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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

What other prominent artists has Loeb worked with?

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...

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.

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...

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

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)

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.

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.

Brian Cronin: “Make Mine Marvel!”

Yep, I'm done with you.

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

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.