Martinex1: I have a couple of questions (or series of questions) to last you the next couple of days, so please share your thoughts and commentary. Cheers all!
Question 1: What do you think about Jim Shooter as a writer? We can discuss his work as an editor as well, but how does his work in both creative areas (writer and editor) compare? Where does Jim Shooter fit in your rankings as a comic creator? In what ways did he impact your collecting or enjoyment of the art form?
To refresh your memory, here is just a tiny sample of the issues that Jim Shooter wrote (starting way back in 1966).
Did you know that Jim Shooter also pencilled some issues? His work had a bit of a Steve Ditko feel. Here is an example from
Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #57. The example is inked by Jim Mooney.
Question 2: With Thor on our minds because of the recent movie, what Thor stories resonated most with you? Many people consider the Walter Simonson issues to be among the best, do you agree? Other than those stories are there Thor books from the Bronze Age that you admire? What are your favorite Thor tales? Who are your favorite Thor creators? Did you like Thor's supporting cast?Where does Thor rank as a character that you follow or collect? Why do you despise, tolerate, like, or love the character?
25 comments:
Independent of whatever controversies existed at Marvel under Shooter, real or imagined, I enjoyed much of his work! I actually have a handful of the comics above (early Legion, DD, Valiant) and his writing is pleasing. The early Legion is especially enjoyable (coming from a guy who still reads Sad Sack and DC Thomson Annuals, so...)
Thor - I enjoyed some of the famous Kirby issues fighting Ego, Mangog, the really big villains. When he was fighting your average street dude like the Wrecker, it made no sense the fight would last more than 2 seconds.
I tried, believe me, but I could never get into Simonson's Thor.
Cheers,
Charlie, you're NOT alone. Not a big Thor collector, but I've stuck with just getting back issues as late as early-Bronze, no Simonson issues here either.
I liked Shooter's writing, for the most part. But I hate to say, it's hard to be objective when I know just a few years later, he would nearly decimate the Avengers with some lousy editorial decisions, referring to the post-200 lousy writing/lousy art/and the 'lets-ruin-YJ' storyline.
Just a side-note (not to hijaak, but I don't know if you have a suggestion box here) but here's some fodder for a future 'JLA-movie' column. I'll list my objection here and now to Cyborg being retro'ed as a JLA member a few years back. It's an obvious and pandering move to introduce diversity into JLA (merchandising, anyone..?).
Funny, it sure didn't seem like the Avengers movies needed that. I suppose an Amazon princess, a 'king of the sea', a guy from Krypton, the worlds fastest hero and Batman wasn't diverse enough..? They could have simply had the 'Martian Manhunter' and that would have provided some GOTG vibe to it.
Very annoyed, but trust me I have NO plans to see it. :)
Shooter; The only Legion stuff I like was his run on the Superboy/Legion title, from about #210.
I also like some of his Avengers stories like the Korvac Saga, Graviton and the Grim Reaper/Wonder Man story.
Thor; Collected him regularly. It's close between the Wein and Thomas runs.
I really got into the Asgard stories. Totally agree with Charlie ,Thor fighting the "commoc" criminal is a no-go.
Also liked Thor's appearance in Marvel Team-Up battling the Living Monolith.
David_b - Does the JLA movie have a sky hole? That's the question! Even Suicide Squad had something like a sky hole with that column/ vortex shooting up in the air! It's all about the sky hole if you want to achieve success!
I'm a Thor fan. Great character, costume, supporting cast. I liked John Buscema's run, and love Jack Kirby's run after about issue 120. Whenever Hercules guest-stars, it's fun. The first 2 movies were just ok, but really looking forward to seeing this third one.
Not a fan of Simonson's run, even though like Charlie I've tried. Would be nice to see George Perez or Garcia Lopez do a stretch on Thor.
Wow, I just picked up a copy of that Adventure Comics 352 about a month ago (first appearance of the Fatal Five) and it was shockingly cheap even in great condition.
Jim Shooter is all over the map in terms of the things he does "right" and the things he does "wrong," and everybody has their list of what goes where. But I think he's a helluva smart guy who really does know comics, and his contribution and dedication to the medium is immeasurable.
As for Thor, I never really collected him for any sustained period, rather just jumped in and jumped off at points. Never got into the Simonson run, because I just can't stand the art. My favorite story is 330-331 where Thor fights the Crusader. Great cover to 330, and the story addresses one of the questions I always had about Thor. Namely as a god who used to receive actual worship, isn't it a comedown to be looked at as just a super-hero? And what's his take on contemporary religion? I think it did a splendid job of negotiating those topics.
