couldn't be further from the truth. You seem astute and well versed in legal aspects, and certainly did a bang-up job writing on Shooter's history, and dismantling comments attempting to perpetuate false claims. It is in a similar vein where my request to know if you have anything to back this up may be found. Did anyone ever testify and/or go on record to back up this allegation Gil Kane stole from Marvel's offices? As I'd mentioned in my previous comment, I'm completely aware of these "stolen" art rumors that keep popping-up, but I've never to this day seen a name attached to any allegation quite like this. Don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is a guy whose work I admire, for nostalgic reasons, because of his artistic ability, with amazing figurwork and elements of anatomy that in my opinion were second to none. Beyond the hit I see to his legacy, there's the peripheral concern with any negative trickle effect of tainted works. Thanks in advance, and I appreciate you taking the time to read this comment and look forward to your response. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615243070150563718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-23774757089742229872017-11-07T21:42:08.468-05:002017-11-07T21:42:08.468-05:00The basic of rule of thumb with artwork done on a ...The basic of rule of thumb with artwork done on a work-made-for-hire basis is that it belongs to the commissioning party, i.e. the publisher. The only exceptions to this are situations where the artwork has been returned to the artist after being designated a gift, which Marvel did with all post-1973 work, or when the publisher agrees beforehand that the originals are the artists' property (which DC began doing in the late '70s). The transactions meet the definition of a sale per the statutes of New York and other states, and there's no statute or case law I'm aware of that says otherwise. I can't find anything that supports the arguments Neal Adams and others have made re:ownership, and no one has been able to point me to anything, either.<br /><br />There's been a lot of stolen art over the years, but in almost all cases the art was stolen from the publisher, not the artists. The artists have no standing to file a criminal complaint in most of these cases. R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-89054864888136592142017-11-07T14:48:09.913-05:002017-11-07T14:48:09.913-05:00I don't know if the feedback helps at all in y...I don't know if the feedback helps at all in your decision to discuss the Kirby originl art mess, but I would love to read more on this. As an original art collector, I have wondered about some of the statements made in this blog concerning legalities and rightful ownership of art in general. For instance, I had no ieea on what was mentioned above about Gil Kane. While I don't own any art from Kirby, I guess the whole topic caught my attention after the cover to Green Lantern 76 was auctioned with an "endorsement" by Neal Adams. I've heard differeing opinions on the subject, but it seems the claims of "stolen art" keep popping-up. Anyhow, thanks for writing this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615243070150563718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-81138895736009486012017-11-06T16:15:55.879-05:002017-11-06T16:15:55.879-05:00I may do a post discussing the Kirby original art ...I may do a post discussing the Kirby original art mess, although my reply to James Van Hise covers the gist of what I would write. Kirby didn't really have any dealings with Shooter. He turned in the last of his work at Marvel in the 1970s a month after Shooter took over. R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-76896115712600839882017-11-06T11:10:00.425-05:002017-11-06T11:10:00.425-05:00Will Kirby be next in the victim series?Will Kirby be next in the victim series?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184245429844232748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-80767851947704899892017-07-19T13:07:16.280-04:002017-07-19T13:07:16.280-04:00I started reading comics during shooters time. Ini...I started reading comics during shooters time. Initially i had a negative opinion of him. I thought shooter was simply lucky to be editor in chief during the time when Marvel experienced what is arguably its best creative period. My opinion changed when i read valiant comics. Consistent storylines, interesting characters and a solid universe conencting people. Jim Shooter was doing what all other publishers were struggling to do at the time. And I just loved Magnus Robot Fighter. Marvel comics success was no accident.Kenocratichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01633468043863723312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-66947832898047591472017-07-07T22:44:18.920-04:002017-07-07T22:44:18.920-04:00Over my 40+ years as a collector, I have read many...Over my 40+ years as a collector, I have read many stories Shooter wrote. Some were great, some were not. I