SPOILERS
How anti-climactic.
The entire issue is told in a flashback narrated by Norman Osborn, and the big emotional shock of the issue, the death of the Wasp, is wrapped up in the first 3 pages. The Skrulls are vanquished in 5 more, ostensibly because... now the heroes are mad.
You'd think that such a major death as well as the final battle with the Skrulls would be given a bit more story focus, and maybe tell it in the here-and-now to give these events some impact and weight, but alas, Brian Bendis' strong suit has always been small, personal stories, not these big events. Still, his event books (Avengers Disassembled, House of M) have always sold well. Personally, I see a hunger in fandom for these sort of universe-changing events no matter who's writing them, but from Marvel's POV, I can understand; why mess with success?
In any event, the meat of the issue comes after the battle is over. We finally get the scene where the characters who'd been kidnapped and replaced by the Skrulls make their return (since Mr. Fantastic has his Skrull detector, we can rest assured these are the real deal). Among the returnees are various agents of SHIELD and Hydra (it's doubtful the return of any of these will have a major impact), Jarvis, the Invisible Woman, Spider-Woman, Hank Pym, Elektra, and Mockingbird.
For the major characters, the most relevant question is, at what point in their character history were they kidnapped? The reason this is of interest is because there has been speculation that the kidnapping/replacement could be used to undo some undesirable story developments in their respective histories. However, over the course of the Secret Invasion tie-ins, the replacements of most of these characters have been fairly firmly established as being relatively recent in their timelines. The Invisible Woman was replaced shortly before the full-scale Invasion got underway, Spider-Woman was replaced sometime in-between Bendis' Secret War and Avengers Disassembled, Hank Pym was replaced shortly after Disassembled, and Elektra was replaced shortly before New Avengers launched. I don't believe Jarvis' kidnapping was detailed, but then there aren't any particular stories of his that many people would like to see undone (maybe dating Aunt May?).
That just leaves Mockingbird. She was unpopularly killed off by a fireball from Mephisto in the closing issues of West Coast Avengers. Later, she was shown to be in hell, perhaps both because of the nature of her death and because of an earlier controversial story where she killed a villain named Phantom Rider who, it was implied, sexually assaulted her. That story led to her breakup with Hawkeye, yet he was still deeply affected by her death. So this return leaves big questions. Who did we see in hell? When was she kidnapped? Was she the one who killed Phantom Rider? It appears Hawkeye will be a member of the Dark Avengers, so perhaps her story will be followed up on there.
But none of the other kidnapped characters have undergone major revisions, and for two of them, that somewhat defies expectations. In the case of Elektra, there had been speculation that her replacement-by-Skrull would be used to either "restore" her death at the hands of creator Frank Miller, or else write-out any non-Miller stories, as a gesture of goodwill that might lure Miller back to the Marvel fold. But it seems this is not to be.
As for Hank Pym, there was widespread speculation that Hank's abuse of his wife Jan would be revealed to be the work of a Skrull, thus rehabilitating a character that many writers have found difficult to handle as a wife-beater. But it seems Marvel isn't as eager to put that behind the character as we might have thought, as evidenced by the solicitation for Secret Invasion: Requiem, the upcoming tribute issue to the dearly-departed Wasp. It reprints, as the copy describes it, "the infamous Hank-hitting-Jan story". Why not slap "Special Wife-Beating Issue!" on the cover while you're at it? Not one of Marvel's finest moments, and probably not one that ought to be relived in a tribute issue.
The issue tosses in a subplot with Luke Cage and Jessica Jones' baby having been kidnapped by Skrulls; this looks to be followed up on in the pages of New Avengers. The conclusion of the issue has Tony Stark discredited and fallen out of favor with the government; the president disbands SHIELD, and vows to abandon all use of Stark Technology due to its corruption by the Skrulls. He blames Stark for the failure to protect the nation from Skrull attack, and implies that it's due to the heroes fighting amongst themselves (there we agree, but then, the government has equal responsibility for that).
Worse, he deems Norman Osborn the hero of the day, due to his leadership of the Thunderbolts in battle (never mind all the other heroes that were there). He gives control of the government-sanctioned Avengers and the Initiative over to Osborn, and as we learn, Osborn will be heading up a replacement for SHIELD, which according to upcoming solicitations is called HAMMER.
