For several issues, Chris had been playing up Phoenix more and more, even when I tried to shunt her into a supporting role. The X-Men seemed very much in danger of becoming guest stars in their own book. (Keep in mind that Jean Grey, altho one of the original team members, was not officially an X-Man at this time, having left in issue 94.)

Knowing of my grumbles about this, Steven Grant one day suggested that a possible "solution" was to have Phoenix become a villain. That way she could be as powerful as Chris wanted, without it being at the expense of the other characters in the book.

Chris passed this idea along to me, and while I did not much like the idea of doing this to one of Marvel's oldest characters (and their second female superhero!) it did present a way around my problems with Phoenix. So I agreed, and, since Chris was at that point unfamiliar with X-Lore beyond the Thomas/Adams issues, suggested Mastermind as the engine by which this transformation would be accomplished.

We then set off on a several issue arc in which we laid the groundwork of Jean's downfall. (Of course, Phoenix was still Jean at this point. I have sometimes wondered how things would have played if someone back at that point had suggested that Phoenix was, in fact, an entirely separate being. That way we could have had Jean and Phoenix both. A win-win.)

Eventually we reached the point that Phoenix would go "dark", and off she went into space for her debut rampage. As originally plotted, the total extent of destruction was one Shi'ar battle cruiser -- which fired first! So, to up this from an action that was basically self defense, I had her destroy a star, heedless of any inhabited planets that might be orbiting it. To tie this into the Marvel Universe a bit more closely than the destruction of some newly invented alien race, I got editorial permission to make it the "asparagus people" intoduced in AVENGERS 4. At this point Shooter was also told what I planned and approved it. After all this was no "worse" than anything Galactus did on a regular basis -- and at that point Galactus was still being played as nothing more than a cosmic badguy.

As planned, we then had the Shi'ar fight and defeat the X-Men, capture Jean, and "psychically lobotomize" her. Since the plan -- also approved by Shooter -- was to have Dark Phoenix become a recurrent villain, this would set it up for us to bring her back when we were ready.

The issue was finished, as was the next, which was double sized. I was well into 138, when Shooter declared that Phoenix's crime was too great, and that she must be "taken to a prison asteroid and horribly tortured for all eternity".

When Chris passed this edict along to me I saw nothing but complications. Obviously the X-Men would not stand still for this -- especially Scott! -- and I seriously doubted the fans would either. I saw the X-Men becoming mired in an endless series of hopeless attempts to rescue Jean, who, of course, would have to be "horribly tortured" the whole time. And there would be no chance of an actual rescue as long as Shooter was in charge.

It was at this point I uttered the immortal words "Fuck that! I'd rather kill her!"

Which, with much redrawing and rewriting of the already completed issues, is what we did.

The X Men needed their own Doctor Doom?

I thought they had one. His name started with an "M" or something...?

"the Editor in Chief is charged with governing, managing and
protecting all of the characters. It was my job to make sure the
characters were in character, and I was the final word on what "in
character" was."

To which I only need to answer with 2 words: "Secret Wars".

Another of his charming habits was attacking everybody for doing something he didn't like in a single artist -- whether they were doing it or not! One of the small triumphs of my days under Shooter was when he had a bee in his bonnet about Ross Andru. Ross was then drawing AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, and was considered untouchable, but Shooter did not like the way he drew punches. Truth to tell, Ross' figures were a bit stiff, and when someone threw a punch as he drew it there was not much follow-thru from the rest of the body. The punch seemed to come from the shoulder, and the rest of the torso stayed stiff.

To address this, one day Shooter cornered me in the middle of the editorial bullpen, and started haranguing me on this point in front of everyone there. "When somebody throws a punch their whole body has to follow thru!" Luckily, as chance would have it, on the wall of covers of books that came out that month, this was prominently displayed:

I pointed to it. "You mean like this?"

Shooter turned red in the face, and stumped back into his office. I heard no more about how poorly I drew figures throwing punches.

The rest of the bullpen applauded.

Not that I expect either to happen any time soon, but there's bad and there's
BAD.

He even perpetuates the myth that X-Men took off in sales because of that story. Appealing to Salicrup to verify his version-- it turns out that Salicrup came in after everything was already a done deal. Pesky little facts.

One would think this was all a matter of record as told in Phoenix- the untold tale.

Question asked and answered...

... ouch ...

Joke apart i loved Jean as Phoenix and never was happy that her dark side became more than a Hulk sort of menace (something bad inside).

I wasn't happy to see her destroy an inhabited  planet, and even less happy to see her die.

Loved the Hellfire arc, stopped to like the Dark Phoenix one when she destroyed that star.

But of course i wanted to keep Jean as Phoenix, that's how i liked and still like her.

That didn't stop me to continue to enjoy both yours and Chris' work ,though.

All things considered, I think it would have been far better to just play Jean's powers for all they were worth. In the early issues, she was VERY powerful, yet somehow limitations got imposed -- many of which ignored what had been already established. For instance, how do we reconcile her not being able to use her TK powers to lift anything greater than she could physically carry with…

Sure, she "feels faint" after this little exploit, but that seems more in the writing than the pictures -- and even if those are particularly skinny ladies she's hoisting about a quarter of a ton there, CONSIDERABLY more than she could carry by hand!

Seems like Jack wanted her to be a lot more powerful than Stan did -- and I would have taken that scene as an indication that she merely needed to PRACTICE. It is a SCHOOL, after all, right?

No need to BOOST her powers, any more than I BOOSTED Sue's powers to show everybody that the Invisible Girl was a major player!

This is a case where I wish the powers that were would have allowed Chris & John to put the "toys" back on the shelf where they found them.  I much prefered Jean as Marvel Girl over Phoenix and it would have been nice had they been able to restore her to that immediately after the Dark Phoenix saga.

But it would mean swapping out the Phoenix's return and Jean's heroic self-sacrifice for an ending of complete defeat at the hands of the Shi'ar.

You can read approximately what was intended in Phoenix the Untold Story (with a few odd editorial changes). Nice stuff, but not quite as unforgettable as what was acctually published.

I would've rather she got control back instead of quitting.

Shooter's idea of having her tortured for eternity appals me. Not only because torture is unethical. Let's look at the context of what Jean did, Mastermind and the Hellfire Club had been continually drugging her against her will. So Jean didn't have much judgement here. She sure didn't plan to do all this. It's a situation in which she needed help and could've been corrected with non violent means. Especially not a lobotomy. That's awful.

I still dislike the DPS ending a whole lot, but I grew to be a big fan of both Claremont and Byrne (seperated from each other) anyway.

I think something like this came up awhile back.  I mean about Jean's power levels in the Silver Age.  I remember posting something about it.I still think that the Thomas/Adams version can hold her own with any member of the team.  She's no damsel in distress.  Just pick up with those power levels when the new book started.  Of course it depends on what they were looking for.  That Jean would not have been the team powerhouse that Phoenix was.

You don't need Phoenix for Jean to be very formidable on her own.  X Factor and the 90s proved that.  That character can't take out Magneto or Apocalypse by herself either.  Good, I say.  If she can, what is the rest of the team for?

I like Jean Grey.  Jean Grey was my favorite female member of the X Man, not Phoenix. My affection for Jean Grey wasn't in looking for stories that explored her dark side or urges.  The original Hellfire Club story is her scaring the shit out of their guards as well as Scott and Ororo.  To each his own.  That is not what I'm looking for from Jean Grey.

