Jim Shooter: where is he now?

[botolo]

What is VEI?

[Prince Namor]

Never understood the overwhelming admiration for Jim Shooter.

 

I grew up on the Bronze Age of Comics, and Shooter ran pretty much every creator I liked out of there by the end of his time as EIC.

 

And I always thought the best thing about Valiant was Barry Windsor-Smith.

 

Shooter probably holds the record for 'he said/she said' stories in the business.

 

He convinced Marvel executives for years that they wouldn't have to give artwork back or pay royalties, but once he'd run too many (Industry Respected) creators out of Marvel who could tell others about how great it was with DC returning artwork and having a royalty plan... Shooter's days were numbered. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O.

 

Same with Valiant. For Shooter it was always someone ELSE who screwed it all up. And maybe that WAS the case with Valiant, but are we supposed to believe the man who gouged the Direct Market for all it was worth, somehow had a change of heart and preached publishing restraint, while 'everyone else' refused to listen....

That may be a simplified, less than accurate version of it, but...

 

I think in many ways, he maybe believed he was the next generation 'Stan Lee'... but had nowhere near the personality to pull it off. Not sure there's anyone that COULD pull that off...

 

 

[CKB]

What is VEI?

 

http://www.valiantentertainment.com/

[KingOfRulers]

. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O..

 

 

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

[DougC]

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

 

Shooter is a bad guy and he has done all the bad things. Have you ever seen him in a suit?

 

[Prince Namor]

. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O..

 

 

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

 

Critical reasoning skills.

 

When:

 

A) Multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong

 

and

 

B) He has a history of doing this in other situations where creators also dispute his revisionist version of 'what happened'.

 

 

As I stated before, he easily has the longest list of he said/she said topics in the history of the hobby.

 

Heck, he has the longest list just in terms of what one creator, John Byrne disputes with him.

 

 

[KingOfRulers]

. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O..

 

 

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

 

Critical reasoning skills.

 

When:

 

A) Multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong

 

and

 

B) He has a history of doing this in other situations where creators also dispute his revisionist version of 'what happened'.

 

 

As I stated before, he easily has the longest list of he said/she said topics in the history of the hobby.

 

Heck, he has the longest list just in terms of what one creator, John Byrne disputes with him.

 

 

So, because multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong makes it true? It makes them right and him wrong? You call this, "critical reasoning"?

 

Perhaps there are multiple people that believe his story is right, true and just, but we have just never heard from them? Maybe they are not well known creators and therefore never had a platform in which to share their opinion (or maybe there's not).

 

Is it not reasonable to believe that creators may often harbor similar opinions towards a person or situation if the person or situation applies to them all in the same way? Take for example, Job A is up for a 75% raise next year! El Presidente believes that the raise should not be implemented because there is only enough money to pay for a 10% raise. Is it not sound reasoning to believe that all or many of those in Job A will have a similar opinion towards El Presidente? There's lots of employees with Job A but only one El Presidente. So, because there's 100 outspoken voices against El Presidente and only one outspoken voice (himself) supporting his opinion, that means that the 100 voices are right and the one voice is wrong?

 

Your critical reasoning doesn't seem to go past the surface to try and determine the motives behind why people are saying what they are saying. The bias associated with their motives. The variables and knowing what you don't know...and knowing that you have imperfect information.

[Logan510]

. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O..

 

 

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

 

Critical reasoning skills.

 

When:

 

A) Multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong

 

and

 

B) He has a history of doing this in other situations where creators also dispute his revisionist version of 'what happened'.

 

 

As I stated before, he easily has the longest list of he said/she said topics in the history of the hobby.

 

Heck, he has the longest list just in terms of what one creator, John Byrne disputes with him.

 

 

So, because multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong makes it true? It makes them right and him wrong? You call this, "critical reasoning"?

 

Perhaps there are multiple people that believe his story is right, true and just, but we have just never heard from them? Maybe they are not well known creators and therefore never had a platform in which to share their opinion (or maybe there's not).

 

Is it not reasonable to believe that creators may often harbor similar opinions towards a person or situation if the person or situation applies to them all in the same way? Take for example, Job A is up for a 75% raise next year! El Presidente believes that the raise should not be implemented because there is only enough money to pay for a 10% raise. Is it not sound reasoning to believe that all or many of those in Job A will have a similar opinion towards El Presidente? There's lots of employees with Job A but only one El Presidente. So, because there's 100 outspoken voices against El Presidente and only one outspoken voice (himself) supporting his opinion, that means that the 100 voices are right and the one voice is wrong?

 

Your critical reasoning doesn't seem to go past the surface to try and determine the motives behind why people are saying what they are saying. The bias associated with their motives. The variables and knowing what you don't know...and knowing that you have imperfect information.

