Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes Visionaries of Tomorrow Shooter: It's Official

The impression I get (from his blog and message board a few years ago) is that Wolfman would like to do a lot more work in comics today, but (like a lot of other veteran creators) has trouble getting regular work, due to ageism or the perception his work is old fashioned and not appealing to today's fan. In that climate, I can see where he would be reluctant to criticize a former editor, since that might give people the impression he was difficult to work with and make it even harder for him to find work. I would bet that's a big part of his reticence in the interview you mention.

It could also be that Wolfman, et. al., simply see no reason to air dirty laundry in public. Really, what good does it do to publicly criticize another professional? Such comments not only disparage the person being criticized, but can reflect badly on the one doing the criticizing. It also takes away from the work in question. If Wolfman, for example, criticizes the work of Joe Artist, Wolfman is merely expressing his subjective opinion, which may or may not be any better than that of Jim Fan's, but Jim Fan may start to think less of Joe's work because a respected professional said something negative about it.

(One could argue that Wolfman's experience as a writer makes his opinion credible, but it's still his subjective preferences.)

I always question it when a celebrity "disses" another celebrity in public. Does the first celebrity have an axe to grind? Is he or she trying to make himself or herself look better by criticizing someone else? Is he or she trying to court publicity (*cough*Rosie O'Donnell*cough*)? Bottom line: nobody comes away clean in a pissing contest.

Forgive me if I interject on this one point, Superboy:

Having been a fan of the New Universe, I recall that when Byrne was brought on that title, Marvel had just cancelled half the line! To give the remaining titles a chance, Marvel had to go in a new direction with everything about the line, and it worked...for a time.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the New U after this "recharge"--it was exciting and unpredictable, and Star Brand was right in the center of it as the changes basically spread from that title as its literal ground zero.

Personally, I think the other three surviving titles (DP7, Psi-Force and Justice) were better, but certainly, Star Brand was nothing special, IMO, before Byrne took it over. It was okay, but far from a Shooter classic.

So maybe Byrne did everything he did on the title to trash Shooter, or maybe not. But certainly it's hard to "trash" a title when it was already such a low-seller (and only 10 issues old at that) before he ever came aboard. As a fan of the New U, I don't think Byrne did anything with the character that was inconsistent with the limited continuity that had been established.

[And actually, Byrne shifted the focus from the character to the Brand itself, even putting a "The" in front of the title.]

So, anyway, Superboy, I'd say Star Brand isn't the best example of Bryne's hate for Shooter, IMO. And, besides, if the hate for Shooter was that rampant at Marvel when he left, I doubt that few who worked there at the time were terribly sad to see a character modeled after him desecrated.

I agree with you 100% about why Marvel put Byrne on the book...


Where we disagree is why Byrne wanted to do the book.


As for why the New U failed...Shooter gave a pretty good reason for it when he said just look at who the guys writing it were, and who the artists were...they were staff guys at Marvel and new or unknown artists. That was because Marvel cut the budget for the project.


The concept worked pretty good when Shooter renamed it and relaunched it as the Valiant line a few years later.


Byrne took Shooter's book...


Byrne did this for 2 reasons...

#1. Simple one upmanship...to prove he could succeed where Shooter failed...he failed at that BTW, and


#2. To pour Salt in the wounds.

http://daveslongbox.blogspot.com/2006/10/guy-gardner-vs-jim-shooter.html


It's pretty obvious the love and respect Byrne had for the Star Brand character there...easy to see why he would want to do that book.


And I agree it is pretty funny...but it's also incredibly unprofessional.

Some more from our old friend Johnny Boy concerning the Legion:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13027&PN=0&TPN=2

Side note:


Prior to the Superman revamp...

Adventure Comics #247 was the most valuable comic of the Silver Age...

Not Showcase #4
Not Amazing Fantasy #15
Not Fantastic Four #1

Adventure Comics #247.

A gutted history remedied that.


It's a mistake to think Byrne is anything less than completely hostile towards the Legion....as well as Jim Shooter. Put the two together...and the last 20 years of the Legion's slide into obscurity and irrelevance are no longer a mystery.

Again...I fault DC for this, I fault Paul Levitz for this...but most of all, I fault Byrne's abuse of his star power and lack of respect for the creations of others and their fans.