I read the Shooter article... and laughed.  No matter what arithmetic he uses to calculate his worth for this story, Dark Phoenix will go down in history *synonymous with Claremont & Byrne.  Otherwise, we'd still be celebrating Homer's ILIAD editor.. oh, what was his name?  Exactly.

The Postal Service might as well take credit for having a hand in it.  "Well, we delivered it." 

This is a bit of a non sequitur, but I happened upon the third X-Men film on the television last night.  It's the first time I've seen it since I started interacting with JB on this site.  And I have to say, it's uncomfortable to watch now.  I dunno what metaphor most aptly captures that feeling, but I'm fairly certain that in the future, it will be it's own metaphor: "Oh man, that's like watching X-Men The Last Stand after you've talked to John Byrne!"

*I actually misspelled this on my first pass, but ironically, could not think of a similar word (to use instead).

••

I merely join a long line of creators who have seen their works ravaged by Hollywood. A while back I posted a link to the original Edison Studios version of "Frankenstein". It bore absolutely no resemblance to the original story. Mary Shelley did not live to see that mangling of her work, of course, but it is significant to note that the Hollywood attitude goes back a long, long way. Once someone gets it into their heads that "changes must be made" in translating one form into another, it seems all the stops are pulled out, and the changes become more important than any pretense of fidelity.

William Goldman address this in one of his books about writing for Hollywood -- and what it almost painfully ironic is that he demonstrates using one of his own stories how changes HAVE TO BE made, while at the same time complaining about the changes a different writer made to one of his novels when brining it to the screen.

X-MEN got off on entirely the wrong foot, and it has been downhill at an ever increasing speed since then.

••

How is that ironic?

"Found a phone somewhere." In the Marvel Offices. Where there was a phone about every three feet.

THIS is why I don't read what Shooter writes.

While I doubt I was the only person to think about it after reading Jean's death, I figured she'd be back relatively soon since her "code name" was Phoenix.

Anyway, JB's version of what happened and how it all went down is the version I've always heard, even from other creators.  Shooter's re-writing of history is a new one to me.  It just strikes me as someone jumping up and down while waving their arms as they scream, "hey look at me!!"

As one day, many moons ago, when I was walking down a hallway at Marvel, chatting with Mike Hobson about the "Shooter Problem", and felt I had to say at least SOMETHING in the guy's defense. After all, he HAD done SOME things that were good for Marvel. "He got us royalties," I noted.

Mike literally stopped in his tracks. He actually looked hurt for a moment. "Who do you think had to sign off on that?" he asked.

Of course! He was Shooter's boss! Nothing happened without his say-so, however Shooter might like to spin it.

I recently reread this story, since I've been (slowly!) reading all of the original X-Men stories, from # 1 to # 143.

I must say, despite having read the Dark Phoenix Saga many times before, and having been very familiar with the X-characters and lore for many years, this time it got to me a lot more, emotionally. For the first time, I'd read it completely in context, with the weight on everything that had come before sitting behind it.

Still one of the best superhero stories ever done, IMO. Unfortunately, it's probably done a lot more harm than good, given everything that's happened since.

I also read PHOENIX: THE UNTOLD STORY right after reading the published version. It a fascinating insight into the creative process. While I would like to have seen what would have come after Jean's "psychic lobotomy", the published version takes things to a much higher, much more dramatic level.

It's important to note that the unpublished story features more than the different last few pages. Much of the dialogue is different from the published version.

In the original version, the Shi'ar kidnap the X-Men and say that Phoenix must be destroyed. The X-men challenge them to the moon duel, and then each X-Man has his or her introspective moment, where they examine their fears about dying in the battle and/or their personal loose ends back home. The battle is fought, and the X-Men lose. Then, in what feels almost like a deux ex machina twist, we suddenly get this whole "psychic lobotomy" sequence. Soooo...when the Shi'ar said they wanted Phoenix "destroyed", they didn't mean they would kill Jean, then? Instead, the X-Men essentially are fighting to prevent Jean from being seemingly "cured", lose, then go home. And the destruction of the planet and the Shi'ar ship are given a two-panel flashback, a one-panel reaction from Jean and the others, and is never mentioned again.

It all felt like a cop-out to me.

The published version is much superior, IMO. The rewritten script makes it clear that the X-Men are fighting to save Jean's life, since the Shi'ar apparently intend to execute her in this version, which makes much more sense, and raises the stakes of the story considerably. More importantly, the introspective scenes were rewritten to show each X-Man wrestling with whether or not they even should fight for Jean, given that's she's destroyed an entire planet, and wiped out billions of lives.

And, of course, the revised ending, with Jean's suicide to save the universe, is still incredibly shocking and poignant. Also, the tag with the Watcher and the Recorder originally featured them discussing the nobility of human beings, which is far less interesting or emotional than the final version's "Jean Grey could have lived to become a God. But it was more important to her that she die...a human.".

The way the cameos of Doctor Strange, Reed and Ben, and the Silver Surfer were written in X-MEN #135 led me at the time to expect they would participate in resolving the problem of the Phoenix, somehow stopping it and freeing/rescuing Jean Grey. 

+++++++++

I never got that impression. It's just a sequence were various characters who are equipped to detect the power and danger of Phoenix do just that, but then she's leaves the solar system before any of them can do anything about it.

••

I would unashamedly point to the Death of Phoenix as one of the BEST STORIES EVER DONE IN COMICS --- if only Chris had left it alone!!

But, of course, he didn't. Even during the time I was on still on the book, he slipped in every reference he could to Jean/Phoenix, whether it was appropriate or not. (The red panel Wendigo-eye-view of Nightcrawler at the end of the first part of his and Wolverine's Canadian adventure became sunset red in the captions and dialog, so Kurt could be "reminded" of Phoenix!)

It did not take long before the standard joke around the office was that Phoenix was the LEAST dead dead character Marvel had!

===

I also read PHOENIX: THE UNTOLD STORY right after reading the published version. It a fascinating insight into the creative process. While I would like to have seen what would have come after Jean's "psychic lobotomy", the published version takes things to a much higher, much more dramatic level.

••

Unfortunately, that was the one thing Chris was never able to accept: that what we ended up doing, even tho it was very much against our will at the time, was a BETTER STORY than what we'd planned.

===

The battle is fought, and the X-Men lose. Then, in what feels almost like a deux ex machina twist, we suddenly get this whole "psychic lobotomy" sequence. Soooo...when the Shi'ar said they wanted Phoenix "destroyed", they didn't mean they would kill Jean, then? Instead, the X-Men essentially are fighting to prevent Jean from being seemingly "cured", lose, then go home.

••

The "psychic lobotomy" was in no way meant to be a "cure". Jean was going to be reduced to the mental capacity of a 5 year old -- essentially who she was before she had any inkling of her powers. She was then to be turned over to her parents for safekeeping -- until an unfortunate incident (which I'd plotted out already) would trigger the Phoenix deep down inside her, and off we'd go again!

+++++++++

I never got that impression. It's just a sequence were various characters who are equipped to detect the power and danger of Phoenix do just that, but then she's leaves the solar system before any of them can do anything about it.

••

The Silver Surfer is the only one who makes a specific reference to actually GOING to where Phoenix has manifest, which, based on the mail at the time, led a number of people to assume he would turn up next issue. Not at all what I wanted when I added that page.