 

 

There was a lot of talk in the rags back then and I heard from more than one creator back in the early-mid 1980's ( just from going to conventions and asking questions ) how much they disliked Shooter and the reasons why.

[Prince Namor]

. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O..

 

 

How do you know that "HIS" story was the untrue one?

 

Could it not be just as easily assumed that the villain persona could be attributed to him for untrue, out of context or petty matters?

 

How are you able to determine the truth in these stories and fairly pass judgement?

 

Critical reasoning skills.

 

When:

 

A) Multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong

 

and

 

B) He has a history of doing this in other situations where creators also dispute his revisionist version of 'what happened'.

 

 

As I stated before, he easily has the longest list of he said/she said topics in the history of the hobby.

 

Heck, he has the longest list just in terms of what one creator, John Byrne disputes with him.

 

 

So, because multiple people say HIS side of the story is wrong makes it true? It makes them right and him wrong? You call this, "critical reasoning"?

 

Perhaps there are multiple people that believe his story is right, true and just, but we have just never heard from them? Maybe they are not well known creators and therefore never had a platform in which to share their opinion (or maybe there's not).

 

Is it not reasonable to believe that creators may often harbor similar opinions towards a person or situation if the person or situation applies to them all in the same way? Take for example, Job A is up for a 75% raise next year! El Presidente believes that the raise should not be implemented because there is only enough money to pay for a 10% raise. Is it not sound reasoning to believe that all or many of those in Job A will have a similar opinion towards El Presidente? There's lots of employees with Job A but only one El Presidente. So, because there's 100 outspoken voices against El Presidente and only one outspoken voice (himself) supporting his opinion, that means that the 100 voices are right and the one voice is wrong?

 

Your critical reasoning doesn't seem to go past the surface to try and determine the motives behind why people are saying what they are saying. The bias associated with their motives. The variables and knowing what you don't know...and knowing that you have imperfect information.

 

The critical reasoning doesn't just come from A... it comes from A + B.

When that type of situation repeats itself with the same results.....

 

If I walk into a bar and leave 5 minutes later, while the bar tender screams "He punched me in the mouth!" and I say, "No, I didn't." - Yeah, I can see getting the benefit of the doubt.

 

If the next time you see me I'm coming out of a bar and the bar tender is screaming "He punched me in the mouth!" and I say, "No, I didn't." - What are you going to think then?

 

If you then talk to someone who says they saw me at the first bar, and can say without a doubt I punched the bar tender in the mouth, and then talk to ANOTHER guy who says he saw it, and then someone who can verify it from the second bar, and then another and then another - what would you think then?

 

If after 25+ years, the people involved still sort of brush me off (i.e. don't offer me work or help me get work) and instead seem to pretty much continue to hold a grudge - what would you think then?

 

If I created a blog where every situation my integrity or guilt or innocence was called into question and I had a 'new' story behind it that instead made me seem like a misunderstood genius - would you go He's innocent! Or would it seem suspicious?

 

I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion on the guy - if you like him, you like him. Ultimately none of us KNOW him or whatever.

He might be a sweetheart. Or a misunderstood genius.

Barry Windsor-Smith is somewhat of a by most people's account, but I love his artwork and will probably always follow him.

 

 

[Unca Ben]

Shooter is no different than a lot of leaders.

 

Steve Jobs, Wozniak, Bill Gates, and other highly successful people were reportedly tough to work for. In entertainment, Lucy and Desi, Gleason, Sinatra, etc. all had stories swirling about them regarding their management skills.

 

The companies I worked for in the valley that were the most successful all had tough leadership. Lots of hurt feelings that were typically assuaged by beaucoup profits through stock options.

[Bosco685]

Never understood the overwhelming admiration for Jim Shooter.

 

I grew up on the Bronze Age of Comics, and Shooter ran pretty much every creator I liked out of there by the end of his time as EIC.

 

And I always thought the best thing about Valiant was Barry Windsor-Smith.

 

Shooter probably holds the record for 'he said/she said' stories in the business.

 

He convinced Marvel executives for years that they wouldn't have to give artwork back or pay royalties, but once he'd run too many (Industry Respected) creators out of Marvel who could tell others about how great it was with DC returning artwork and having a royalty plan... Shooter's days were numbered. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O.

 

Same with Valiant. For Shooter it was always someone ELSE who screwed it all up. And maybe that WAS the case with Valiant, but are we supposed to believe the man who gouged the Direct Market for all it was worth, somehow had a change of heart and preached publishing restraint, while 'everyone else' refused to listen....

That may be a simplified, less than accurate version of it, but...

 

I think in many ways, he maybe believed he was the next generation 'Stan Lee'... but had nowhere near the personality to pull it off. Not sure there's anyone that COULD pull that off...

 

As far as Valiant goes, you could feel the change rather quickly once Shooter left. It goes from fantastic, well-linked universe to a bunch of artwork with words that didn't really have as much going for it other than a company name that matched its early days.