The news media asks if Stark will be indicted, and Osborn promises a full-scale investigation. Er, indicted for what? Granted, it makes sense for him to be fired for the failure of intelligence in protecting the nation from attack (although if it were the real world, Bush would be hanging a medal around his neck), but what crime did he commit? I'm presuming the MU president doesn't have any constitutional qualms about the Negative Zone Guantanamo.
The issue ends with Osborn meeting with a secret supervillain cabal composed of Doctor Doom, Lady Loki, The Hood, Emma Frost, and the Sub-Mariner. The most obvious question is; why would this group of heavy hitters give a damn what a guy flying around on a Goblin Glider says? I'm not minimizing the Green Goblin, I think he's a pretty cool villain, but that's within the world of Spider-Man. On the stage with world-conquering tyrants, Norse Gods, and Atlantean kings, he's out of his league. Now, I can see they're trying to stretch him beyond his traditional role of evil businessman; he's now an evil government bureaucrat, and I suppose that puts him in a position where he may have something to offer this bunch. But then it puts him a bit beyond Spider-Man, doesn't it? If he has all the resources of the United States government at his disposal, how is it credible for him to go mano-a-mano with Spidey anymore? It's a delicate balance, and I'm not sure the character fits, but I'm willing to see where they go with this. Oh, and it strikes me that this would be a good time to reprint Acts of Vengeance in trade paperback.
In the end, like Civil War and other recent big event stories, the payoff really isn't in the event itself; it's in the promise of the future stories it sets up. That may be acceptable for some, but I'm from the school of thought that says every story should be able to stand on its own, both in terms of being understandable and compelling. 10 years from now, will anyone pick up the Secret Invasion TPB, which will consist solely of an 8-issue battle with superpowered green men followed by a teaser for future stories, and say, "That's a classic"? Somehow I don't think so.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Jim Shooter's Place in the Industry
You may have read CBR's recent interview with Jim Shooter regarding the end of the current Legion of Superheroes series. In it, he levels some criticisms at his artist Francis Manapul:
Perhaps the more important question is, would Marvel be willing to work with him again? One thing that didn't change between the two interviews is that certain sense of imperiousness. The harsh reality of the comic book business is that when you do work-for-hire, you are not in control. Your editors are. But Shooter should already know this, having been Editor-in-Chief of Marvel for nearly a decade, and having been no small proponent of "the editor is king" philosophy. There are numerous stories of creators and subordinate editors who either had falling-outs with Shooter, or else gritted their teeth and bore through decisions that they felt were unfair or unreasonable. One might think that given the position he took for all those years, he would be sympathetic to editors and defer to them when taking the role of a freelancer. But it's not really a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of ego.
When Shooter came into the role of EiC at Marvel in the late 1970s, the place was, most would admit, a mess. Quality control, shipping schedules, everything that it takes to run a publishing business effectively, were all over the place, and there was a collegial rather than professional atmosphere, as the place was naturally populated by long-haired creative types. Shooter transformed the place into a more business-like setting, and while many objected to the loss of the "family feeling", it's undeniable that Shooter made the place run more efficiently and this brought financial benefits to all involved. It takes a certain personality type to walk into an organization and transform it that way; you basically have to believe that you have a vision that is superior to everyone else's. And in some ways it was, as Marvel experienced an unprecedented period of creative and financial growth under Shooter.
But a person who believes that THEY know how to do things the right way cannot so easily drop that attitude, even when the situation calls for it. This is part of what led to Shooter's downfall at Marvel as well as his other comic book publishing endeavors. As he alludes to, he has pretty consistently rubbed people the wrong way with his attitude. Imagine the hubris it takes to essentially tell your editor to shove his criticism because you are the John Buscema of writing. That hubris is both responsible for Shooter's success and his failures.
He doesn't give specifics as to what he complained to DC about, but let's make an educated guess and suppose he complained about something in Manapul's art. Editors have deadlines on multiple books to worry about; should they put everything on hold and get Manapul to redraw a sequence because one of their freelancers didn't like it? Shooter also implies that he didn't simply make the gripe and then let it go; he was persistent and loud about it. Editors love that. It makes their job soooo much more pleasant. Ironically, Shooter seems to realize this is a problem, but he shows no signs of being able to control it. Given that, and the fact that his return to Legion showed that he isn't exactly in tremendous demand as a writer; if you were an editor at Marvel, would you take the risk of a professional and public relations headache in working with him?