I would unashamedly point to the Death of Phoenix as one of the BEST STORIES EVER DONE IN COMICS --- if only Chris had left it alone!!

But, of course, he didn't. Even during the time I was on still on the book, he slipped in every reference he could to Jean/Phoenix, whether it was appropriate or not. (The red panel Wendigo-eye-view of Nightcrawler at the end of the first part of his and Wolverine's Canadian adventure became sunset red in the captions and dialog, so Kurt could be "reminded" of Phoenix!)

++++++++++

Yeah, I noticed that when reading the next few issues after # 137. While a few moments here and there featuring the team mourning Jean shortly after her death makes sense, her death quickly because a tentpole moment that would be referred to again and again and again, like the death of Gwen Stacy.

And then came Maddie Pryor, and Jean coming back and dying again and again and again.

I'm going to make a bold statement and say that I think X-MEN essentally jumped the shark after JB left. It all became a convoluted mess right after the death of Phoenix, and largely because of that story. Maddie Pryor, Cable, Scott leaving Maddie for the real Jean, etc., etc.--it all comes back to Jean's death.

...which is a huge shame, because it really was--and still is--one of the best stories in comics, ever. I'm not big on the whole Phoenix thing, myself, but by turning things around, making her a villain, and having Jean's heroism and humanity show through at the end completely validated the somewhat ill-conceived Phoenix concept.

Also, having now read the whole classic run from # 1-137, my love for the original team is reaffirmed. The all-new, all-different stuff is fantastic--in large part because the new X-Men served as a contrast to the original team--but the core concepts and characters devised during the original run are the foundation of the X-Men universe, and it's a shame that the early stories aren't appreciated more in favor of what has now become WOLVERINE AND HIS AMAZING FRIENDS.

Wolverine was a much better character when he was the loose cannon, the crazy guy bucking authority. But he'll never be as cool to me as Cyclops, who is--or should be, at least- the core of the team. Scott and Jean were one of the power couples of the Marvel Universe--and to have Jean attracted to Wolverine or Scott banging the White Queen(!) makes me want to wretch.

The fact that the third movie killed Cyclops off-screen, and had Wolverine mercy-kill Phoenix at the end demonstrates with crystal-clarity everything that is wrong with the X-Men (and the fan/public perception of them) today.

***
...like a Phoenix, you might say. I haven't paid attention-- has her "phoenix" connection always explained her reappearance?

Maybe she should die and come back more often, like every other issue.
+++

Greg: The fact that the third movie killed Cyclops off-screen, and had Wolverine mercy-kill Phoenix at the end
***
Never has a spoiler made me slap my forehead so hard. Ouch.

Some personal observations on the account of Shooter's decision:

     It seems to me that when Shooter went on to decide that Jean was to be "horribly tortured for all eternity" on a prison asteroid, he really didn't take into account anything about the Shi'Ar being a million or so years more advanced than Earth.  Especially when you consider that the original resolution was to have her get a psychic lobotomy to supress the Dark Phoenix persona, whatever the X-Men might've thought of it.  Of course, this was the same alien race which gave us D'Ken and Deathbird, fought a long war with Hep'sibah's race for dominion of their home galaxy, and commanded a vast armada and the Imperial Guard.

     I'm wondering if Jim Shooter went into one of his megalomaniacal moods that I used to hear about?

Larry Morris wrote: It still irks me that this is what the character is viewed as, by so many people,  when she didn't do that for over 15 years.

How many times did Phoenix appear ( or seem to appear) between UXM 137 and X-FACTOR 1? I can think of 3 just off the top of my head. It was the idea of the character that just wouldn't stay gone.

Larry again wrote: The chick who dies all the time.

You DO know the mythology behind the name Phoenix, right?

Gee, let me think.  Yeah, I believe I know the mythology of the Phoenix. That doesn't change the fact that, for a bunch of fans, she's the chick who dies all the time  Truth be told, she's been dead for 6 years once and the better part of 7 this time.  The deaths have been a lot more impactful then the rising from the ashes part.

Sure there were times it was mentioned post 1986.  It was a famous character in one of the series' signature stories.  At the time, it had taken Jean Grey's likeness.  The idea of it was used.  There is a big difference between that and turning Jean back into that character.

And I'll be more than happy to match my ignorance of Jean Grey, 1963-2004, that is, with anyone here.  I think I'll hold up pretty well.

QUOTE: I did not much like the idea of doing this to one of Marvel's oldest characters (and their second female superhero!)

JB, didn't the Wasp pre-date Marvel Girl as Marvel's second Super-Heroine?

••

Are you asking and answering your own question?

I bought X-Men #137 off the stand, the day it came out as a very-eager- to-read-it-13 year old. And while I agree, then and now, the published ending was much more dramatic/emotional, I still believe that the stories following would have been much better had Phoenix survived as originally intended. The last great X-Men issue was #143 and I'll even go so far as to say #144 was ok. I only kept buying the book because I loved the Kitty Pryde character and that love would keep me buying the book regularly only until around issue # 175

Cockrum's art was okay on #145 onward but the stories were pretty terrible. I hated the whole Dr. Doom story (ROGUE STORM -- DARE WE DO IT AGAIN? I thought that was dumb even as a thirteen year old), #148-149 were just embarrassing, especially that hideous Kitty Pryde costume. #150 was okay because it had Magneto as the villain but again, I had always wished they went along with the original story because the planned #150 by Claremont/Byrne would have been killer.

 In fact, the whole storyline would have been amazing; the classic run would have been X-Men #129-150 instead of just #129-137. And I also remember reading what was supposed to happen to Wolverine had John stayed on, which also would have been a zillion times more interesting that what saw print. 

To this day, the last page of Phoenix: The Untold Story is one of the most moving, emotional pieces of art I've ever seen. Seeing Scott holding her shoes as Jean is leaning over, touching that lily in the pond, what an image!

In short, readers got the dramatic ending to # 137 but in trade, received a less than stellar run of issues following and the beginning of the whole death as a revolving door/event thing. Personally, I don't think Shooter should be patting himself on the back so hard, especially since Jean Grey ended up coming back a few more times anyway. 

••

That single panel is a fairly concise summation of a whole lot of things that went wrong with the X-Men after I left.

Tho, again, who am I to say "wrong"? Since sales continued to soar, obviously Chris & Co. were doing SOMETHING right!

--

Granted, this is filtered through a 10-year-old's exposure to the work, but I think it's a part of what made Dave Cockrum my favorite X-Men artist, just above JB. Though I felt that JB's work on the title was superior in several ways in a technical sense, DC had an element of "fun" to his work that I don't think JB quite mastered at that point in the late 70's. By some point in the 80's I feel that JB was able to get to that level, though.

Recently posted this pic in a commissions thread ("When I Wore a Younger Man's Clothes")...

Another example of the X-Men going "too cute"...

...at least "too cute" for me. "Bamf doll"? Nightcrawler has a hot, flight attendant girlfriend? Feels like the concept of the book is lost imho.

For an X-Men book, I feel this works better...

Bleh.

While Dave was drawing the book, as most of you know, sales kept inching up, but he could not handle a monthly grind, and Archie Goodwin, then EiC, knew the book needed to go monthly to turn the corner and get the sales engine really chugging along. That was where I came in, along with Terry Austin.

Sales did not explode with our arrival, but they kept climbing steadily, in small increments, and that continued after I left. The real supernova effect kicked in when Paul Smith arrived -- tho, in all honesty, that might have been just a coincidence. Full credit to Smitty, where credit is due, but this was also the same time the speculators started "noticing" the X-MEN.

