Another side to Shooter

[RedAngel]

Read the following in a Beau Smith column (emphasis mine):

"To make sure I don’t forget anyone else, here are some other reader friendly editors that I’ve met in my time: Murray Boltinoff, Ernie Colon, Rick Oliver, Robin Snyder, Louise Simonson, Jim Shooter, Mike Carlin, Robert Greenberger and David Scroggy. There are many more, but these are ones that really stood out and went beyond the cause."

Jim Shooter has been a controversial subject in the comic book industry, so it's nice to see his name mentioned in something that has nothing to do with lawsuits or disgruntled artists.

The full column is here (scroll down to Editors Of The 80s):

www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/busted/11502528921222.htm

Just be warned that Shooter is not mentioned again.

[Defiant1]

I've conversed with quite a few creators that speak his name with reverence. Those creators might look over their shoulders to make sure nobody else hears them say it, but it was obvious they respected his knowledge and accoplishments.

Defiant1

[toddluck]

admin said:

I've conversed with quite a few creators that speak his name with reverence. Those creators might look over their shoulders to make sure nobody else hears them say it, but it was obvious they respected his knowledge and accomplishments.

Defiant1

Yes, if comic creators bash other creators who are blacklisted like Shooter, Liefield and Byrne they get brownie points with fans. Saying good or neutral things about them, even if they are accurate or honest, will get you looked at funny by the masses of fans. Probably one of the things Shooter DOESN'T miss about the comic industry

[Quato]

toddluck said:

admin said:

I've conversed with quite a few creators that speak his name with reverence. Those creators might look over their shoulders to make sure nobody else hears them say it, but it was obvious they respected his knowledge and accomplishments.

Defiant1

Yes, if comic creators bash other creators who are blacklisted like Shooter, Liefield and Byrne they get brownie points with fans. Saying good or neutral things about them, even if they are accurate or honest, will get you looked at funny by the masses of fans. Probably one of the things Shooter DOESN'T miss about the comic industry

This is common about celebrities in general. The reason a lot of the comic creators seem immune to the abuse is because they are essentially still a nobody.

Q

[toddluck]

quato said:

toddluck said:

Yes, if comic creators bash other creators who are blacklisted like Shooter, Liefield and Byrne they get brownie points with fans. Saying good or neutral things about them, even if they are accurate or honest, will get you looked at funny by the masses of fans. Probably one of the things Shooter DOESN'T miss about the comic industry

This is common about celebrities in general. The reason a lot of the comic creators seem immune to the abuse is because they are essentially still a nobody.

Q

Ild say very few are immune to abuse within the comic industry/fanbase. Most get a good mix of kindness and crap shoved on them by fans and fellow creators alike. Just like a few creators get blacklisted, there's an equally short list of guys who are sacred cows; untouchable creators you'll get brownie points if you say good things about then and bring down the wrath of a lynch mob if you have anything less than shining to say about them.

[Quato]

toddluck said:

quato said:

This is common about celebrities in general. The reason a lot of the comic creators seem immune to the abuse is because they are essentially still a nobody.

Q

Ild say very few are immune to abuse within the comic industry/fanbase. Most get a good mix of kindness and crap shoved on them by fans and fellow creators alike. Just like a few creators get blacklisted, there's an equally short list of guys who are sacred cows; untouchable creators you'll get brownie points if you say good things about then and bring down the wrath of a lynch mob if you have anything less than shining to say about them.

Who are they? I'll badmouth a sacred cow!

I assume you are talking about a workhorse or a legend like John Romita. I don't have anything bad to say about him. He pumped out excellent work. People aren't afraid to criticize Ditko or Kirby when they don't like the work. I'm not really a fan of Frazetta. I think Steranko has an interesting style, but I think his work is overrated. I was a big fan of Byrne, but he "jumped the shark" as they say around "Next Men" in my opinion. You've showed me some original art of his online that looks okay, but much of the art today turns to muddy linework and becomes overall crappy looking after digital processing.

Q

[toddluck]

quato said:

Who are they? I'll badmouth a sacred cow!

Well, I know that! LOL

I haven't hung around comic shops or general comic discussion boards enough to know who they are now. I know Christopher Priest used to be a big one on the net six years ago. George Perez and Alex Ross were definately sacred cows back then too.

