|
|
Post by G on Nov 18, 2008 22:34:04 GMT -5
Pretty decent pre-2000 Shooter Checklist at: www.shooterswork.com/masterchecklist.htmI'm not historian enough to do an accurate biography on Jim Shooter nor will I try. I do think I can put up some of his well known highlights and I do think I can express an admiration for a man who has lived pretty much his entire life in some way involved in comics. Amazingly he sent in stories that were accepted and published by DC comics at the age of 13! I do not know of any other well known creator to have accomplished such a feat. Perhaps you do, but I dont. This fact alone makes him interesting. But he did so much more than that. By the mid 70s he made his way to Marvel and put out one of his signature works for the company. His Avengers Korvac Saga Storyline is highly regarded among many longtime comic fans. I remember Shooter having cohesive storylines that kept you coming back to find out what happened in the next issue. By the late 70's Shooter became editor in chief at Marvel and overseen the company through one of its most creative and successful periods. In 1987 Shooter would leave Marvel, but later found the backing to try and buy the company. He ultimately failed but still had the resources to start Valiant comics which is one of the most popular line of comics of all time. Eventually and amazingly, he would lose a direction struggle with the other powers at Valiant and wound up fired. Many felt, myself included, this is where Valiant started losing its contender status and the stories started lacking that Shooter magic. In no time he formed Defiant which was short lived but full of promise. And then another ill-fated company Broadway which folded quickly during the great collapse of comics during the mid 90s. His story since then has been all too brief with only a few appearances since. Most notably an incomplete Valiant reunion with Unity 2000. And most recently a run on Legion of Superheroes with DC which met with mixed reviews. Shooter has been lambasted as much for his failures as he has been applauded for his great successes. The comic world continues to wait and see if Shooter has one more trick up his sleeve. Regardless of how you feel about him, you have to admit, his road has been far different than almost any other creator in the history of comics and few creators have ever accomplished more. |
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on May 8, 2009 17:26:13 GMT -5
I think Shooter is good writer but not a great writer. He's a great creator, plotter and editor but as a writer he's average. His dialogue is extremely cheesy ("I played dice with God and lost") and at times very unrealistic (no teenager that I was around going up in the 1990s ever used the term "butt lick").
But in terms of daring ideas and concepts Shooter was where he showed his true genus, but was often defeated because he was so far ahead of his time.
I once wrote of the similarities between Shooter and another genus, who was a head of his time and payed a heavy cost for it, Orson Wells.
For me Jim Shooter is the Orson Wells of comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by G on May 9, 2009 9:50:09 GMT -5
I've never been one to get all into writers. Sure, some of them stand out to me, but many just seems like a blur and I hardly remember anything by them. I would agree that Jim Shooter wasn't so much a great scripter. Some of the quote you put down are pretty corny. But what seems most memorable for me about him is his grasp of the big picture. He always seemed to be working on a bigger scale than just the story at hand. I really think that is the greatness of Valiant. It was that cohesive universe that made Valiant what it is. If Valiant was just a bunch of single stories with no relation to the others, I don't think it has nearly as much success as it did. In fact, I still believe when he was let go, that is when the company basically jumped the shark and was ultimately on its way to doom.
I don't see comics with that big picture anymore. If they try to make something cohesive, they make crossover events that just seem to suck you into a lot of comics but in reality, it wasn't all that great. Sometimes I feel like the newer crop of creators could take a few clues from the old school ones. The comics out today just aint as appealing to me as much as many of the older ones were.
|
|
|
|
Post by leonmallett on May 12, 2009 5:29:56 GMT -5
I have mixed views on Shooter. I can see the things that he achieved and his pretty unique position in the history of comic book creators, yet at the same time it seems that he is such a polarising individual that readers overlook balance in considering him. There are those that are avid supporters and those that are harsh critics, and it seems to me that as a consequence commentary on Shooter settles into extremes.
On the VF board the overall consensus is that if VEI can unite with Shooter everything would be perfect, casting him in some kind of messianic role. To me that overlooks some essential factors:
- early VH1 VALIANT wasn't just Jim Shooter - others were there.
- he has a bit of a chequered history as an EiC (look into comments by Christopher Priest/Jim Owsley - another polarising character admittedly - for an insight into his working).
- I think VALIANT lucked out in some ways frankly; they put out strong material and then they caught the edge of the speculator wave and rode it and so were in the right place at the right time - evidence of this is all those great comic books and publishers that have folded before and since: it isn't purely about quality but also timing.
- for all his successes, there are many failures and some are mixed (look at Secret Wars - commercially successful but hardly high art; he followed VALIANT with two failed publishing ventures; his recent return to LoSH was a step up from the Waid run that relaunched the book, but arguably below the standards achieved by Abnett and Lanning in their tenure, and nowhere near Levitz in my opinion form the 80's).
I think Shooter is a polarising individual. As such for many supporteres I get a sense that a cult of personality has formed around them and their views of the man.