Nightcrawler had the hot girlfriend before JB started drawing the book.  Her origins were revealed in an annual.  I always liked Amada/Jamie.  I thought the scenes with Peter & Kurt with the girls harkened back to Booby and Hank dating in the early issues.  But, apparently Chris Claremont hadn't read those early issues.

There's been nothing to keep my attention on the X-Men for long since the Claremont/Jim Lee run.  But it still seems the most popular comic in the known universe.  Obviously, I'm somehow missing something....

Sometimes it seemed fan fav writers were the ones who used LOTS OF WORDS.

"This book takes a long time to read! Must be good, huh?"

QUOTE: Nightcrawler as cute and desirable was the X-Men answer to the Avengers' Beast

Considering to me the Beast was an X-Man that sentence just seems wrong.

I kind of liked it better when the upper limits of the X-Men's powers were still a mystery.

By the way I found this in an old comic book, who knew that Professor X once moonlighted as a Marvel huckster?

While Dave was drawing the book, as most of you know, sales kept inching up, but he could not handle a monthly grind, and Archie Goodwin, then EiC, knew the book needed to go monthly to turn the corner and get the sales engine really chugging along. That was where I came in, along with Terry Austin.

Sales did not explode with our arrival, but they kept climbing steadily, in small increments, and that continued after I left. The real supernova effect kicked in when Paul Smith arrived -- tho, in all honesty, that might have been just a coincidence. Full credit to Smitty, where credit is due, but this was also the same time the speculators started "noticing" the X-MEN.

I kind of got lucky in a way in that when I started reading all the Byrne back issues were too expensive for me to buy so I never read them until  years later and all I had to compare the current issues (@230) to were the back issues I could afford (@150-200) so the current stuff to me seemed really awesome by comparison. I think by then it was even going bi-weekly for short periods.

It was definitly the 'Death of Phoenix' that cemented the X-Men in my mind. I had been loving and reading the reprints in Rampage and it had been my favourite comic for a number of years at that point. However, once Rampage had got to Dark Phoenix, that was it, I decided to start buying the American versions.

This led to a fun period of hunt the issues down (At that point the issue on the stands was Kitty's fairy tale - 153) and I managed to get all the issues between 137 and 153 over a period of a few months. This was helped by what appeared to be a glut of back issues coming on to the newstands for some unknown reason. A poxy little, local newsagent chain seemed to have bought a load of Marvel back issues and was stocking them. I spent a few days going around every store buyinig up whole swathes of Marvel comics. Got the originals for Dark Phoenix, Days of Future Past part 1 (Had to get 142 and 142 through mail order) and a lot of Cockrum's second run up to 153.

Ah, those were good days.

edit to add - all those issues were at cover price - 35p for issue 137 16 months after it was published.

•••

I'll have to send Shooter a note asking him to forward to me the checks he must have withheld, then, since that figure in no way tallies with my bank account. Does he owe me interest, do you think?

(Anyone who wants to test Shooter's math can do so fairly easily. The Statement of Ownership in the books was usually accurate. The royalty payments were 4% of the cover price, divided among the creative team as 1.5% to the writer, 1.5% to the penciler, and 1% to the inker. An additional 1% was paid to the creators of books, such as on ALPHA FLIGHT. This was paid only after the first 100,000 units sold, so a book that sold, say, 150,000 would pay royalties on 50,000. Royalties started to kick in some time in 1983, as I recall. So, figure out which issues I worked on during the time Shooter was EiC after the royalties arrived, calculate the payments based on the sales, cover price, and jobs I did, and see how close you come to $10,000,000.)

••

The reference would be to the Wolfman lawsuit, in 1999, since that was the only time Shooter and I were ever in a courtroom at the same time. Shooter is perhaps forgetting that "The Comics Journal" printed the transcript of that trial, so it is easy enough to check what was actually said.

••

Shooter likes to promote the myth that it was he, and he alone who brought in royalties -- or "incentives" as they were called at Marvel -- to the comicbook industry. This overlooks two important details: the royalties arrived first at DC, and Mike Hobson, as Shooter's BOSS, was the one who signed off on the policy at Marvel.

Nathan Greno: "...at least "too cute" for me. "Bamf doll"? Nightcrawler has a hot, flight attendant girlfriend? Feels like the concept of the book is lost imho."

I dunno, I think one of the things that made the book popular was the playing against type.  The strongman being an artist, the "demon" who would rather play at being Errol Flynn than focus on his appearance, etc. 

It does make me wonder how the book did in the alternate reality where Len Wein never left.  From Giant-Size #1, I suspect he would have gone for a less offbeat approach.

••

Never read SWAMP THING?

••

In reality, the more popular a title became, the more interference that could be expected from Shooter. DAREDEVIL is a prime example, under Frank Miller's tenure.

The Kulan Gath two-parter by Claremont and JRJR is a weird one in part because unless Marvel reacquires the rights to Red Sonja, the Spider-man/Red Sonja team-up Kulan Gath first appeared in can't be reprinted. It's in Comic Book Limbo with the Doc Savage/Spider-man and Doc Savage/Thing team-ups...and The Shadow meeting a young Bruce Wayne, for that matter.

I think Heidi McDonald nailed the problems of later 1980's Claremont in a Comics Journal article at the time which pointed out how increasingly often characters were getting maimed and killed and then reset-buttoned back to normal. The Kulan Gath story is pretty much a perfect example of this, as Claremont even gets to come up with grotesque hybrids like the Xavier/Caliban thing, all while also crucifying Spider-man in, um, excruciating detail. Whee! And then it never happened. Until it happened again.

Cheers, Jon

QUOTE: It does make me wonder how the book did in the alternate reality where Len Wein never left.  From Giant-Size #1,.

I'd rather read the issues from the Earth where Roy Thomas and Neal Adams stayed on the book until JB took over the writing and art in 1975.

••

Oh, sure! Following Dave Cockrum wasn't enough pressure! You want me to actually have a stroke!!!

••

He'd tried to do it while I was still on the book, but I had resisted -- and that was taking X-MEN further and further away from being a "specialist" book. This was the time when "mutant" became a pretty much meaningless term in the Marvel Universe.

***
This is what I've thought since the year 2000, but for many here in this forum thinks it's X-Men The Last Stand was THE one film that tarnished the X-Men lore, but never speaks badly about the first two done by Bryan Singer!

X-MEN got off on entirely the wrong foot, and it has been downhill at an ever increasing speed since then.

******************

For me it REALLY went off track around #200 when Magneto was reformed and joined the X-Men. After that it was just hard to read.

My vote is for Shooter.

I was going to say Scilla and Caribdes, but it is true:  I read a lot of Marvel books under Shooter and none now under Quesada.

I really liked things when Stan and Archie were EIC too.

Yeah but to be fair, Bob Harris did his fair share of damage during the '90's and clearly a lot of mavel planning seems to now be done by colective group discussion - hence the constant mega crossover (We are currently in the middle of a 7 part mega crossover at marvel and they are already talking about next year's).

Without a doubt, I prefered the comics under Shooter's tenure but was that because of or despite of?

As said by some, with Shooter at its head Marvel was enjoyable.

It is of course due to the creative teams as much if not more than to Shooter himself.

And certainly Shooter didn't stay out of the way, but the point is that he obviously cared about the characters, the stories, the marvel universe and even the creators.