[Defiant1]

toddluck said:

quato said:

Who are they? I'll badmouth a sacred cow!

Well, I know that! LOL

I haven't hung around comic shops or general comic discussion boards enough to know who they are now. I know Christopher Priest used to be a big one on the net six years ago. George Perez and Alex Ross were definately sacred cows back then too.

Perez was out of favor for years. I never understood that. I met him in 1981. He was drawing a wolverine sketch and it was immaculate.

I think Alex Ross is wearing thin on some people now. He's probably still well respected, but I think more people will skip over his work now when they would have bought anything he did a few years ago.

Priest was just off on his own being hyped with a huge promotional budget.

Defiant1

[gowaltrip]

quato said:

I assume you are talking about a workhorse or a legend like John Romita. I don't have anything bad to say about him. He pumped out excellent work. People aren't afraid to criticize Ditko or Kirby when they don't like the work. I'm not really a fan of Frazetta. I think Steranko has an interesting style, but I think his work is overrated. I was a big fan of Byrne, but he "jumped the shark" as they say around "Next Men" in my opinion. You've showed me some original art of his online that looks okay, but much of the art today turns to muddy linework and becomes overall crappy looking after digital processing.

Q

Wow! Thats pretty much how I feel about each one of those. Most have art I absolutely love, but there are times (especially later in their careers) where the art just doesnt live up to their Legend. Im an admitted card carrying Kirby fanatic. But I will not hesitate to say he declined terribly throughout the 70s which was somewhat livable in parts (like Machine Man, Eternals, 2001 AS0 and some others) to be downright awful in the 80s and 90s. Ditko...hit and miss... Steranko...some cool pieces but not an outstanding body of work. Frazetta...eh...great but...eh....Byrne...a God in the day...now looks like he draws a page in seconds. If he poured himself into his work and just worked hard on each pic like he used to...I could collect for years to come. But nowadays...so much the same old thing youve seen before. Alex Ross...awesome...but style may be played out???

Who would you say did an outstanding body of work from start to finish of their LONG career with little or no letdown?

Dont bash me, because I know some hate his work. And, I actually love some of the artists above better. But someone who immediately came to mind for me was....Perez. Maybe an overused style...but to me...so consistant and full of details to look at. Art looks just as good now as it did in the 80s. Who else? Would Lee get a vote from the non-haters? Although I wouldnt place him there, would Buscema get a vote?

Its all just opinions. But most so called Legends to me have bad periods of work too.

[Defiant1]

I believe all great artists go through stages. They have their rough period when everything is a learning process. As their talent evolves, they start perfecting their craft and then start to experiment with diferrent angles, perspectives, subjects etc. As their art skills become more natural, they hit a stride where everything flows naturally. Eventually they start realizing it's just a job and getting it done faster means they can make more money or have more time to do other things. They start taking shorcuts. The variety of facial expressions start becoming smaller. The experimentation starts to disappear. Layouts anf composition starts looking like cookie cutter repeats of previous work. Eventually they've drawn so much they might as well be phoning it in.

For me, an artist is best when he first gets into a stride and before he starts looking for shortcuts.
It's contradictory to say you are a real Kirby fan, but thern not be a fan of his later work. The reason is that in the early years he was doing so much work, that most of what he did was layouts and pencils. The finishers/inkers are really responsible for the style you appreciate. In the later years, more of him is poured into the pages and you see how he would ink his own work. It's quite a bit different than Sinnott or whoever inked the work we remember the most. Kirby and Ditko are in my mind masters of layout among all else.

I never appreciated Kirby until I tried to draw action into panels. His art is a lesson for other artists. Kirby became inspirational to me at the point I started trying to draw. Another artist I came to appreciate was Toth. Toth was a master at alluding to more detail than was really there. He could make simple art look detailed.

I haven't really followed any artists from start to finish. I can't say one is better than another. I admire John Romita and many artists that conveyed the story with clean lines, but not a lot of complexity.

The Neal Adams X-Men run with heavy finishes by Palmer ranks as my favorite art.

I'm a fan of inkers more than artists.