But yeah, the supporting cast of Thor is hard to beat. Even when Thor as character might get a little thin, there's always been a lot to draw from the Warriors Three, Karnilla and Balder, Enchantress and Executioner, Odin, Sif, Heimdall, Loki and the rest. A lot of care has gone into them from the beginning and they still shine today.
Cheers!
1. Loved Jim Shooter's Avengers stories ("Bride of Ultron" and super powered Count Nefaria and etc.). Definitely one of my favorite Avenger's writers. I don't recall reading too much else he ever wrote except for the original "Secret Wars" (which even at the time I thought was just so-so).
As for his tenure as Marvel's EIC, I think he did an OK job. Some of my favorite ever Marvel comics came out during his reign, however he made quite a few mistakes as well. (Mostly in the way he dealt with some of the creators). But when all is said and done, he was probably one of the better chiefs Marvel ever had. I also really liked Valiant Comics under his leadership, and it really went downhill when he was ousted.
2. I always liked Thor as an Avenger (and when he teamed up with other heroes like Spider-Man), but I can honestly say that I never really read any of his solo comics growing up. I was not a big fan of all the Asgard stuff and found it kind of boring. I always liked the more down to earth superheroes like Spider-Man and Daredevil, etc.
That said, I did really try to read (and like) his book during Walt Simonson's run, but I grew tired of it fairly quickly. I really don't get why it considered to be so "great". Just not my cup of tea I suppose.
I did see "Thor: Ragnarok" and I have mixed feelings about it. I thought it was a pretty good movie, but I also thought that Thor was portrayed a bit out of character (at least from his comic book personality). They basically went straight up comedy with it. Which was a weird decision considering the overarching story about death and destruction and such. But on the other hand it was all pretty fun and entertaining. So, like I said, I'm kind of torn.
1. I cut my teeth on Shooter's Daredevil and Avengers and so I remember both fondly. I still consider his first Avengers run my favourite period of the book (issues in the 160s and 170s). I read some of his post-200 issues and quickly dropped the book, I don't even think of that second run anymore. Biggest objection was the worst roster shake-up in the team's history (Beast, Wonder Man, Vision and Scarlet Witch were "my" Avengers, and he booted them all in one issue...Tigra was not a good substitute).
I enjoyed Secret Wars, but it's not what I'd call great writing (and his treatment of the X-Men was pretty horrendous). Secret Wars II I collected out of habit, but again, not particularly good. After that Shooter didn't write much that held my interest. So all in all, I'd say the 70s were his better decade (as a writer, I give him huge credit as EIC for making the 80s such a great Marvel decade).
Sean Howe's Marvel the Untold Story has lots of interesting Shooter insights. His pattern for depicting omnipotent beings as sympathetic (Korvac, Beyonder, even Marcus to a lesser extent) has interesting parallels to his controlling hand as an editor, trying to bring order to the universe. It also points to his weakness in characterization in Secret Wars II, where he has Spider-Man ditch the Beyonder, letting him be someone else's problem...very much counter to his lesson from Uncle Ben. Can't recommend that Sean Howe book enough, by the way...
2) One of my first Thor issues was #300 with the Celestials, and I loved it. I got a few back issues leading up to it and thought those were very fun to (the Eye of Odin was pretty freaky). Other than that, I only picked up the book occasionally until it crossed over with the Mutant Massacre crossover in '86, then I finished out most of the Simonson run.
I liked that enough to gradually track down back issues and eventually get the whole Simonson run. I read it all from beginning to end a few years ago and I've gotta say...it lived up to the hype better any "classic" run that I've read since (that I've read "after the fact" that is...I still adore the classic runs that I collected in my comic-reading prime). I really enjoyed Walt's handling of the Asgardians, found the stories very fun and action-packed, and loved the innovative twists and turns, such as Odin's departure, the Executioner's heroism, and the "Hela's curse" storyline. Plus Walt wrote a very entertaining Loki.
So a big thumb's up to Simonson's Thor.
Thanks for the interesting topics.
-david p.
I liked Shooter's Legion stories, especially the ones he wrote as a teenager in the 60s. You notice an immediate change in the stories when Shooter takes over, with more characterization. Shooter has said that he was a Marvel fan (particularly of Spider-Man) and it shows in the way he tried to give each character a real personality.
