Comic Book Resources

Why does everyone act like this is a skill? I personally think it's a case of having no actual personal vision or compelling story to tell. Thus, he can just write whatever his artists like. It's just smart networking.

You are a bad writer with nothing compelling or interesting to say, but you turn that into a strength. Artists know that if they work with you, you will never demand anything challenging of them and will write whatever they want to draw, since it requires absolutely no sacrifice of you, since you have no original thoughts or anything interesting to say anyway. It works in both their favors...since the writer has no personal vision artists love working for him because it will be a cakewalk that caters to their strengths and won't demand them to leave their comfort zones. And for Jeph Loeb, his willingness to pretty much to do nothing more than string together a bunch of cool character appearances and fight scenes that the writer wants to draw ensures that he will constantly have a rolodex of hot artists who want to work with him (he's the equivalent of the cake course in college everyone loves to take because it's an easy A and won't even require studying).

By making his work so unchallenging for the artists, he guarantees that a lot of artists will want to work with him because his scripts are a cakewalk for them. Jeph than leverages these connections and relationships with artists into more work for himself. When Marvel hired Jeph Loeb exclusively, I doubt anyone there is crazy enough to think he can write. They hire him because they know that with him comes a bunch of artists who normally wouldn't work for them.

A lot of the artists he can bring on a project have tended to have problems working with others and creative differences. Churchill with Joe Casey on X-Men, Ed McG was fired from Deadpool for being undisciplined, Joe Mad was a hot artist but undisciplined as hell, yet they can all work fine with Jeph Loeb and often go out of their way to. Why? Because they know he won't ask anything of them or have any creative differences since he has nothing he's creatively that attached to. His input is most likely just "I dunno, what do YOU want to draw? Okay, I'll work it in. Who cares if it makes sense?"

"the writer wants to draw" should be "the artist wants to draw"

Oh, and let me just add: what Loeb does actually WOULD be an impressive skill if he was able to do nothing but write scenes and characters that suited the strengths of the artist he was working with and managed to string those scenes and characters together to form a coherent, compelling story. THAT would be really interesting.

But to take a bunch of random scenes that would be cool to draw and use them to craft a story that just feels like a compilation of random scenes that would be cool to draw seems like a lack of skill, not good writing.

Brian Cronin: "Make Mine Marvel!"

Unfortunately, if Leprosy Lad were to write a comic, it would be just be made up of bizarre jabs at CBR and Marvel, regardless of the artist.

Although I guess if John Byrne was the artist, you could say that was working to his strengths.

While I agree with you, T, I think companies want him because he sells. That's all they really care about, anyway. And he probably sells for the reasons you outline, but I doubt that Marvel would care if he can get a bunch of artists to work with him if those comics didn't sell like crazy.

They also want him because of his hollywood connections.

Greg, I think you and I are in agreement, just phrasing it differently. Marvel knows a hot artist sells, especially one that doesn't work that much and is hard to hire. Marvel knows Loeb will bring these artists with him because he will never have creative differences with them, since he is not creative. Therefore, hire Loeb, you get hot popular artists you couldn't get otherwise, meaning you get sales. So Marvel and DC liking Loeb because he brings hot artists is the same as Marvel and DC liking him because he sells...they are both the same issue.

ANd Loeb knows that is his strength, because he has never even TRIED to sell a book on the strength of his writing alone. He only works with artists with a built-in fanbase. Morrison will create classics with artists that are hot and artists that are little-known workhorses like Chas Truog and Richard Case. Loeb won't because his artists are his selling point.

I dunno, I have always loved the Loeb and Sale collaborations, especially CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN and BATMAN: LONG HALLOWEEN & DARK VICTORY.

I'm not sure if this is anything new. I thought PAD's strongest writing on Hulk was when he was working with Dale Keown, Gary Frank, and whichever Kubert was drawing the book towards the end of his run. I was MUCH less impressed with the book when Angel Medina (who gave everyone huge foreheads) or Mike Deodato (who seemed to be in a slump at the time) did the art.

I'll admit that I inexplicably enjoyed Hulk #1, and I kinda liked the preview of Hulk #2. I'm wondering if my brain is fooled by the great art and the bright, happy colors.