My personal answer is; Maybe. But I'd lay down the law at the start before announcing anything to the public, and if he didn't like it, I'd show him the door. You're not EiC anymore Jim; you're no longer even an industry superstar. Many readers today have never even read anything you had a hand in. You might be able to write something interesting and compelling, but you shouldn't expect to be treated any better than any other freelancer coming in and pitching for work. If you can just adjust to that attitude, you might reestablish yourself in the industry for a new generation. If not, you'll be forgotten like many others.
"As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script."
These comments apparently necessitated a follow-up from Shooter explaining that he still holds Manapul in high regard:
“I am, of course, famous for my lack of ‘people skills,’” Shooter said. “Things I say, apparently, are sometimes taken more harshly than intended. To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’ But, at this point in my life, I'm willing to believe that I sound upset when I’m not.But it was his comments about why the book was ending that I found more interesting:
“I think it had more to do with their being pissed at me for complaining too much and too loudly – to DC people only, not to the media – about various glitches and screw-ups than anything else. DC has incentives for licensing of new characters. Super Lad could, potentially be the new Superxxx, and very licensable. Why reward a pain in the ass like me with extra money? They actually fired me at one point for complaining too enthusiastically about a really aggravating snafu. I groveled enough to get my gig back – I have child support to pay – but they took Super Lad away. Then they canceled the book.”This reminded me of his previous falling out, when he was set to do a sequel to the Korvac Saga for Marvel in 2002. Very similar situation; industry legend Jim Shooter returns after decades to revisit a property he had a defining run on. From a 2004 interview at the old SilverBulletComicBooks.com:
Joe asked me to do a sequel to the Korvac saga. Though the money in comics these days isn't very good, he persisted, and finally I agreed. I figured it would be fun, and I'd fit in somehow. I wrote an 8,000 work overview of the eight-issue story. Joe and his editor, Tom Brevoort seemed to like it, but I found Brevoort to be a pain. Didn't get along with him, mostly because he kept insisting on lecturing me about introducing characters not doing "paper cut-out" characters in the action scenes and such…before I'd even started! I asked him if he lectured John Buscema about making sure to draw with proper perspective and correct anatomy, which only got him up onto a higher horse. I surmised that this wasn't going to be fun and I had plenty of other work, so I bailed.You can read Shooter's Korvac sequel proposal here. Now, let's look at the contrast in his statements then and now. In the most recent incident with DC, he describes himself as having "groveled enough to get my gig back"--temporarily-- because he has "child support to pay." While obviously some of the wording of that statement is tongue-in-cheek, it's a far cry from the guy who just a few years ago turned his nose up at a Marvel gig, saying "the money in comics these days isn't very good" and he "had plenty of other work." So what's changed for Shooter? I suppose it's possible that whatever opportunities he had at the time have now dried up, thus changing his perspective. Does that mean he's open to working with Marvel again?
Perhaps the more important question is, would Marvel be willing to work with him again? One thing that didn't change between the two interviews is that certain sense of imperiousness. The harsh reality of the comic book business is that when you do work-for-hire, you are not in control. Your editors are. But Shooter should already know this, having been Editor-in-Chief of Marvel for nearly a decade, and having been no small proponent of "the editor is king" philosophy. There are numerous stories of creators and subordinate editors who either had falling-outs with Shooter, or else gritted their teeth and bore through decisions that they felt were unfair or unreasonable. One might think that given the position he took for all those years, he would be sympathetic to editors and defer to them when taking the role of a freelancer. But it's not really a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of ego.
When Shooter came into the role of EiC at Marvel in the late 1970s, the place was, most would admit, a mess. Quality control, shipping schedules, everything that it takes to run a publishing business effectively, were all over the place, and there was a collegial rather than professional atmosphere, as the place was naturally populated by long-haired creative types. Shooter transformed the place into a more business-like setting, and while many objected to the loss of the "family feeling", it's undeniable that Shooter made the place run more efficiently and this brought financial benefits to all involved. It takes a certain personality type to walk into an organization and transform it that way; you basically have to believe that you have a vision that is superior to everyone else's. And in some ways it was, as Marvel experienced an unprecedented period of creative and financial growth under Shooter.