His Avengers stuff was pretty good--especially the Korvac Saga--and I didn't mind Secret Wars as much as some people did. Secret Wars II was terrible though ... I don't think I ever read all nine issues. I haven't read any of his Valiant stuff, so I can't comment on it.
I've never been a huge Thor fan (put me down as another one who hasn't read the Simonson run), so it's hard to pick a favourite storyline. I've read up to about 1980 or 1981, and I've always preferred "Superhero Thor" to "Mythological God Thor", so I'd probably pick a story where he fought a traditional super-villain ... Wrecker, Absorbing Man, Mr. Hyde. (My mythology love is saved for Greek, not Norse.)
I agree with Mike W. - when you read the Silver Age Legion, there's a definite demarcation pre- and post-Shooter. His stamp on that mythos is immense. I also generally like his Avengers run, but as said above, you can have the stuff after 199 and on up to when John Buscema joined Roger Stern.
As to Thor, I have several collected editions that pretty much complete the Bronze Age output. I love Thor - each trade/hardcover is a fun romp, and as Killraven said the Thomas and Wein runs are both solid. I've never read a Simonson Thor and have just never got round to checking it out. On the to-do list, as they say.
Loved Thor: Ragnarok, but understand William's misgivings. I remarked just earlier today that I felt the movie fits with the lighter tone of the Phase Two films, and is perhaps a rebuttal to how dark the DCEU films are. I will not see Justice League, just as I didn't (and haven't) seen Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. Not my cup of tea.
Doug
I don't really remember too much about Jim Shooter's Avengers or LSH tales, so can't really can't comment on them.
As for my favourite Thor tales, I'd go for:
His first meeting with the Destroyer. It was good to see him totally out of his depth against a foe. It was also good to see him felled by a tranquiliser dart fired by a hunter. A reminder that, back then, even the mightiest of Marvel's heroes weren't too mighty.
His first encounter with Mangog. It was great to see the entire forces of Asgard up against a foe that was literally unstoppable. It's just a shame it was all resolved with a wave of Odin's hand.
His first encounter with Ulik, which he only survived thanks to intervention by the troll's king. In that one issue, Ulik was a genuinely menacing presence. It's a shame he was never depicted as being anything like the same destructive force again.
His first meeting with the High Evolutionary, which was also our first meeting with him. The High Evolutionary might have been an obvious Dr Moreau knock-off but he was a compelling one. And we got the introduction of the Man-Beast in that tale as well.
As Colin said, his Jack Kirby multi-part run-in with Hercules and Pluto.
His first meeting with Galactus, which captured a feeling of Galactus as a truly epic threat to entire civilisations.
His first meeting with Ego the living planet.
His first meeting with Dr Doom. Not one of his epic adventures but it was fun to see Doom try to go head-to-head with a god. It was also a tale with a human dimension, thanks to Thor being there to rescue a kidnapped scientist who it turned out didn't want to be rescued and then Thor having to lie to the man's daughter about why her father had been in Latveria for all those years.
I may add that there is a blog called *"The Shooter Files" by R.S. Martin that is quite interesting and provides a solid counter-factual to Howe's book. I recommend it for all those, in particular, who perceive Shooter as a villain.
That Shooter File blog has several in depth parts. I recommend starting at his introduction and not skipping to the part of the timeline most interesting to you, just to gain Martin's perspective.
I always liked Jim Shooter’s old blog and his input on storytelling, structure, and periodical books. I liked his insights on his tenure at Marvel and the industry as a whole. For somebody who started his professional writing career at around age 16, he had a lot of fascinating anecdotes. I can appreciate the challenges he had in his role as E-I-C.
As a writer, I think his early Avengers run was top notch. I am definitely nostalgic for Avengers 164-166 (as you all know) but I find that Nefaria arc to be some of the most succinct yet thorough and enjoyable scripting ever in a comic mag. There is so much pathos, character interaction, and stress packed into those issues. And yet the conclusion / resolution is so satisfying.
It is a fine example of comic book storytelling and I think it elevates Shooter in my mind as a writer. As mentioned, the post 200 issues were more downbeat and had some misfires within. I often wonder what those tales may have been like with different artists - but as stated the entire dismantling of the team and the YJ story seemed off.
As far as an editor, I think Shooter did a great job of establishing basic storytelling rules with his teams. Beginning, middle, and end to stories. Introduce the characters. Etc. I think many writers could learn from that direction.