This raises an interesting question in my mind: do a good artist and a good writer just naturally work well together, creating a good product in the aggregate? Does great art create the perception that a bad writer is better than he/she is? Does bad art drag down good writing?

(P.S.: No offense intended to PAD. I loved your 140+ issue run on Hulk, but it really seemed to slump around the 430s until issue 454, when Kubert took over. I've always been curious as to what happened there. Can I blame it on you and Marvel disagreeing on Hulk's post-Onslaught status quo?)

T. said: "ANd Loeb knows that is his strength, because he has never even TRIED to sell a book on the strength of his writing alone. He only works with artists with a built-in fanbase. Morrison will create classics with artists that are hot and artists that are little-known workhorses like Chas Truog and Richard Case. Loeb won’t because his artists are his selling point."

Millar's very much the same. I've read interviews where he goes on about how he is bringing one of HIS best superhero artists in on a particular project.

The bigger question here is what is the value of a comic book? The art, the writing, the whole package?
Was Kirby the best writer? Not really, but some of his books are considered classics.
What Loeb has going for him is that often his books are just plain fun. Maybe stupid fun, but fun. And isn't that why we buy comics to begin with? For a few minutes of enjoyment?

I would describe Loeb's recent output less as "stupid fun" and more as "insultingly awful."

Wolverine: Evolution was one of the most infuriatingly terrible stories I've ever read in any medium. "Wolverine and Sabretooth are descended from immortal werewolf cavemen who founded Rome, also they are destined to be enemies because of their differing hair color" is the kind of childish crap that wouldn't even make it on fanfiction.net, and the fact that this sub-fanfiction grade tripe could get professionally published is an insult to the very concept of storytelling structure. That story existed solely to showcase Bianchi's art and stroke Loeb's own ego that he finally wrote "the ultimate Wolverine and Sabretooth story," then killed the character so nobody else could follow it up with a better one. Not to mention that going in, he made it abundantly clear that he had no idea what Wolverine's actual origin was when he said that Wolverine "could be 500 years old" in an interview with Marvel Spotlight.

At this point, I place Uwe Boll in higher regard than Jeph Loeb. At least Boll largely acknowledges that his work is completely idiotic.

What Dave said.

I don't think I've gotten "a few minutes of enjoyment" or "fun" from all Jeph Loeb's output put together.

I thoroughly enjoyed his stuff with Sale, Superman/Batman and something else that escapes me right now, but I couldn't stand Wolverine and I dropped Ultimates 3 and Hulk after 1 issue with much regret. It's fine by me that he writes to artists. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

No offense intended to PAD. I loved your 140+ issue run on Hulk, but it really seemed to slump around the 430s until issue 454, when Kubert took over. I’ve always been curious as to what happened there.

Peter's talked about that period (IIRC in his CBG column) that it was during the period he was in a rather contentious divorce from his first wife.

I haven't read any of Loeb's more recent stuff, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I thoroughly enjoy Superman For All Seasons, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, and Hush. Those stories got me into comics and helped me discover even better works, but I still think those are good stories.

Superman for all Seasons was just a pastiche of the best parts of all Superman origins from different incarnation and media. And even then there were some fundamental flaws in it that I addressed in my Superman guest post here...it takes Superman's greatness as a given rather than showing you he's great. It's just a long, syrupy love letter to a Superman who never actually does that much. His few original contributions to the story are nonsensical like Toxin (what was the point of her?) and the kid falling off the roof of the building every day and the inept power suit guys.

Batman: Long Halloween is just three movies: Silence of the Lamb, Godfather and Presumed Innocent, ripped off lazily with Batman and a bunch of supervillains shoehorned in without rhyme or reason. There are so many plot holes in it, plus it's a poorly constructed mystery. It's all red herrings, no actual clues. He's so busy doing misdirection he forgets to actually lay out the answer to the whodunnit. Any part that works is just something lifted from one of those 3 movies. All his original contributions, as usual, make no sense or are inane. See for example his Calendar Man scene, where he tries to do a Hannibal Lecter scene. In the Hannibal Lecter scene with Clarice, Thomas Harris lays out Lecte's brilliant deductive mind and shows his train of logic to let you see how he can deduce so much about Clarice by just meeting her once. Loeb wants to do the same thing with Calendar Man but is too lazy or not bright enough to actually lay out a thought process for Calendar Man. So instead Calendar Man just KNOWS that there are two Holiday killers of different genders with no rational way of knowing. He just alternates between the "he" and "she" pronouns because Loeb just wants to rip off the Silence of the Lambs scene but can't be bothered to lay a logical foundation for Calendar Man's deductions that way Harris did for Lecter's.