But a person who believes that THEY know how to do things the right way cannot so easily drop that attitude, even when the situation calls for it. This is part of what led to Shooter's downfall at Marvel as well as his other comic book publishing endeavors. As he alludes to, he has pretty consistently rubbed people the wrong way with his attitude. Imagine the hubris it takes to essentially tell your editor to shove his criticism because you are the John Buscema of writing. That hubris is both responsible for Shooter's success and his failures.
He doesn't give specifics as to what he complained to DC about, but let's make an educated guess and suppose he complained about something in Manapul's art. Editors have deadlines on multiple books to worry about; should they put everything on hold and get Manapul to redraw a sequence because one of their freelancers didn't like it? Shooter also implies that he didn't simply make the gripe and then let it go; he was persistent and loud about it. Editors love that. It makes their job soooo much more pleasant. Ironically, Shooter seems to realize this is a problem, but he shows no signs of being able to control it. Given that, and the fact that his return to Legion showed that he isn't exactly in tremendous demand as a writer; if you were an editor at Marvel, would you take the risk of a professional and public relations headache in working with him?
My personal answer is; Maybe. But I'd lay down the law at the start before announcing anything to the public, and if he didn't like it, I'd show him the door. You're not EiC anymore Jim; you're no longer even an industry superstar. Many readers today have never even read anything you had a hand in. You might be able to write something interesting and compelling, but you shouldn't expect to be treated any better than any other freelancer coming in and pitching for work. If you can just adjust to that attitude, you might reestablish yourself in the industry for a new generation. If not, you'll be forgotten like many others.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Analyzing the DC Comics Insider
Much has been made over the past few days concerning a series of allegations made by an individual who has dubbed himself a "DC Comics Insider" and who purports to work for DC Comics. Today we'll take a look at these allegations, without identifying the accused, and see what they say about the industry as well as the individual who posted them.
The initial allegation concerned the reasons behind artist JG Jones departure from DC's big event of the year, Final Crisis. This particular allegation apparently regarded activities between consenting adults, and seemed designed to do nothing more than embarass individuals whom the Insider has a personal dislike for (the one thing that may be of interest to fans is that Jones is now supposedly set to do work for Marvel). There was some lip service given to "defending" the artist from being blamed by the fan community for supposed delays, but if the artist wished to raise this matter in his defense, he was more than capable of doing so himself. The fact that he didn't surely means he didn't wish this raised publicly, even if there is truth to it. So by doing this, the Insider is knowingly harming someone he professes to defend, marking him as a hypocrite.
After posting this first in the comments section of former DC employee Valerie D'Orazio's blog ( http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/ ), the Insider went on to create his own blog and repost the allegation there. The blog was quickly deleted, presumably by Blogger at the request of concerned parties. He also apparently sent out e-mails to several different bloggers and news websites, in an attempt to get them to carry the story. The Comic Book Bin site published an editorial detailing its decision not to carry the story ( http://www.comicbookbin.com/Whistle_BlowingComic_Book_Journalism001.html ), and blogger Kevin Huxford, while withholding details of the allegations, did choose to post a message he received from the Insider ( http://www.schwapponline.com/2008/10/well-i-guess-i-dont-have-developing.html ). In it, the Insider promises to "continue my list of editors who need to leave for how their lack of moral character has ruined DC Comics."
The Insider then created a second blog, and sure enough, posted more allegations about other DC employees. Most of these allegations were of a similar variety to the initial one; matters that should not concern anyone except the people they directly affect (affairs, drug abuse, and the like). Stuff that was clearly designed only to damage the reputations of those involved, whether true or not. He also tossed in a heaping helping of complaints about the quality and success of the books themselves, marking him not only as a disgruntled employee, but a fanboy as well, who pines for the good old days when comics were the way he liked them, and decries how the current people are ruining them. Yes, we've all done that, myself included. But we haven't all mixed it in with direct and personal character assassination, have we?