 Unlike what happens in comics today, you felt the books were about story, characters and art, not just about banking on a "franchise".

There's of course a clear exception: Secret Wars II.

But even the first Secret Wars, a series that in all logic could have been extremely commercial, a simple banking on the various characters, even this one was about story. Was Shooter a tyran with his collaborators on this one? I heard so. But the point is that we end with a quality series, maybe not perfect (but what is perfect?) maybe with some scenes that make blink a few readers (Galactus ,anyone?), but overall something well writen and well drawn, a consistant and enjoyable story.

Secret Wars II on the other hand was one of the worst series ever published by Marvel. ... At that point at least. Since then Marvel took the habit to do worse than that every month.

••

Which is better, being crushed under a steamroller, or trampled by elephants?

These kinds of either/or questions are an exercise in futility.

How did it develop that Marvel had an EIC and DC didn't? Or am I forgetting something about 1970's and 1980's DC compared to Marvel?

Cheers, Jon

Here's the million dollar question for JB and the board. Who do you guys think was a better EIC, Quesada or Shooter?

***************************************

Is death an option?  No? Ah well....

But I will say this:  I was buying Marvel Comics when Shooter was EiC, but I have not been buying them since Quesada has been EiC.  And I have more "disposable income" now than I did then.

Secret Wars...well written

I was thirteen when that piece of turd came out, and bought it all the way up until the last issue. Couldn't have cared less how it turned out.

Sometimes I wonder if a thirteen year old wrote the damn thing.

••

It's just differences in nomenclature.

••

When Shooter came to power at Marvel, the company was very much a stumbling giant. It needed a steady hand and a clear vision to get it back on the road, back on course. Shooter had both -- tho he was not terribly good at expressing the latter. Mostly, his way of telling us we were doing something right was when he started telling us we were doing something else wrong. To make matters worse, Shooter remained in the job long after his particular skill set was no longer needed. As I said at the time, an "ideal" situation would have been for Shooter and Dick Giordano (then EiC at DC) to swap jobs every five years or so.

Quesada came into the job it was completely subservient to Marketing, virtually a figurehead position. Also, we were deep into the realm of Diminished Expectations, so it was no longer necessary to be truly successful in order to APPEAR to be successful.

__________________________________________

Which pretty much explains why the short term sales boosts due to a constant stream of sales gimmicks often directed mainly at the gullible mainstream news media and speculators among civilians. What's even sadder is that many fans wrongly credit Quesada with either "saving" or "bringing" Marvel out of bankruptcy. Then there are those Marvel editors and creators who go online to tell people that sales of the books are doing "great" by the standards of the current market. And don't get me started on those popular Marvel creators who deny that their low selling comic was canceled due to low sales, but instead was canceled because they either wanted to end the book early or because they didn't want to continue the book without the books original artist.

QUOTE: was canceled because they either wanted to end the book early or because they didn't want to continue the book without the books original artist.

Yeah!  That's the ticket!

The irony is that Shooter was writing better stories, himself, as a thirteen-year-old, and professionally, on "The Legion of Super-Heroes."

••

The IDEA of SECRET WARS was a comicbook to sell toys. It went awry when Certain People decided it was Something Else.

hmm-hmm.

And yet, i find nothing wrong in making something out of it.

JB on Spider-Man, JRJr on Spider-Man and Thor, Waid and Garney
on Cap, Perez on Avengers... I even enjoyed the return of Alpha Flight
and Heroes for Hire, and Thunderbolts was great. Looking back,
things were fun. I even enjoyed Smith and Qs Daredevil run.

There. I said it.

I may have enjoyed Marvel more before but never that much since...

-------------

---

I'm pretty sure I have the chronology right that Harras was Marvel EIC for only a few months at most when Heroes Reborn with the early days of comics blogs on the Internet in 1996 (the first comics to credit him as EIC were published in January of that year). Heck, I could swear that the HR announcement came a few months before this, in late '95, but I can't confirm that. Anyway, the first HR issues hit the stores in Sept. '96. So, there were only 8 months between Harras' first issues and HR. One way or the other, he just wasn't EIC long enough to have enough pull to make such a decision, not to mention the time it must have taken from start to finish to pull off this outsourcing trick. It had to come from above. And it looks like he wasn't there long enough to try to fight this plan. I'm pretty sure I read that Lee and Liefeld were told that Harras was being brought in as EIC, and that helped them decide to go for it, given their previous working relationship with him.

--

YES! Now that I think about it, Harras was like the anti-Shooter. Started off with micromanaging the X-books and forced off long-standing writers in favor of "hot" artists, and did have a role to play in the big boom and bust of the industry, but once Heroes Reborn ended, I felt he really made an effort to turn things around. Another reason why I felt that he wasn't really behind the outsourcing was that he made an effort to emphasize how important the FF and Avengers were to the Marvel Universe with the "World without heroes" arc in many of the remaining Marvel titles that were being published alongside Heroes Reborn. I was afraid that he was going to turn ever Marvel book into an X-book somehow, but what ended up happening was that he took a risk and put some of the X-books' top artistic talent on other regular MU books - Adam Kubert on Hulk, Andy Kubert on Ka-Zar and later Captain America, etc. During this time he appeared to de-emphasize the X-books, too.

Not to mention that JB has said that Harras was generally hands-off on his late-90's Marvel work. Harras had a rocky start, but he was far from the worst EIC around.

I've been enjoying this thread, much like any of the other tales from the bullpen or of anything from the "inside" of the comics industry that JB and others frequently provide.  For whatever reason, I've always had a basically negative impression of Shooter.  A buddy of mine is a fan of his blog though and has tried to get me to read it. 
To that end, he sent me a link to the blog in which this particular thread has been discussed.  My buddy isn't exactly a fan of who he thinks JB is so I was pretty much prepared to read an entirely different POV from Shooter on the "how to throw a punch" recollection by JB.  Complete denial caught me off guard though.  Just thought the followup would be appreciated by those who are interested.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/08373530560949961181" rel="nofollow - jimshooter said...

Never happened.

Ask people who know me if the tale as he relates it rings true.

Those of you who have read my lectures, do they sound arbitrary and irrational?

If I were such a madman, could I have survived as EIC nearly 10 years and been well rewarded for outstanding service until the company was going through the ugly process of being sold, which put me at odds with owners who were selling us down the river?

I liked Ross Andru and his work. I hired him to do at least one job for me at VALIANT. He was at the end of his career, then, so if he did more it wasn't many.

http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/06/answer-to-comment.html?sho wComment=1309223964660#c7197945596820452400" title="comment permalink - June 27, 2011 9:19 PM

"Ask people who know me if the tale as he relates it rings true."

••

But don't ask anyone who might have been a witness!!

This is actually an interesting choice of phrasing, for the "response". In this manner, Shooter sets up an automatic dismissal of anyone who disagrees with him, or his version of the Past: clearly, such people don't really "know" him!

Vinny wrote: ...Not to mention that JB has said that Harras was generally hands-off on his late-90's Marvel work. Harras had a rocky start, but he was far from the worst EIC around...

It's pretty bad that Marvel's excuse for firing him was that the company's owners felt he failed to properly capitalize on the success of the first "X-Men" film.