Hush is the exact same plot as Long Halloween, with the exact same flaws, except Loeb just replaces the fanwanker Sale wanted to draw with whatever fanwankery Lee asked to draw. Just different fight scenes and cameos.

The only reason his Wolverine and Ultimates stuff is seemingly so much worse than his Sale collaborations is because he did not ripoff superior works wholesale this time but actually tried to contribute more of his own ideas, which is a no-no. His original ideas are always the weakest links in his works. If you take out the scenes in his Sale collaborations that are lifted wholesale from other works, what you'll have left is something just as weak as his recent Marvel work.

His problem isn't that his writing got worse, it was always that bad. His problem is that he's actually trying to rely more on his own writing and ideas than other people's writing and ideas the way he did when collaborated with Sale.

T, going to town. You should be a contributor here.

So, is the Hulk like the Ultimates? Is it a murder-mystery showcasing all his most iconic villains and then killing someone off for GRAVE IMPORTANCE.

Obviously, I agree with Cronin. Always dug Loeb's stuff, and anyone who can get the flashback/painted scenes out of Jim Lee that we saw in Hush deserves boatloads of credit.

In terms of understanding how to use his artists... Well, he's not as good as Alan Moore, but I can't think of anyone else that's much better than he is.

And he has this absolutely impeccable sense of, like, where to put the story beats for maximum impact.

Although I agree that he's an awful plotter. They're usually BAD story beats, but they're perfectly arranged.

T is absolutely spot on. Anyone with a passable amount of craftsmanship could do what Loeb does.

MarkAndrew: Why the hell would Loeb get credit for something Jim Lee did?

Krod: In the first issue of Hulk, Doc Samson and She-Hulk re-enact the scene of a murder where the Abomination was the victim. Iron Man, General Ross and Maria Hill are present too. Then they fight the new Winter Guard for no reason. Then there's a scene with Rick Jones, and Bruce Banner is on the final splash page. I'm just waiting for the revelation that the Leader is behind it all.

You know it's funny how MarkAndrew and I are always 180 degrees apart on this topic, because on just about every single other topic I think we are usually 100% in agreement.

Very well supported argument T.

I still like them.

MarkAndrew: Why the hell would Loeb get credit for something Jim Lee did?

'Cause he wrote the script, and gave Lee all these non-fighting and explosions scenes, which would SEEM to go against Lee's strengths as an artist.

But Jim Lee pulled 'em off beautifully.

That seems to speak more to Lee's ability than Loeb's.

Isn't that opposite message of "he knows how to provide for his artists"?

Brian Cronin: “Make Mine Marvel!”

Yep, I'm done with you.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'll defend Loeb slighty...as far as Hulk is concerned. (and that's it)

To be honest, I really, really am liking this new Hulk. There are still problems with awful dialogue, and admittedly I have a man-crush on Ed McG, but overall I am enjoying it quite a bit.

I completely agree with the vast majority of complaints against his writing, and I won't argue that the artists he works with are what have saved his ass/made his name. HOWEVER, I just read Hulk #2, and for the first time ever I think Loeb may actually be cognizant of how hacky his writing is. Hulk is operating of an almost Nextwave-ish level of insanity, and there's a splash page in this issue that makes me think Loeb is actually doing it on purpose for once.

Challengers of the Unknown actually was pretty good, though... so much so that i have often suspected it was ghostwritten.