He is certainly talented in what he does, although that talent seems to cross several disciplines of comic book creation. I feel his position in comic book history is truly unique as a consequence, but I don't view him as a great so even though he and Welles may have both been mavericks, I don't agree with the comparison in terms of greatness and contribution to their respective media artistically (and that is the basis for the label of greatness for me).
|
|
|
|
Post by G on May 12, 2009 11:18:48 GMT -5
It is very true that Jim Shooters failures are almost as historic as his successes. He hasn't had the Midas touch with everything he has been involved with. He is someone with lots of peaks and valleys for sure. I think Valiant is where it should be....In the past. I certainly appreciate that time that was Valiant and I lived it and experienced it with everyone else who was around at that time and for a good solid 1-2 years they were a company riding the wave of being successful, with good quality and yes, had timed the market perfectly. Comics were never hotter than they were in the early 90s. I often wish it was that way again. I miss comics being something everyone wanted to have and everyone enjoyed and yes, I even miss the speculation and the craziness. But I also feel Valiant is over-rated. You know it seems like when I was growing up in comics new eras, titles or runs of greatness happened every couple of years. Valiant was one of those runs. But damn, it jumped the shark too. And no matter who or what happened since, it cannot be recaptured. No matter if Shooter is back. The timing IS missing!!! The ingredients are missing. The comic collecting universe has changed. You cannot make Valiant be the way it was again. I just dont ever feel like it will ever regain what it had. Even if movies came out with its characters and the comics got hot again, I feel it will all be superficial. Just hype and no substance. And that is part of a problem I feel comics has. Comics seems like it is too interested in digging up what we thought was good back in the day and trying to relive it instead of making another great run of something new and different. It almost feels like Valiant was where all the great runs of comics ended. It almost seems like comics stopped evolving. Other than a few high points in comics here and there, what has there really been since then?  !!!!!! And it almost makes me loathe hearing people clamoring over Valiant. I get to the point where Im like.....  Let it go! We should have been able to do something great since then! Shit, its been 17 years now! There should have been something else by now. WTF is the problem? Maybe creators were just better at thinking up new shit back then? I dunno. Don't get me wrong. I still love comics to death. I still enjoy stories. I still enjoy fantastic art. I still find things to love. But in terms of overall greatness. I find this era of comics lacking in greatness. It's greatness is in pieces, but not so much in whole. Where are the defining moments anymore??? Instead of 15 minutes, I think Shooter had a good 15 years of fame which seems to have ended around 1992. I still think he can do great things and all that. But trying to match him with things he did in his past doesn't seem to be it if you ask me. I think Shooter is almost lost these days. I think what is missing from comics is just what he brought with Valiant. Something from out of left field that no one was thinking about at the time and doing it some justice. Everybody has a watchful eye on Valiant. Seems destined for disappointment. Someone needs to come from left field again and make everyone go whoa!!! I didn't see THAT coming! I just don't see the eras or titles or runs of greatness like I did when I was younger. And I no longer see Valiant being an answer. It seems more like a problem to me. Instead of trying to recreate what he did with Valiant. I think his approach on what was done could be looked at and maybe dreamed up again somewhere else. Jim Shooter seems so much more than just some stories. Jim Shooter seems bigger to me because he helped define an era. Sorta like Stan Lee did in the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by leonmallett on May 12, 2009 11:30:16 GMT -5
I think you are right that we won't see anything like those days again.
In some ways a book like Invincible may be the nearest comparison. Loyal and stable following, big enough sales to justify multiple volumes of collected tbp and hardcover material with added value material included in the latter: in other words nice packages for consumers. Add to that that it has its own extended and extending mythology and may be headed to either the small screen or big screen in the near future. Other examples are there as well: Umbrella Academy (crossover appeal due to its creator), Walking Dead (outlasted many imitations and books riding its coat-tails), Astro City (near-limitless opportunities in other media should it ever be adapted) and probably many more. The point is that in each case a single title is the key rather than a line of books and as a result I don't see those early 90's days ever coming back as they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on May 14, 2009 10:57:34 GMT -5
He is certainly talented in what he does, although that talent seems to cross several disciplines of comic book creation. I feel his position in comic book history is truly unique as a consequence, but I don't view him as a great so even though he and Welles may have both been mavericks, I don't agree with the comparison in terms of greatness and contribution to their respective media artistically (and that is the basis for the label of greatness for me). They both were "child prodigies" Wells was directing Broadway plays at the age of 20 and Shooter was writing comics when he was 13. Both achieved a great success at early age: Wells did the infamous War of the Worlds radio play and Shooter when became Marvel EiC (IIRC at age 29) and/or when he wrote Secret Wars. That work took them to their most critically acclaimed worked Wells it was Citizen Kane and Shooter was Valiant Comics. After that masterpiece the rest of their work was never quite as good (or perceived to be as good by critics, peers, or most fans). Both had reputations for being a tyrant and impossible to work and at the same time they some people say that were easy and fun to work for. They both lost funding to complete several projects. Is Jim Shooter as good as Orson Wells? No. Not in my opinion, but there are some staggering parallels between them. I agree that while most fans give him a lot of the credit for Valiant's early success there were plenty of others that were just as important to Valiant's early success. |
|
|
|
Post by G on Oct 3, 2011 20:40:36 GMT -5
Jim Shooter gives the following review of the new 52 lineup from DC.
I believe his last line is something I have said before....
I have to say a big Amen to this!
|
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Oct 5, 2011 2:53:34 GMT -5
Of course. What he says is common sense.
df1
|
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on Oct 10, 2011 9:07:10 GMT -5
Back in the 80s when Simon Furman was writing original material for the Marvel UK The Transformers series he would often write a flashback/recap into the story itself (unless it was a self-contained story) in fact in the second-greatest Transformers comic book arc ever-written Target: 2006 he actually had one issue of the 9 part arc written basically as a flashback but ended that part of the story where the last page the flashback paid off.
I think there is art to doing this one of the criticism that DeFalco got on The Spectacular Spider-Girl mini-series was wasting 4 pages detailing the backstory of the previous 140+ issues.
I think he did a great job condensing it down to where a person like me who haven't read the series in a very long time at least at a basic understanding of what was going on.
Now some people will say that writers and artists don't need to do that just have some recap box inside the front cover well that might work if the book is being published by a company like Dark Horse, Image, IDW, Boom, or Dynamite but for Marvel and DC that is usually ad space or a one page with the credits like Marvel.
I think there are ways to do it.
|
|
!!!!!! And it almost makes me loathe hearing people clamoring over Valiant. I get to the point where Im like..... 