Has any comic book series really seen that much of a boost in NEW comics sales (not back issue sales) due to a film since the first "Batman" in 1989? I can tell you, as a retailer, that as far as my shop is concerned, there's not much of a boost, if any, in sales of the new comics due to a movie coming out. You do get speculators going after the old stuff thinking each time that each new movie will propel the prices of the back issues into the stratosphere, despite the fact that never really occurs.

Reading Andy Mokler's link to Jim Shooter's blog comments, I see Shooter is now taking credit, of a sort, for "Crisis on Ifinite Earths." What didn't he create or what wasn't he responsible for, that was momentous, anyway, directly or indirectly? Huh.

Jim Shooter wrote: ...One proposal for the 25th Anniversary that was floated and shot down instantly was the "Big Bang." The idea was that we'd end all titles and start again, keeping what was good and ignoring things that were bad or out of date. We'd get Reed Richards out of fighting with the French Underground in WWII, get Iron man's origin out of Viet Nam, the Hulk's origin away from being due to an above-ground nuclear test, etc. The concept was briefly bandied around, and in fact, I had recommended it to Jeannette Kahn for DC years earlier. Turns out Gerry Conway had also recommended such a thing to DC before I did. They needed it more than we did. I think that notion became part of the basis for Crisis....

••

The "Batman" TV series, starring Adam West, created such am upsurge in sales of the BATMAN comics that the character was actually saved from cancellation!

The important difference, of course, is that when "Batman" was on TV, BATMAN comics were sold on the newsstand, in drugstores, at train stations, bus depots, grocery stores, etc, etc.

By the time Harras was EiC, the Direct Sales Market was virtually the ONLY place Marvel comics could be found -- which meant anyone inspired by the X-Men movie to pick up an X-MEN comic would have to make a deliberate effort to seek out a comic shop, and that might require a journey of a considerable distance.

The DSM has removed the SPONTANEITY of buying comics, and that makes it almost impossible to cash in on successful movies.

A person posted a small part of the court transcript on Jim Shooter's blog that addresses Shooter's claim that JB said he earned 10 million dollars from Marvel...

QUOTE: Question: "You have earned over ten million dollars at Marvel?" Byrne: "That's probably fair." He then qualified that with the following, after stating that he made less money doing Alpha Flight than any other book; Question: "During your career you earned 20 million from others than Alpha Flight?" Byrne: "Right. I should point out that did not earn 10 million specifically from Marvel. I would say ten million probably in the course of my entire career, I have made four or five million doing the Next Men, which I created to own at Dark Horse.

Jim Shooter's response to the facts:

Jim Shooter wrote: ...I remembered the "That's probably fair" part, if not the exact quote. The point is he made a lot of money...

Byrne: "That's probably fair."

He then qualified that with the following, after stating that he made less money doing Alpha Flight than any other book;

Question: "During your career you earned 20 million from others than Alpha Flight?"

Byrne: "Right. I should point out that did not earn 10 million specifically from Marvel. I would say ten million probably in the course of my entire career, I have made four or five million doing the Next Men, which I created to own at Dark Horse.

••

??!!

I think there must be a transcription error there. I could say with confidence that during Shooter's time at the company, I GENERATED more than 10 million dollars in income FOR MARVEL, but for me to have EARNED ten million myself would have required my receiving a MUCH larger share of the sales than was the reality.*

Same with NEXT MEN. Altho that book was a HUGE seller when it started (outselling any other direct sales only book by something like a factor of ten), even the (by then) high cover price and larger share of the sales would not have put $5,000,000 into MY pocket.

I can only have been talking about what the PUBLISHERS were earning from the books I worked on.

–––

* Do the math, and you will see my run on FANTASTIC FOUR probably pulled in close to $9,000,000 FOR MARVEL, but since the first half of that run was done without royalties, my own share would have been around $180,000.

Do the math, and you will see my run on FANTASTIC FOUR probably pulled in close to $9,000,000 FOR MARVEL, but since the first half of that run was done without royalties, my own share would have been around $180,000. ----JB

How much of that did you get to keep after local, state and federal taxes, retirement and health care costs are deducted?

When someone wins the lottery and the amount is annouced, I imediatley begin to think, "How much did they REALLY win?" after taxes are subtracted.

"Ask people who know me if the tale as he relates it rings true."

I'm glad you isolated those two lines, JB.  Because to me, he contradicts himself right off the bat.  He says it never happened but then challenges the telling of the tale itself.  Which would mean there was a tale, but that it wasn't being recalled correctly in his opinion.

It's certainly a strange response from someone if they were never involved in a particular situation.

Too bad someone else who was there hasn't confirmed the story to support JB.  Larry Hama doubts it happened and posted as such and this whole thing has really illustrated to me just how much bickering and drama there must have been going on.

Wolfman, David, Shooter, etc., there are just so many heated stories and bad relationships from back in those days.  Trying to catch up on what happened back then is certainly disheartening for me.  As a fan, it's hard to break the image of the happy bullpen of artists and writers working together in the industry that we all love that letters pages and that sort of thing presented.  Innocence(ignorance?) of youth I guess.

I suppose art and ego are just too hard to separate.  Sometimes the conflict produces a great final product but it seems more often to just tear things apart.

•••

What is the "it" Larry doubts? With all the back and forth and overlap in this thread, I have lost track.

The Marvel bullpen applauding John Byrne?? I think not.
*************

 Why would they not applaud JB. By earning the company all that money JB benifited all Marvel employees. His work helped pay their salaries. No profits coming in means no paychecks going out.

**************

 cumulatively I'm in a "bracket" of about 30%.

************** 

That's about 10 or 15% too much. Having 300 out of every 1000 dollars you earn taken away is far from fair. How dare you make a good living through your hard work.

*************

Why would they not applaud JB. By earning the company all that money JB benifited all Marvel employees. His work helped pay their salaries. No profits coming in means no paychecks going out.

••

This was nothing to do with money.

Has any comic book series really seen that much of a boost in NEW comics sales (not back issue sales) due to a film since the first "Batman" in 1989? I can tell you, as a retailer, that as far as my shop is concerned, there's not much of a boost, if any, in sales of the new comics due to a movie coming out. You do get speculators going after the old stuff thinking each time that each new movie will propel the prices of the back issues into the stratosphere, despite the fact that never really occurs.

_____________________________

Matt, I agree with you in regards to Marvel's BS excuse for why they fired Harras. His, IMO from someone looking from the outside, was unfair and unjust. It also led to the myth that Marvel (the publishing division) was doing financially and creatively terrible under Harras, which was not true.

You are also 100% right about comic book series not seeing an increase in new sales due to movies based off of said comic book series. Many retailers, as you know, will sometimes increase their pre order sales for an issue of a comic around the time of a movies release, but that is mainly due to Marvel relaunching a series over again with a brand new #1 with a rare variant cover which artificially boosts sales on said book and gives the short term illusion that sales have increased due to the movies. What many people don't realize is that an increase in pre order sales to retailers does not not necessarily mean an increase in actual in store sales to actual walk in paying customers.

••

Sometimes I wonder if he really believes there IS such an animal. When I read his description of how the final chapter of Dark Phoenix came to be, I have to assume he genuinely believes that was what happened. I can't imagine why, with a story that has been so minutely dissected in the fan press in the decades since its publication, he would present something so much at odds with reality if he did not think people would accept his version as gospel.

Fortunately, this is an instance where the truth came out long ago -- mostly because no one was trying to hide it!! -- and Shooter's Orwellian approach thus carries no weight with anyone who bothers to look beyond his version.

portrayed Superman in a very good way...