The only allegation that bears looking into any further is the one of mistreatment of employees. One employee in particular is accused of severe verbal abuse toward subordinates, as well as numerous instances of sexual harassment. As Valerie D'Orazio has mentioned on her blog, she is named as the target of several of these incidents, and she does not appear to dispute them ( http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-or-two-things-ive-learned.html ). The Insider again tosses in superfluous bits that are meant only to embarass and humiliate, but regardless of his shameful tactics, it should be of concern to all who support the industry if such things have been going on this long and unchecked. Unfortunately, the Insider does not make good on his promise to "examine why very few people ever get fired from DC", thus leaving his attacks without any context that would elevate their worth. It is indeed an important question to ask why, if such things are going on, nothing is done, but it doesn't look like you'll find any answers from the DC Insider. By all appearances, this is a person far more concerned with getting revenge for personal slights, than in correcting any wrongs.
If these things are going on, the only way they will stop is if someone who has been victimized is willing to step forward and press legal remedies. This will take an enormous amount of intestinal fortitude, as well as a not inconsiderable amount of material resources. But I think if someone was willing to take that step, they might find more supporters, both materially and morally, than they might have previously believed.
The initial allegation concerned the reasons behind artist JG Jones departure from DC's big event of the year, Final Crisis. This particular allegation apparently regarded activities between consenting adults, and seemed designed to do nothing more than embarass individuals whom the Insider has a personal dislike for (the one thing that may be of interest to fans is that Jones is now supposedly set to do work for Marvel). There was some lip service given to "defending" the artist from being blamed by the fan community for supposed delays, but if the artist wished to raise this matter in his defense, he was more than capable of doing so himself. The fact that he didn't surely means he didn't wish this raised publicly, even if there is truth to it. So by doing this, the Insider is knowingly harming someone he professes to defend, marking him as a hypocrite.
After posting this first in the comments section of former DC employee Valerie D'Orazio's blog ( http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/ ), the Insider went on to create his own blog and repost the allegation there. The blog was quickly deleted, presumably by Blogger at the request of concerned parties. He also apparently sent out e-mails to several different bloggers and news websites, in an attempt to get them to carry the story. The Comic Book Bin site published an editorial detailing its decision not to carry the story ( http://www.comicbookbin.com/Whistle_BlowingComic_Book_Journalism001.html ), and blogger Kevin Huxford, while withholding details of the allegations, did choose to post a message he received from the Insider ( http://www.schwapponline.com/2008/10/well-i-guess-i-dont-have-developing.html ). In it, the Insider promises to "continue my list of editors who need to leave for how their lack of moral character has ruined DC Comics."
The Insider then created a second blog, and sure enough, posted more allegations about other DC employees. Most of these allegations were of a similar variety to the initial one; matters that should not concern anyone except the people they directly affect (affairs, drug abuse, and the like). Stuff that was clearly designed only to damage the reputations of those involved, whether true or not. He also tossed in a heaping helping of complaints about the quality and success of the books themselves, marking him not only as a disgruntled employee, but a fanboy as well, who pines for the good old days when comics were the way he liked them, and decries how the current people are ruining them. Yes, we've all done that, myself included. But we haven't all mixed it in with direct and personal character assassination, have we?
The only allegation that bears looking into any further is the one of mistreatment of employees. One employee in particular is accused of severe verbal abuse toward subordinates, as well as numerous instances of sexual harassment. As Valerie D'Orazio has mentioned on her blog, she is named as the target of several of these incidents, and she does not appear to dispute them ( http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-or-two-things-ive-learned.html ). The Insider again tosses in superfluous bits that are meant only to embarass and humiliate, but regardless of his shameful tactics, it should be of concern to all who support the industry if such things have been going on this long and unchecked. Unfortunately, the Insider does not make good on his promise to "examine why very few people ever get fired from DC", thus leaving his attacks without any context that would elevate their worth. It is indeed an important question to ask why, if such things are going on, nothing is done, but it doesn't look like you'll find any answers from the DC Insider. By all appearances, this is a person far more concerned with getting revenge for personal slights, than in correcting any wrongs.
If these things are going on, the only way they will stop is if someone who has been victimized is willing to step forward and press legal remedies. This will take an enormous amount of intestinal fortitude, as well as a not inconsiderable amount of material resources. But I think if someone was willing to take that step, they might find more supporters, both materially and morally, than they might have previously believed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