Byrne has admitted he knew it was going to completely wreck the Legion.

Thats good enough for me John Byrne is the Devil,And will always be in the top 10 of my $hit list.
Now after reading this I hope Marvel hires Rob Liefeld to revamp Alpha Flight.

John Byrne is resposible for 9/11!

I have proof somewhere in my enormously volumonous pantaloons!

Oh, shut up , you stupid clown! *hic!*

Chill out boys! We all have to share the same body, remember!?

Supes, I know I'm not gonna change your mind about Byrne, but I'm posting a couple things for balance, from here and here .

"Shooter came along just when Marvel needed him -- but he stayed too long. Having fixed just about everything that was wrong, he could not stop "fixing". Around the time I left to do Superman, I said that I thought Shooter and Dick Giordano should trade jobs -- it was DC that needed fixing then -- and do so about every 5 years or so. Shooter had put Marvel into a place where all that was needed was a kindly father figure at the helm -- and that was not Shooter!

Sometimes he was right, sometimes he was wrong. The longer he stayed on as EiC, the more it became the latter. IMHO."

To me, that is not complete hostility, it is a mixed view. Byrne has also described working with Writer Shooter (on Avengers) as "smooth sailing."

As to the Legion, I agree that the loss of Superboy was a huge blow to the books, but I hardly think Byrne can be entirely blamed for the Legion's overall loss of popularity. I think perhaps those writing and drawing the books bear some blame. It's possible to do good Legion without Superboy (witness Shooter's stories in Action Comics). I haven't read much late-80's/early 90's Legion, but I would guess the biggest problems in the original continuity were letting the Legionnaires get too old, and letting things get too dark. I think the Legion works best when they are teenagers and exist in an optimistic future.

John Byrne, states that when he was a kid he didnt like the Legion cuz they was mean to Superboy, so he gets blamed for his part in the crossover that DC made him take part in with the Legion years later?
A crossover that, while killing Superboy, gave his history relevance after the Crisis.
Hmmm.
Then he draws upon that story twice to reintroduce Supergirl and kill off the phantom zone criminals...

yup he is to BLAME for everything!
I especially like how he used his hatred for them during his GENERATIONS storylines.

Blame is in the hands of DC...prolly Levitz since the meat of the story took place in Legion, face it this is all speculation. Given that I allways liked the death of Superboy and the pocket universe simply because he made the Legion stories
"really happen".
Which is what confuses me mostly whenever i read someone disliking the story considering that state of DC after the CRISIS.

I’ve read extensively that a partial reason that Shooter got so much bad press and had so many creators angry at him in the 1980’s was that he became an almost scapegoat for Marvel’s ill-treatment of Jack Kirby in regards to not giving him back his original art and not giving him credit for all the concepts he co-created with Stan Lee. Specifically, when Frank Miller and many others began doing panels at comic cons throughout the 80’s, a great deal of contempt was stirred up about Marvel (and DC to a lesser extent)—meaning ‘the companies’ themselves.

However, since Shooter was EiC of Marvel, he was often seen as the focus of this contempt by fans and creators alike. I’ve read a few articles on this, but its been a couple of years, so forgive me if I’m a little vague. At one panel in particular in San Diego, when this was a topic of conversation with Jim Shooter as a panelist, Jack Kirby’s wife Roz (now much older) was in the audience and actually broke down a little. It’s particularly sad, and highlights the ugliness of Marvel’s treatment of the guiding light of their success (Jack), but it also served to make things worse, particularly in that it put all the emphasis on Shooter. When Shooter was interviewed about this years later, he explained that almost 100% of Marvel’s decisions for things such as this in the 1980’s were made by higher-ups within the organization and their lawyers and he had very little control over royalties and such, especially for comics written long before he joined the company.

That might have little to do with Byrne or Wolfman or other creators, but it certainly contributed to Shooter’s reputation and from what I can tell (as a fan who has only ever read about these things, never experiencing them), it seems a little unfair.

Priest talking Marvel and Shooter

And I agree with him. Usually I agree with everything Priest ever says.

When I look at Jim's tenure at Marvel I don't see all the political infighting. I see the COMICS. Miller's DD, Simonson's Thor, Claremont's Uncanny, Byrne's FF, my favorite Avengers, Stern's Dr. Strange, etc, etc, etc.