 

As far as Shooter changing stories, the one that surprised me the most was his interview I read around 2012-2013 (I need to track that article down) where he now was saying he fought for maintaining the Newsstand distribution system while building out Direct distribution. His stated motivation made sense (Newsstand captures the wider new reader audience; Direct takes over once they are hooked). But it was the opposite of what he had said for a long time, and was famous for being Papa Direct for the longest time. At least, for Marvel.

[Prince Namor]

Never understood the overwhelming admiration for Jim Shooter.

 

I grew up on the Bronze Age of Comics, and Shooter ran pretty much every creator I liked out of there by the end of his time as EIC.

 

And I always thought the best thing about Valiant was Barry Windsor-Smith.

 

Shooter probably holds the record for 'he said/she said' stories in the business.

 

He convinced Marvel executives for years that they wouldn't have to give artwork back or pay royalties, but once he'd run too many (Industry Respected) creators out of Marvel who could tell others about how great it was with DC returning artwork and having a royalty plan... Shooter's days were numbered. Of course, HIS story of what happened changed to make himself seem the hero. That's his M.O.

 

Same with Valiant. For Shooter it was always someone ELSE who screwed it all up. And maybe that WAS the case with Valiant, but are we supposed to believe the man who gouged the Direct Market for all it was worth, somehow had a change of heart and preached publishing restraint, while 'everyone else' refused to listen....

That may be a simplified, less than accurate version of it, but...

 

I think in many ways, he maybe believed he was the next generation 'Stan Lee'... but had nowhere near the personality to pull it off. Not sure there's anyone that COULD pull that off...

 

As far as Valiant goes, you could feel the change rather quickly once Shooter left. It goes from fantastic, well-linked universe to a bunch of artwork with words that didn't really have as much going for it other than a company name that matched its early days.

 

Yeah, the creative side of it I don't really question. A lot of people LOVE those stories and that pretty much says it all. My issue has always been with the administrative side of things and how he changes his story after the fact.

 

As far as Shooter changing stories, the one that surprised me the most was his interview I read around 2012-2013 (I need to track that article down) where he now was saying he fought for maintaining the Newsstand distribution system while building out Direct distribution. His stated motivation made sense (Newsstand captures the wider new reader audience; Direct takes over once they are hooked). But it was the opposite of what he had said for a long time, and was famous for being Papa Direct for the longest time. At least, for Marvel.

 

The other is his insistence that he was fighting for creator rights 'behind the scenes' for years at Marvel and had put together a royalty plan before Jeanette Kahn, but was shot down by Marvel. There's no one who's ever corroborated his side of the story and Frank Miller and others have all but called him a flat our liar and was the antithesis of the corporate guy who had no heart whatsoever for the needs of the creators.

 

In fact, if you look at his interviews during that time, his court testimonies of that time, his actual treatment of people like Gene Colan, heck, Roy Thomas is NOT one to talk bad about anyone in this business, but if you bring up Jim Shooter's name to him he does not sound kind. Here he is speaking about Shooter's statement in Sean Howe's Untold Story of Marvel Comics:

 

" I rather suspect Jim Shooter is, er, overstating the case when he says I showed him a list of people I intended to fire. Carrying around a list, let alone showing it to a prospective assistant, was hardly my style… let alone a “nice chunky list” of people I was going to fire. Nonsense, really… to put it politely. How could I have had a “chunky” list of people I was going to fire, when I had hired most of them (Don McGregor included) and respected their talents. This is just Shooter making up drama, or perhaps merely misremembering it. Nor do I recall precisely whether I intended to remove McGregor from some of his assignments, but I may well have, and why not. They weren’t selling, and, as noted, he showed no willingness to make even small concessions to change that situation. By my lights, and Marvel’s, he deserved being replaced, no matter how passion (some of it perhaps misplaced) he showed for his series. Still, I’m sure I’d have tried to find something else for Don if I did remove him. I don’t believe I ever planned to fire him, and I’m suspect of Shooter’s motives for saying the things he does. But even pilloring poor ol’ Don wouldn’t have amounted to the “chunky” list Shooter talks about. Where does he go to dream these things up?"

 

And this:

 

"Actually, Gruenwald and Macchio were brought in to finish (in #300) the THOR saga that Shooter wouldn’t LET me finish… just as he wouldn’t let me continue the CONAN newspaper strip even though DC Comics and Sol Brodsky (who was in charge of it) said that was fine by them. That and the refusal to run a mild and non-threatening letter of goodbye in CONAN were par for the course for Shooter, and part of the reason why I continue to despise him to this day, and feel that he well earned that feeling. (Which is a shame, because I have real respect for Shooter as a writer and in some other areas.)"

 

If you're interested in some of the other corrections he made in Sean's book, you can find some of them here: ComicsDetective