A Superman with no spine and no moral compass, who spends most of his time getting henpecked by the bitchiest Wonder Woman in history?

Blechh.

Don Zomberg wrote: "A Superman with no spine and no moral compass, who spends most of his time getting henpecked by the bitchiest Wonder Woman in history?"

Well, the bitchiest before All-Star Batman's at least... :-)

I wonder how much of the over-arching mood and theme of Kingdom Come can be traced to Alex Ross? Not to write Mark Waid any sort of free pass for his work on the series, but Ross was also involved in the almost-oppressively dark "Earth X" and "Uncle Sam" mini-series as well. Both of those also feature central characters who ought to have a moral compass, but are nevertheless floundering and lost. "Earth X" spends it's first five issues, as I recall, debunking the concept of heroism altogether, while "Uncle Sam" gives the Alan Moore walk-on character from "Twilight" center stage to gibber about America's failings and collapse under their collective weight.

The postings from Jim Shooter on his blog do seem to underscore a point made by Joss Whedon amongst others; That no one truly sees himself as a villain or as a secondary character. The third gunman to the villain's right in the western movie really thinks the scene is all about him.

Regarding Waid's expulsion from the world of Superman:

The interview was conducted in 2000. Waid's take on Superman's origin, "Birthright" was published in 2003.

Apparently, he was not forever barred from crossing Jordan into the Promised Land.

••

Quite possibly the best description of the whole thing I have ever read!

Don, there was a resolution to that story

That's a bit like trudging your way through miles of hostile jungle only to find an abandoned gas station at the end.

I was checking around Jim Shooter's blog to read some earlier entries and I came across a post where he recounts how the first "Secret Wars" mini-series came to be. In it, Shooter explains why he decided he was the best choice to write the series and offered the following tale as an example:

Jim Shooter wrote: ...Marvel’s writers at the time, some of the best in the business, were, to a person, very possessive about the characters they were writing. To some extent, that was a good thing, indicating a love for the characters that generally showed in their work. It also led to some intense rivalries and bitter arguments regarding crossovers and guest appearances. For instance, once, writer “A,” who shall remain nameless, wanted Doctor Doom to “guest-villain” in the series he wrote. I okayed it, over the snarling objections of writer “B,” who wrote the series in which Doom usually appeared. I would not allow the Marvel Universe to be divided into fiefdoms. But then, writer “B” wrote a story “proving” that the Doom seen in writer “A’s” series was a robot, the intimation being that the real Doctor Doom wouldn’t behave so stupidly. Somehow, writer “B’s” editor didn’t realize what he was up to, and let it slip past. Writer “A” was furious…etc. Allowing any one of the writers to handle pretty much everyone else’s characters in Secret Wars, contemplated to be the biggest, most continuity-intensive crossover ever done, would have led to bloodshed in the hallowed halls...

The story about Chris Claremont using Doctor Doom in "Uncanny X-Men" and JB being unhappy with how Doctor Doom was written in that story is pretty well known to fans, so I am surprized that Jim Shooter chooses not to name names.

Plausible deniability Matt. He knew full well everyone would know exactly who he was talking about...but this let him say "who, me? I didn't name any names!"

•••

As "Writer B" I can tell you this absolutely did not happen. Shooter was not the one who controlled the guest appearances -- that was solely the job of the editors involved. So, having Doom appear in UNCANNY came down to an agreement between whoever was then editor of the X-Book, and whoever was then editor of FANTASTIC FOUR.

Shooter's role in "authorizing" guest shots took more often the form of what happened with the Disco Dazzler, where he ordered Chris and me to expand our two part Kitty Pryde intro to force in another introduction -- of a character we'd had no part in creating, and really wanted as little to do with as possible.

This, of course, reached its greatest extreme with the Beyonder, who was forced into stories without any consideration of what the original authors had planned.

***

Resulting in personal best work from every single editor/writer/artist
working at the time, right? I mean, improving Marvel's comic books was the
only goal, right?

Who could have predicted such an edict would lead to limp, forced story
beats appearing in every single comic across the Marvel line?

This would also, in theory, cut down on the creation of lame and redundant characters.

It's funny to think that the "Uncanny X-Men" was a cult hit at the time, not a mass-market hit, yet.

I started reading the series with #122, and loved it. I knew about the team from "Marvel Tean-Up" #4 and a reprint of "X-Men" #3 in the trade paperback collection "Marvel's Greatet Battles" (both featuring the original line-up), but #122 was the first issue I read of the series with the new members. A friend of mine was also a fan of the book, so I had assumed the book was pretty popular with most fans at the time.

Then again, the kids on my block all seemed to be into "Nova" when it first was published, and I thought for years that he was a bigger character than he really was, so my environment could skew such perceptions.

If anyone has needs to wonder if Shooter has an overbearing ego, the
answer is "Secret Wars II".

I mean, the thought might cross anyone's mind, but acting upon it and
literally FORCING it where it isn't welcome?

Sales on the title were good, so there is that argument. But that's never
the argument that Shooter makes. He wants to be remembered as the
one who "fought for creators' rights" and who "let the creators create".
That's like Michael Jordan wanting to be remembered as a baseball
player.

***
There's a point that is just not getting the proper attention. JB did the changes for free. On time. When he was just getting a
tiny page rate. These are indisputed facts. JB was forced to eat the difference with no compensation-- at a time when
compensation was barely adequate to begin with.

Shooter's point of view had no personal-stakes. He was not risking bread on his table when this went down.

So who's more likely to remember things as they really happened?

Shooter would have you believe the guys who actually suffered in this case have become blurry on the details over the years.
But him? Shooter, the champion of creators' rights, has remained razor sharp and ready to correct all others.

It doesn't quite add up.

••

I'd actually forgotten this, until Paul jogged my memory.

Yes, indeed! Jim Shooter, the Great Defender of Artists, Widows and Orphans, insisted that the changes be made to X-MEN 137 and 138 WITHOUT PAYMENT to Chris and me, because this was our "mistake" that was being "fixed".

Terry lucked out on that one. The pages had not been inked when the changes were ordered, so he got paid for doing his usual job.

++

Did you and Chris finally get payment when they used those pages for Phoenix: The Untold Story?

••

We got royalties from the sales of the book, but not for the pages of art and script. We'd already been paid for those, back when 137 was first produced. THE UNTOLD STORY did not use the redrawn/rewritten pages, remember.

Terry, of course, lucked out doubly, since he was paid to ink the pages he had not inked back in 1980 -- so he got paid the first time, AND the second!

I went digging into the gallery and pulled these out.

"Keep everything!" says The Fandom Stranger

I knew I had this someplace, from 1980

••

That may be the most subtle expression of "their old stuff was better" I have yet seen!

Also....

Interesting article posted there.  Never saw it before.
I'll never agree with Claremont that his version of Jean is akin to the Thomas/Adams version.  That version is stronger in her use of powers, perhaps, but her basic personality was the same as earler..
Claremont's Jean, the characters mentioned a number of times how much she's changed.  I just think he writes REALLY strong women in general.

Also interesting all the different scenarios that were discussed.  I was unaware of several of them as well.

I picked up P:TUS back when it was first published.  I really appreciated that something like that had been put out at all.  I'd love to see more "Behind the Comics" features like that ... why things were done, other directions that were considered ... even done in a video interview format ala Classic Albums or Behind the Music.