have often read awful things about his tenure as the leader at Marvel and wondered how the company could have possibly done so well if even half of it was true. This article is credible and extremely informative and I thank you for writing it. Now that I am a small-time comic book publisher, seeing the truth behind some of these Big Two developmental events is somehow helpful. Thanks again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-82930315991197832162017-06-02T16:08:41.289-04:002017-06-02T16:08:41.289-04:00I've recently been rereading the Pre-Unity Val...I've recently been rereading the Pre-Unity Valiant run and have fallen into a Shooter wormhole. The more I read the more incredible this man's achievements are. Having only met him once at a Con, he seemed thoroughly charming and gave a very eye opening presentation regarding the state of the comic industry. <br /><br />As someone who has gone away from buying regularly and have instead strictly purchased TPB or full runs I think a lot of his philosophies could still work in our modern comic landscape.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17283398186958441734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-50664851996064516602017-04-17T15:27:01.532-04:002017-04-17T15:27:01.532-04:00Very good article and I'm reading it just as I...Very good article and I'm reading it just as I'm nearing the end of a 5 hour interview that Shooter did with Off The Record DVD. If anyone reading the above entry by R.S. is interested in this, it's worth watching (I had nothing to do with it's production). I've always wondered why Shooter has been so maligned. I have no doubt that he probably speaks his mind and stands his ground and some may not like that, but I also believe he's been good for comics, and especially Marvel. Can't recommend this DVD enough and although it is certainly only Shooter's perspective, it's fascinating. And in one part, where he's talking about his being a pariah, he quotes former Marvel VP Mike Hobson, and becomes quite choked up in discussing his tenure at Marvel. I found it quite touching and gave a nice human side to Shooter. Again, while I had nothing to do with this DVDs production, anyone interested in Shooter, should pick it up. They also did one with Gerry Conway, which I have yet to watch. It can be found at offtherecorddvd.comOliver Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12936256904144759477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-16606282166268787852017-03-05T17:13:26.481-05:002017-03-05T17:13:26.481-05:00JediJones simply doesn't understand. No one w...JediJones simply doesn't understand. No one was replaced by a typewriter. Even the digital letterer needs to understand the elements of design for lettering. Humans make all the choices, not the 'typewriter.' Humans choose the typeface, point size, word spacing, letter spacing, line spacing, the organization of words within the balloons, and often the balloon placement itself. There is an art to lettering. Don't think so? Go read some 60s Charlton comics. Quality lettering is just as expressive and individualistic as any inker. I think Mr. "JediJones" has been spoiled by great lettering. Because the best letterers go unnoticed by fans because it's done so well that it enhances, rather than distracts from, the reading enjoyment of a comic. Don't worry, Rick Parker, some of us are firmly in your corner. Mr. Preecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08905636789126738292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-45627792203691449392016-12-01T16:22:07.989-05:002016-12-01T16:22:07.989-05:00JediJones, it's very sad you have such a disda...JediJones, it's very sad you have such a disdain for elements of the comics industry that are so vital. Lettering is design. Coloring is design, especially today with the sophistication level with which comics are produced. <br /><br />Bad lettering can - and has - ruined the quality of a comic book. Just because lettering or coloring is at the bottom of the comic book credits, does not mean it isn't as vital a part of the production as anything else. <br /><br />Every strong run of comics - Claremont's X-Men, Simonson's Thor, or any of the revered standalone books are the treasures in the comics industry, partly because of the lettering and coloring. <br /><br />These elements are of service to the overall product. It's not expected that letterers and colorists would get anywhere near the percentage of a writer, penciler or inker, but they should be a part of the overall structure of a royalty/residual system. <br /><br />Ultimately, the industry has to overcome these kinds of small-minded viewpoints of those who ignorantly view lettering and coloring as throw-away elements of the overall production of a quality comic book. Magnut https://www.blogger.com/profile/04313108676742792168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-88393832591279676292016-11-17T11:27:20.933-05:002016-11-17T11:27:20.933-05:00Great article. As a long time reader, I think the...Great article. As a long time reader, I think the Marvel Comics published under Shooter's reign are some of the best ever made. The possessed a cohesive universe feel to them, while not being interdependent on reading two or three other titles to understand them. Great stuff. Dynamic and creative. He is vastly underrated.