If, like me,
you’ve studied comic book history for a while then you’ll be more than familiar
with the name Jim Shooter. For those who
don’t know who Jim is, he’s the former Editor-In-Chief of Marvel Comics and
founded several other companies, notably Valiant (Acclaim) and Defiant. He’s easily one of the most polarising people
to work in the comic book field in the past forty years and people have strong
opinions on him, both good and bad. At
times Shooter doesn’t exactly help himself, but after being attacked as he has
been, for such a sustained period of time, you could forgive him for being
slightly aggressive at times, if not downright hostile. In Shooter’s eyes you’re either with him or
against him, and the common argument against him revolves around his habit of
rewriting history to suit his own needs (such as his instance that Jack Kirby
sued Marvel in the 1980s – it never happened).
Those for Shooter will point you towards the many changes that he
brought into effect at Marvel and the man was clearly more than capable of
being generous when the situation either called for it, or if it suited
him. If you want to know more about
Shooter then your first stop should be his blog – it’s a treasure trove of
material related to Marvel in the form of documents, letters and the like. Hopefully Jim will keep blogging and cover
all aspects of his career, including the nasty end of his time at Valiant.
One thing
Shooter was known for was his strong views on how comic book art should be
presented. This often saw him at logger
heads with veteran artists, such as Gene Colan who maintained that he left
Marvel solely due to Shooter’s interference when it came to how he drew, or,
more to the point, how he presented his artwork. Shooter had similar conflicts with others
that worked beneath him, and he wasn’t backwards in coming forwards with his
view on how things should be done. In
the eyes of artists such as Colan, who’d been drawing, successfully, since the
1950s, the thought of having a young editor telling him how to draw was galling
indeed. Others had similar problems,
some merely ignored Shooter and went looking for work elsewhere, some fought
and some just accepted the changes – in some ways it was easier to swallow the
pride to keep getting the money.
For a long
while we’ve heard how Shooter would offer his suggestions about art, Shooter
has always claimed that his suggestions were fairly tame and always
constructive. Others have claimed
otherwise, but, until now, nobody has ever been able to offer up examples of
Shooters changes and suggestions on actual art, well, nobody that I know of
outside of Shooter.
Recently I
showcased the original, unpublished, story that was slated for Captain America
#240. As we now know, the story was
shelved only for elements of the story to be later reworked by writer Roger
McKenzie for a later two part issue.
Alan Kupperberg, working with his brother Paul, then cooked up a new
story for issue #240, it was accepted and duly published. However what Alan originally submitted and
what was published are two different things.
Alan’s
original artwork was pencilled and sent in to Marvel for Don Perlin to
ink. Before it reached Perlin Jim
Shooter took a look at it and decided to send it back to Alan with copious
notes scribbled both on and alongside the artwork suggesting changes and
offering his own unique brand of criticism.
“I don't ever recall it happening to me before that or after that,” says
Alan. “I doubt I was pleased. He might point out something in person, but
no more notes.” Alan went on to state
that, although almost the entire story had to be redrawn, “I was probably just
paid once. I lightboxed the job and made improvements.” According to Alan there was likely no
follow-up from Shooter about the changes, and Shooter was certainly a hands on
man, “When he chose to be,” but the follow-up in this case was left to editor
Roger Stern and Kupperberg himself. As
Alan lightboxed the bulk of the work this means that there are two versions of
the published Captain America
#240, these pages and the final, lightboxed and inked, pages that saw
print. Feel free to compare the two.
What this
does leave is a unique insight into how changes were made, at Marvel, in the
early 1980s by Jim Shooter. To be fair,
some of Shooters views were more than valid, but it could be argued that the
actual wording left a lot to be desired, but you can judge that for yourself.
“This perspective doesn’t work. No!
Not a hand”
Panel 1: “Blah”
Panel 3: “Blah. Totally unclever action. Very Mild.”
Panel 4: “Bad head
shape”
Panel 3:
“Going up or down. Either way these guys
are falling”
Panel 4: “No
establishing shots”
Panel 1:
“Ok.”
Panel 3: “Blah. Not dramatic. Better a full figure. Wotta
pansy.”
Panel 5: “Cap’s head
isn’t shaped this way”
Panel 4:
“Blah”
Panel 5: “Kirby pseudo
fingers. Not an arm”
Panel 3: “Not
in perspective with (other aspects)”
Panel 4: “Painted on
floor”
Panel 1:
”Perspective. (about a gun) A carrot? Blah.”
Panel 4: (Shooter has
redrawn the hand)
Panel 2: “Bad
head shape”
Panel 3: “Where are
these guys”
Panel 4: “Blah. Why limp arm?” That’s D.C.
Why not straight?”
Panel 1:
“Doesn’t work”
Panel 2: “Perspective”
Panel 4: “Blah”
Panel 4: “Not
established. Perspective doesn’t
work. Blah”
Panel 1:
“What is this?”
“Terrible! None of this is established!”
“This whole
sequence doesn’t work”
“No drama
where it counts – no power – too much space wasted on Cap losing and
fleeing. Blah.”