"That may be the most subtle expression of "their old stuff was better" I have yet seen!"

No disrespect intended John - and it probably tells you more about me than it does about the industry.  I grew up in the era of you, Chris and Terry (X-men), you (FF / Superman), Miller (DD / Batman) and Simonson (Thor) so I guess i was more than a little spoilt and it resonates with me the most.

I've tried on more than occasion to get myself back into buying comics regularly and have failed....although I do need to pick up your new Next Men run!...some of my respect for that body of work is context (i was younger, less cynical, but still appreciated incredible art), some of it is nostalgia (the feel of getting the comics, the excitement of waiting to see what happened next etc) and part of it was being able to dive into a completely different universe just for an hour or so every month to see whats been going on.

Does anyone know if it'd be easy to get that Comics Feature posted in the last page?

Ah, "Comics Feature"... In its last year of publication, I illustrated Mike Benton's "For Fun & Profit" articles, in addition to doing some other illustrations for the publisher. I was still in high school at the time, and was paid very little, but it was cool to see my work published on a national level. And, relating to the thread, I did the interior illustrations for "Critics Choice File presents The X-Men" issues 1 & 2, from the same publisher. The cover to the first issue features Jean Grey in her multiple idenitities:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Critics-Choice-File-Looks-X-Men-/6619481 778?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item18a8d46b2 - Critics Choice on eBay.  (NOT my auction, I only present the link to show the cover)

I didn't draw the covers. Oddly enough, that first issue cover has Dark Phoenix, but that issue only covers "Giant-Size X-Men" #1 and "Uncanny X-Men #94 through #110. The following issue covers "The Dark Phoenix Saga" (and I did a better job on the art in that issue, too).

Here's the cover to the second issue of "Critics Choice File featuring the X-Men." It's a JB drawing that I believe was first published in black and white in "The Art of John Byrne"...

http://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=19656970 - Critics Choice #2

I concede that the public disagrees, as sales increased after JB left.

••

I've joked -- in a "kidding on the square" kind of way -- that I must have been holding Chris back, since the real burst of sales came after I left. But the sad reality is, we had no idea, at the time, what was really driving the sales of successful books. The speculators had arrived, and their presence completely skewed the numbers.

When Stan and Jack were doing, say, FANTASTIC FOUR, they knew that the (roughly) 400,000 units they were selling each month could be mostly depended upon to represent 400,000 warm bodies. When UNCANNY reached that number (and went on to even higher) after I left, there was much concern over the fact that we had no way to measure the actual number of people buying the books. How many were buying multiple copies, as "investments"? How many multiple copies were they buying? If UNCANNY X-MEN sold 400,000, did that mean 350,000 people? Or 300,000? Or 200,000? Or even less??

This is, of course, precisely why the Industry crashed. The Publishers began pandering to the Speculators, full time, doing stunts and high-priced "special" issues that drove away the regular customers. I've told before of doing a signing at a local store the day the "Death of Superman" issue came out. The manager/owner was taking the books out of the box and marking them $40. He claimed if he did not do this he would "lose money". In fact, at worst he would only make LESS THAN HE EXPECTED, which is in no way the same as "losing money". But the real problem was that for many of his customers, loyal fans who had followed the character and title for years, this latest stunt from DC was merely the NEXT ISSUE. Being confronted with a $40 price tag, many of those customers were forced to make a choice.

As we saw, when the speculators lost interest and left, virtually overnight, that choice was one faced and made by many READERS. They left. And when things returned to "normal", instead of sales going back to the levels they'd held before the madness, they plunged far below.

Which, in my Cassandra-like way, was exactly what I had PREDICTED would happen.

Just after JB's departure i thought there was a huge drop in quality.

While love Cockrum on is Nightcrawler mini series and thought his original X-Men run was good, i wasn't a fan of his art on the second one, or of his additions, like the lovecraftian Magneto island to the second run. To say nothing of Kitty's costume.

I began to enjoy really the series again with the brood saga at the end during the last few issues of Dave's run.

What for me bought it back to the level of quality it had during JB's day, was the story in japan, drawn by Paul Smith, starring Rogue and Wolverine against Viper and the Silver Samurai. To this day those two issues are still one of my all time favorite X-Men strories.

After that came JRjr, at first i didn't like the changers in his art style, but then we got the story of Rogue in the SHIELD Helicarer, and i loved this story and JRjr's new style began to grow on me more and more. I also loved the dirrection the book took during the JRjr days. The only thing i did hate was Magneto's ridiculous new purple costume with the big M on it. 

After that the book had highs and lows. I enjoyed the artstyle of Marc Silvestri, but not necessarily all the stories in those days,with the split team and the australian stuff.

When Jim Lee came on the book, i loved his style and thought he was the new JB.

Strangely it lasted only until Claremont "leaved " the book. After that i saw a drop in quality even in Jim Lee's art style.

The first three issues, with Claremont on script, had fantastic Jim Lee art.

After that, and i mean the following month, the art just seemed... sloppy.

Uncomplete layouts with quick inks on it.

••

I had virtually no imput or control. My only contribution, really, was insisting that if Bishop (a character ordered created by Marketing!!!) had to be from "an alternate future", he at least be from the same one created by "Days of Future Past".

As most of you probably know, when I plotted that story originally, it was most definitely NOT meant to create a split in the timeline (Hey look! The X-Men FAILED again!!), but Chris managed to make it so by slipping in a couple of captions that actually had nothing whatsoever to do with what I had drawn. As writer, years later, I figured as long as we were already lumbered with one "alternate future", there was absolutely no justification for creating another one!

(My scripting on one of those issues is used by some as "proof" of my being a racist. In one scene, Bobby Drake muses that Scott Summers made a better leader than Storm and, apparently forgetting it was my suggestion that made Storm team leader back when I was still plotting and drawing the book, some chose to pare Iceman's comment down to him thinking Ororo was a poor leader BECAUSE SHE WAS BLACK.)

When I started reading American comics, in the Fifties, the closest they came to excavating the Past would be occasional references to “the last time we fought the Joker.” And those would not actually reference specific stories.

It was really Marvel in the Sixties that laid the groundwork for “continuity” as a vital part of storytelling. Something that got worse and worse as more fans became pros.

If only it was that simple!

•••

Much as I admire Smitty’s skills as an artist, he is firmly in the “this is how I do it” camp.

An early example was Colleen Wing being captured—and tortured—by Angar the Screamer. It took 9 issues of Iron Fist’s twice quarterly book to tell that story, and Chris maintained that represented a year of real time.

As a teen, reading these comics, I didn’t give much thought to how Scott’s power worked. Like the Torch’s flames (that burned without consuming him) or Bruce Banner transforming into the Hulk (where did that extra mass come from?) WYSIWYG. Analysis can only lead to problems.

Like that time Chris raised the question of how Scott could see with those beams presumably preventing light from entering his eyes.

•••

Of my myriad complaints about Chris’ writing, close to the biggest was that he would never allow anyone to be ordinary. In a series already loaded with extraordinary people he would layer in more. Consider Moira MacTaggert, conceived as housekeeper (to answer a question that needed no answer), she spun into much more in her first appearance. Consider Kitty Pryde, who I created to be a completely ordinary teenager, but who Chris made a “genius”. Storm had a highly exotic backstory, but Chris turned her into Modesty Blaise. And Cyclops, of course, became the son of a space pirate.

It goes on.

sigh