I hate Challengers too. The courtroom scenes alone ruin the story for me. With that one, which took place in the 90s, I think it's pretty obvious he had A Time To Kill on his mind, and wanted to have a dramatic speech that matched the impact Matthew McConaughey's (sp?) dramatic last line of "Now imagine the child was white." So he crafted together a horrible courtroom sequence that was obviously all meant to culminate in Superman's last line on the stand "You believe a man can fly." I think he expected it to have a similar impact and resonance. But just like he couldn't be bothered in Long Halloween to think of a good way to show show Calendar Man's thought process, in Challs he couldn't be bothered to understand the simple details of how court cases work. All he wants to do is get to that last Superman line and have his Time to Kill moment, all logic be damned. This site goes into the details of everything wrong with the trial issue better than I could:

http://comicfacts.blogspot.com/2006/01/challengers-of-unknown-2-trial-of.html

And as the link shows, and this is something that came across to me when reading the book....Superman WAS NOT AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT! He's not a witness and has no knowledge of the events in question and can't shed light on anything. Why is he the surprise witness (something they don't even have in trials anymore)? In fact, the whole trial is dedicated to whether or not the Challengers are good people and heroic. That's fine and dandy, but that's not supposed to be the issue. The issue is supposed to be about the Challengers negligence and wrongdoing in causing an accident. Yet nothing at all in Loeb's written trial addresses the details of the accident, just whether the Challs are heroic. Their heroism has nothing to do with whether they irresponsibly caused an accident. They could be incredibly heroic with good hearts but have been irresponsible and caused an accident. They could be total evil assholes but have no liability in causing the accident. No evidence is presented about the accident. The accident is hardly addressed. Just issues about whether superheroes are good or not. Superman's line about "You believe a man can fly" is dumb because it's irrelevant to the issues of the case.

Superman's testimony just makes NO SENSE. It's bad enough he didn't do simple research about how trials are conducted, but there is no logic at all going on in the trial. His big Superman moment is a dud.

People held up Challengers to me as the one good Loeb book and when I read it I found it to be his most illogical, poorly thought-out book yet.

I hate Challengers too. The courtroom scenes alone ruin the story for me. With that one, which took place in the 90s, I think it’s pretty obvious he had A Time To Kill on his mind, and wanted to have a dramatic speech that matched the impact Matthew McConaughey’s (sp?) dramatic last line of “Now imagine the child was white.”

...except that the Challengers miniseries predated A Time To Kill by 5 years!

(unless you're suggesting that what he had in mind was Grisham's novel, which came out in 1990 or so... but i haven't read it so i don't know if the "imagine she was white" speech was in there or not)

oh yeah... otherwise, good point about the pointlessness of Superman being a witness.

T is 100% correct.

Man, I can't stand 90% of what I've read from Loeb.

Toxin (what was the point of her?)

Something funny crossed my mind concerning Toxin the other day. She's blonde, had a huge obsession with Superman and became a super-hero for like, a day. So I began to wonder: was Loeb originally planning to make her a pre-Matrix Supergirl (perhaps a modern take on "Super-Girl")? Don't know if that would qualify as a comic book "urban legend" (since I just came up with it), but that might be interesting to explore...

I think Loeb has been terrible since his "Superman" run ended. I would really be curious to see how his writing could carry a book w/o a kickass artist being attached to it.

Why does everyone act like this is a skill?

I don't get it, you even admit it yourself that it is a skill.

You call it "networking," but even if you want to call it that, it's still a skill, and it's one that Loeb is good at. Doesn't mean he's a good writer or what he is doing is good writing. In fact, don't I go out of my way to point out that it doesn't have to do with the relative quality of his writing?

Let me see...yes, here it is "So feel free to give Loeb some guff over his stories and the relative quality of them - but give the man credit for being a delight for artists to work with." So right there, I establish that it is not a matter of giving him credit for good writing, but rather that he is good at making his comics fun for artists to work on, and you SEEM to concur that the guy is a delight for artists to work with, but you seem to state your point as if it was in disagreement with mine.

I don't get it.

Loeb knows that is his strength, because he has never even TRIED to sell a book on the strength of his writing alone. He only works with artists with a built-in fanbase.

Except for Long Halloween, which pretty much made Tim Sale...

Yeah, I don't think Ed McGuinness was exactly a star, either, when he first began working with Loeb. Same with Ian Churchill. And Adam Pollina.