No...I mean that was a lousy solution that fixed nothing, but that's not what I am blaming him for. You just don't understand.

Hey...who was Brainiac 5 in love with.


So let me get this straight...Byrne eliminates Superboy and Supergirl from the Superman mythos citing the desire to make Superman Unique again.

They never existed...

Even with the fix...Supergirl never existed.

Then 2 months later he turns around and uses the pocket universe to create his own Supergirl...


And you don't see just a little bit of contradiction there?


That's not my problem...that's yours.


Hey apologize for Byrne all you want...

But don't sit here and tell me his revamp of Superman didn't completely screw up the Legion...and expect me to take you seriously.

No...it did not make the Legion stories really happen...

Who was Brainiac 5 in love with?


You are completely unable to understand the impact of his Superman revamp on the Legion and all future stories...that's not my fault.

You seem to think the pocket universe story fixed something...it fixed nothing.


At least John Byrne admits he knew it was going to screw up the Legion...which is more than I can say for his apologists.

Not only do they not think Byrne was a factor...they don't even think the Legion was screwed up afterwards...

Trust me...you're wrong.

Let's keep the tone civil in here... or else... you'll all be temporarily re-directed to the Richie Rich message board.

The Superboy I grew up with was destined to become Earth 1's greatest champion.

The Pocket Universe Superboy was a counterfeit $20 bill. If I'd been informed when I was six years old that he was a clone from another universe, I'd never have begun reading Adventure comics or fallen in love with the Legion.

Shoving PU Superboy into the role of Earth 1 Superboy in order to preserve "continuity" accomplished the opposite effect, in fact. It made the Legion look like fools for having based their organization on the inconsequential career of a puppet boy. To have truly preserved the continuity of the original Legion, it should have been rebooted or cancelled at Crisis.

Worse than that, PU Superboy began the trend of creating faux characters to stuff into roles formerly owned by other Legionnaires. How badly that practice compromised the credibility and integrity of the Legion only a few years later is one of the most painful parts of its history.

See, this sort of sentiment just makes me wonder how one could have problems with Mr. Johns trying to remove the pocket universe idea from continuity. But, then I just start dreading the prospect of having to read posts where people get all up in arms and negative about that. Maybe I'll just go fix myself a snack.

Well, if he'd erased the Pocket Universe and made a serious attempt to restore the original Earth 1 Legion, I might agree. But he's doing something else.

Snacktime for me, too.

I'm not sure I care for the tone this conversation is taking.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions even when they disagree with you.

Calling people names such as "apologist" and telling them they have a "problem" is not cool.

Hey gang, I told the big guy about this place so who knows. I can't guarantee anything but he has the link!

Oh, kick ASS!

SHOOTER RULES!!!!!!

Superboy, you raise some excellent points.

I for one would like to see you continue to do so... and I'd bet good money you could make just as strong a point by choosing words that might not be as likely taken by others (correctly or not) as antagonistic.

Legion World's atmosphere is one which respects a multitude of views, but we don't want to be one of those boards - in fact, this board was founded to avoid some of the flame wars on earlier (Legion) boards.

Your posts are not flames, obviously - but I think they kind of stand out as a bit undiplomatic, in contrast to the normal level of discussions we usually see. We all make an effort here to respect the peace; I'd hate for anyone to misinterpret you as someone who does not.

Kent's right! Don't make me put on my moderator hat-- I look terrible in hats!

I have really enjoyed the Byrne/Shooter debate. But everyone play nicely.

Meanwhile, I'm going to jump the gun a little and start a welcome thread for Jim Shooter....

I agree with that.


You know what would have been the best and easiest solution IMO?


Just have the Legionaires remember, that history was changed and Superboy and Supergirl were erased by the crisis.

Simple, it preserves the history to a large extent, it also leaves the possibility that they might attempt to go back and change or save their lost comerades...and it doesn't make them akin to zombies who have forgotten huge chunks of their personal development.


Just have Brainiac 5 and Rond Vidar rig up some device that could with stand the alterations of the crisis to the time lines...we know it's possible because Psycho Pirate remembered.


Just a simple solution...have them remember who they were, and with the replacements to Superboy and Supergirl, have them remember they were time paradoxes caused by the crisis.

That's all they had to do IMO.