Overall I think he had a pretty significant impact to what I recall as the Bronze Age.
Regarding Thor - his was never my top tier book for collecting and yet I always found him enjoyable. And Thor always seemed to be a back up purchase for me.
I liked some of the old Journey into Mystery stories with Loki and Thor as kids. I liked Bronze stories with Thor battling Galactus, Ego, Gabriel, Firelord and the Bi-Beast.
I did not mind Thor taking on the Wrecker ( who was empowered by Asgardian magic) or even Cobra and Mr Hyde. Let’s face it - his power level was much different back then. I liked the old countdown if he lost his hammer. And I liked the Don Blake alter ego. I liked the pseudo-Shakespearean dialogue. I liked the Warriors Three, Frost Giants, Hela, Loki, Sif and Balder. I did not like Odin though - he kind of bored me. I liked the Kirby art and his ongoing influence in the depiction of Asgard. And I liked Thor’s cosmic and space faring stories.
Honestly I probably like Thor the least when he appears in the Avengers. He seems over powered and yet often is not given enough to do. What is a memorable Thor / Avengers story?
I like Buscema, Frenz, and Pollard on the Thor art. I did not like John Romita Jr.’s take; the art at that time seemed too scratchy. I also did not gravitate to Simonson’s run. As somebody mentioned - the art was not my cup of tea either. It is interesting that that run is so fondly remembered but that so far here at BitBA it had garnished only limited accolades. I don’t think it was horrible but I also don’t think it was monumental. I prefer earlier tales. Thor had s lot of one-and-done books and I did not mind that.
From Terry in Virginia:
I agree with Doug about Shooter’s 1960s Legion tales -- a major improvement over what came before. Remember, as cool as the idea of the Legion might be, the earlier stories were really painful to read -- just too wholesome and whitebread for my tastes. That was pretty much DC’s editorial approach to most of their Silver Age output. But when the very young Jim Shooter came along, the stories got a lot more interesting and dynamic -- while still constrained by the overall DC editorial approach. His pencils on those mid-1960s stories was pretty good, too.
I also liked Shooter’s Avengers run, and I am just now on the verge of re-reading it, starting with #158 or so and finishing with #202 (the latter half of these written by others, but Shooter was involved).
As for Thor, I never really collected that many. I’ve got the two Neal Adams issues and a couple of the Simonson tales, and a few others. I’ve got nothing against Thor, per se, and hopefully I’ll pick-up on more of the earlier Stan Lee/Jack Kirby and issues and some of the Simonson run. The John Buscema issues always looked good, and I did collect the series for awhile in the 1973-74 period, but those comics are long gone. I would not object to revisiting them some day.
As for the new movie, I’m going to see it this weekend. But already I’m kind of annoyed that the mainstream press suddenly loves it because it’s played for jokes. I’ve been down that rabbit hole with Tim Burton’s Batman, and if I wanted campiness I’d watch the 1966 Batman TV show. I really liked the first two Thor movies, both of which had plenty of humor in them, but they were dark and serious when appropriate. I’m still looking forward to the new movie, but I’m a bit skeptical about the tongue-in-cheek tone implied by the reviews and the previews. Bear in mind, this opinion comes from someone who actually LIKED the alleged “darkness” of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman.
Basically, Thor as conceived by Lee and Kirby is pretty epic: the glory of Asgard, the rainbow bridge, Odin, the supporting cast, etc. I think the movies do a good job of capturing that.
Not a big fan on Jim Shooter, but that's probably because, like a lot of people, I lleft comics for a few years, and those happened to be the "secret wars" era.
Now as for Thor, big fan. I can't remember if norse myths got me into Marvel Thor, or the other way around. A lot of the stuff I started with were reprints of the old Kirby stuff, but I thoroughly enjoyed the run from about 160-200, and then the Simonson run revitalized the character. I wholeheartedly endorse the Jason Aaron stuff of today, especially when he doesn't have to fit into whatever crossover crap is currently running.
Hiya,
Was about to post what I had written earlier in the day and decided that you guys deserved better than a rant so I deleted it to try, try again.
Shooter as a writer was always, to me, a steady quality. If he never reached the heights that others achieved (( Baron, Moore )) he also never pummeled to the depths (( Baron, Moore or less )). I always felt, and believed justified in the feeling, that I was going to get a good read for my adjusted for inflation quarter.