Joe Mad, Michael Turner, Carlos Pachecho and Jim Lee were, though.

What other prominent artists has Loeb worked with?

Yeah, I don’t think Ed McGuinness was exactly a star, either, when he first began working with Loeb. Same with Ian Churchill. And Adam Pollina.

Ed McG was a fan-favorite from his work on Deadpool with Joe Kelly. He already developed a following before getting fired from that job, I remember it clearly. As far as Ian Churchill and Adam Pollina go, Loeb wasn't a star writer yet and I don't think he started his policy of piggybacking off of hot artists yet. He was piggybacking off the 90s X-Men name, which is arguably even stronger than piggybacking off the name of a hot artist. And the 90s X-office was notorious for looking for uncontroversial writers without strong personal vision because they wanted everything editorially driven with a heavy hand and writers who could toe that line. Hence the ability of Scott Lobdell and Howard Mackie and Terry Kavanagh to last in the 90s X-Office, while writers like Mark Waid had immediate trouble adjusting.

You call it “networking,” but even if you want to call it that, it’s still a skill, and it’s one that Loeb is good at. Doesn’t mean he’s a good writer or what he is doing is good writing. In fact, don’t I go out of my way to point out that it doesn’t have to do with the relative quality of his writing?

Let me see…yes, here it is “So feel free to give Loeb some guff over his stories and the relative quality of them - but give the man credit for being a delight for artists to work with.” So right there, I establish that it is not a matter of giving him credit for good writing, but rather that he is good at making his comics fun for artists to work on, and you SEEM to concur that the guy is a delight for artists to work with, but you seem to state your point as if it was in disagreement with mine.

I don’t get it.

My point is that anyone can do that and would do it if they had nothing else in the way of ideas to bring to the table. It's like there's two people, and every time it's time to make a decision, one of them just says "I dunno...what do YOU want to do? I don't think any halfway competent writer couldn't do the exact same thing if they wanted to, which is to just approach the assignment with the plan to just insert whatever scenes the writer wants to draw in hopes to mask your own weaknesses.

Now if he could do what Peter David does, which is write for his artists' strengths, but still have the resulting scenes combine to form a logical narrative while including some well-done original contributions to the story, I'd give Loeb props. But to take a bunch of random scenes that your artist wanted to draw that don't seem to mesh well with each other, and string them together so that they read exactly like...a bunch of random scenes that your artist wanted to draw that don't seem to mesh well with each other. Who can't do that? Take a bunch of scenes that weren't meant to go together and make them read like they weren't meant to go together?

If I was a boss that let my employees set their own rules or a director that let my actors ad lib the whole movie and do what they wanted, I'm sure I'd be popular with my collaborators too. I wouldn't say it indicated I was good at anything though.

Now if he could do what Peter David does, which is write for his artists’ strengths,

But nowhere near as well.

I mean David's got some strengths that Loeb doesn't, and he certainly gives more thought as to how to use the medium to communicate personal work.

But in the singular category of "playing to his artists' strengths" - Which David is fine at, in a general, mood-oriented sort of way - he's not AS good as Jeph Loeb.

Peter David is a thousand times the writer Jeph Loeb is, or ever will be.

That was an excellent refutation of a point no one made, Ron.

I do have to say that one thing I liked about Loeb was that, yes, he did bring dynamic artists to the table. I got to see guys like Joe Mad or J. Scott Campbell doing Superman artwork, even if in pin-up form. I would have loved to see Frank Cho on his proposed Wonder Woman/Power Girl/Supergirl crossover, but he absolutely positively needs to work with Jeph Loeb on Ultimates 3.5 or whatever.

See, the plan should be to toss Loeb on titles like, say, Aquaman or give him a corner of the DCU to play in, just to get the artists that like him to be more willing to do DC work, and then shift those artists to the books that we would all love to see them on. Tee hee, tee hee.

Yeah, I know, never gonna work. It's okay. I just miss EdMcG on Superman.

Oh, and for Ron to not feel so bad: "Does anyone think Peter David is a thousand times the writer Jeph Loeb is, or ever will be?"