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13753624062102414572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-88940273906979615472016-09-23T11:09:15.640-04:002016-09-23T11:09:15.640-04:00Yes, Shooter was fired in April of 1987. The reaso...Yes, Shooter was fired in April of 1987. The reason appears to have been a letter he sent to executives of New World Entertainment, who bought Marvel the previous November. By all accounts, the letter was harshly critical of Marvel president James Galton and the other Marvel executives of the time. The letter found its way back to Galton, who then understandably fired Shooter. <br /><br />Although many in the fan community like to speculate that the termination had to do with problems over how Shooter performed his job duties—I’m not sure if that includes you or not—that doesn’t appear to be the case. Sales were fine, and by all accounts, Galton took no interest in editorial issues. Shooter and Galton just disagreed about aspects of how the company should be run, the disagreements got ugly, and Shooter was let go. <br /><br />I assume Tom DeFalco, who replaced Shooter, was more amenable to how Galton wanted to do things. If you feel Marvel was a more impressive publisher after Shooter left, please make your case. I’m very interested.<br />R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-11515509251436344962016-09-23T05:02:26.138-04:002016-09-23T05:02:26.138-04:00Jim Shooter was FIRED from Marvel.
Full stop.Jim Shooter was FIRED from Marvel.<br />Full stop.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18171667665599616169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-49244476543521909522016-09-11T20:03:31.444-04:002016-09-11T20:03:31.444-04:00Who authorized you to speak for the Kirby family? ...Who authorized you to speak for the Kirby family? You're spewing a lot of hearsay and gossip like women at the hairdresser talking about the scandals they just read about in the supermarket tabloids. The sad thing is you actually think you're some kind of do-gooder by bringing this up rather than just another ignorant villager with a pitchfork and a torch. If Jim Shooter is guilty for not defying Marvel's policies and turning in his resignation when he worked there, then so is every other person who worked there at the same time. Yes, everybody should've shut down an entire comics company to help get old, outdated, irrelevant artwork back to someone who never owned it in the first place. While people like you dreamed of destroying a comics company over these insignificant grievances trumped up into "crimes against humanity," Jim Shooter was busy saving a comics industry by creating unforgettable entertainment that brought in a new generation of fans.<br /><br />If Shooter was actually going to do the "killing off" plan then he was way ahead of his time, which he typically was. DC used the exact idea for the Death of Superman. Not to mention Marvel has been replacing Spider-Man, Thor, Iron Man, etc. again and again in the modern era for two decades. And, as long as they do the replacement by "upgrading" to a politically correct ethnic group, they get praised for being "progressive." Of course as we know, no one in comics ever stays dead. So if that's the best you can come up with for a "scandal," it's time to go back and do a rewrite.JediJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15611535741499844326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7937261908901585441.post-29495548880027750312016-09-11T19:47:16.189-04:002016-09-11T19:47:16.189-04:00Lettering? Really? If you can be replaced with a t...Lettering? Really? If you can be replaced with a typewriter, then what you're doing probably isn't that creative. What's next, are the Key Grips on the next Star Wars going to get a percentage of the movie's gross? You might have a better case for coloring nowadays, but before the '90s it was basically a paint-by-numbers affair. A lot of those comics have to get recolored when anyone wants to put together a decent modern reprint because the coloring work back then was so rudimentary. To put it more succinctly, no fan ever bought a book because they were a fan of the letterer and even today probably not because they were a fan of the colorist. The idea of creating financial incentives for extra sales is to get the creators to do better work that draws in more readers. There is nothing that the letterer or colorist can do to bring more fans onto the book. Doing an important job that has to get done doesn't make you a key creative contributor.JediJoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15611535741499844326noreply@blogger.com