As an editor I believe that he correctly understood the nature of the comic book business, namely that it is a business. An art form yes, but a commercial art form. And that keeping that product moving required not only a quality product but one that was produced and shipped on a regular basis.
I would never put him in charge of Human Resources. But I would certainly listen to his opinion.
As for Thor, anybody who read my piece about the character over at Bronze Age Babies knows my opinion. For those who would like a reminder here's a link:
http://bronzeagebabies.blogspot.com/2015/03/guest-post-when-love-affair-is-over.html
Take care and happy holidays
pfgavigan
Great questions, Marti; and great responses as well!
Regarding Jim Shooter- I have always held him in pretty high regard. As a writer, his Avengers stint (up until issue 201) kept me buying, and included many truly classic, matchless tales. I read Secret Wars, and found it entertaining, if not 'high art'. Never attempted SW2, I was mostly out of comics by then. As for his early work on Legion, I encountered them as back issues and was impressed. Having read many Silver Age DC's of the Superman/Action milieu, Shooter's Legion stories stood out to me. They really did give the characters some individuality, and the stories some real (not Marvel-level real, but more than most contemporaneous DC) drama.
As an editor, I respected his knowledge of the industry and his obvious love for comics. Having experienced numerous instances as a fan of the 'dreaded deadline doom', it was nice to see the books appear with regularity. And he oversaw some of Marvel's Greatest Comics (say, that would make a good title for a comic, don't you think?).
And I must mention also, I had the pleasure of meeting Jim Shooter at a con a couple years ago. He was quite friendly, and generous with his time to this aging fanboy. He answered numerous questions I had, and displayed a fine sense of humor (as well as a huge respect for George Perez). It was a good experience all around, and reinforced my regard for the man.
About Thor: I really never read that many of his stories, only some of the Kirby issues and a few Buscema. I mostly encountered him via the Avengers. However, I did jump aboard the Simonson bandwagon when it started- Beta Ray Bill just knocked me out. Count me as one of the fans of the Simonson era (not quite objective here, either- Walt Simonson was also very kind to this comic buff, albeit many years earlier).
I liked Shooter's Legion stories in Adventure Comics, but then, I was pretty easily impressed when I was eight.
Not a big fan of most late Bronze Age Marvel or DC stuff, by Shooter or anyone else. And Secret Wars (and Crisis on Infinite Earths) started the trend toward line-wide crossover Big Events and endless reboots.
Re: the new Justice League, I would be OK with Cyborg quitting the Titans and joining the JLA, but I'm tired of the endless retcons and re-writing history. The origin of the JLA wasn't broken,so there was no need to fix it.
I will have to go see the movie, though, because Gal.
I was late coming to Shooter, his return to LSH in the early 70's. I had read some earlier LSH stories in Adventure that he had written, but didn't know it at the time because they didn't do credits. Looking back, it's pretty cool that he was able to do that at such a young age. After he went to Marvel, I enjoyed his stint with the Avengers for the most part, but that was about the limit of my exposure to his writing. I enjoyed reading his blog a few years ago when he was posting regularly.
I wasn't a big fan of Thor's series, but I did pick up a few of his stories in the Treasury Editions with Hercules and Mangog that were interesting. I would read the occasional story in his regular series and the reprints in Marvel Spectacular, but to be honest, it always seemed like I picked up in the middle of an arc, so I didn't really know what was happening and the Shakespearean speech patterns put me off a little bit, too.
Shooter's writing: most of what I've read I've liked, with the exception of his second tenure as the main Avengers writer (i.e., the issues featuring the fall of Yellowjacket and Tigra becoming a flighty coward, among other things).
Thor: for me, great Thor comics = Walt Simonson's run.
Thor has always been one of my favourite Marvel superheroes, going back all the way to the Lee/Kirby era. I've read a few of the Simonson-era Thor issues, and I have to say he really put a nice spin on the character. I'm not a huge fan of his artwork, but his re-invention of the Thor character was fresh and unique, and he gave Thor a maturity and level-headedness that was lacking before.
I also enjoyed the Thor Ragnarok movie, and it definitely skews towards the comedy side, right up there with the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. It was jarring, though, to see that in the MCU Hela is Odin's daughter instead of Loki's; also. it was great to see Karl Urban as Skurge the Executioner, although it was kinda weird to see him brandishing two M-16s!
- Mike 'Justice League who?' from Trinidad & Tobago.
Post a Comment