He did - in fact, it was the consortium of investors that he gathered together who were later repurposed to start up their OWN comic company, which is what later led to Valiant.

Of course, we all know how that went... and it's a shame, because at the time, when Shooter was still on-board, it honestly seemed to be producing titles which were head and shoulders above most of what Marvel and DC were producing (and certainly better than the all-style, no substance product of Image). He seems to be one of the only actual people involved in that venture who saw it as a chance to form a real and lasting comic company, though - most of his investors just wanted the chance to realize a profit by building the company up and selling it off. Hard to fault them for it, though, since they WERE venture capitalists, and the entire POINT was to realize profit...

I have to agree. Dark, damaged characters CAN be interesting in the hands of a good writer, just like light characters can. Its all depends on the talents of the writer.

I think we all must recognize that since at least the late 1980s, North American pop culture has been in a dark phase that has affected television, film, music and comics.

Let's not forget that when comic books actually were a part of the pop landscape from the 1940s to the 1970s, the stories all featured fairly well-rounded, noble characters in bright, colourful adventures. Then, when comic strip based characters like the ones in Star Wars, Indiana Jones and the rest of the Lucas/Spielburg canon were brought to film, they dominated the box office and created the modern blockbuster era.

Yeah. Around that time, Phil Jimenez wrote a very touching text piece about, I believe, someone he was close with who he had lost. In it, he came out to the world. Gutsy, IMO.

Don't know if anyone pointed this out, since you all get so many comments that it'd take me forever to see if they did...but Phil Jimenez created the Tempest persona for Garth. Changed my life.

I think that was good for comic book movies as a whole, but weren't Marvel's films already doing well by that point, before any of these other filme came out? Spider-Man I and X-men I had both done extremely well by that point, the Blade series will doing well enough to keep having sequals made, and even DD made a decent profit...

"His one big change is how crossovers are handled. But while we’re free to criticize how much better today’s are from yesterday’s, there still has to be an understanding that the industry hadn’t had a lot of experiences around corssovers other than THEY SELL when Harras’ reign was doing things like Onslaught or Age Of Apocalypse. And they did sell — keeping the books near the top of the sales charts."

I miss the early 2000s, especially the Cross-over free years at Marvel.

Warner's wouldn't normally meet with a Vertigo exec because Vertigo execs are supposed to report to DC execs (and DC to Warner's). And that's one ISOLATED incident which only underlines the importance of synergy — a concept you clearly aren't understanding fully. In synergy, there are no licenses; in synergy, all divisions of the company produce products because it's more profitable to do it yourself.

DC *did* make Batman tie-ins. But DC was royally upset by the feature film itself — especially since one of the prime motivations in doing Crisis On Infinite Earths was to clean up the backstory and make it easier for new fans from the film. DC mandates Joker was NEVER to have an origin, and Batman would NEVER show the Batcave to anyone other than his most immediate circle of superhero friends… but the movie opened with Jack becoming the Joker and has Vicki Vale getting the full tour. The memos are covered in a book called Batman Unmasked which goes into a lot of detail about how it was put together.

Arad's strategy for the films was simple: license everything and then come back to me for how to do it. Wizard is hardly a reliable source for movie news because (a) what they printed was often out of date, and (b) they were notorious for announcing movies that weren't even close to production. This is Hollywood we're talking about. There are tons of movies that are in various stages of pre-production but it's not until you get before the cameras that it's actually going to be made — and, even then, it's not a guarantee you'll see them. The Corman-produced Fantastic Four is one example.

Marvel's licensing slate also has a lot to do with other companies and other films. Even today, Marvel's films would not be as important were it not for smaller films (Sin City, V For Vendetta, 300, 30 Days Of Night, etc.) showing the full fertility of the medium for profitable movies — not to mention the lack of ideas in Hollywood overall. [If you doubt that, look at next year's TV season which already has 2 remakes and 2 movie adaptations in the works.]

When I say "fans" I don't mean the fan fiction-writing ones. I mean those — LIKE YOU — who seem to have even a mild investment in these things as "art" and therefore should have semblance of the original idea in them. Fans had every right to criticize decisions like the black and silver Spider-Man costume being mulled over by Marvel for the film (which Raimi jettisoned right away). If Arad had made Jean Grey an african american, he'd say "Who cares? It's just a movie."

That was part of the logic behind the Spider-Man: Unlimited cartoon. The costume was changed but it's still Spider-Man. It will sell more toys. Never mind that the story premise was completely un-Spideylike and fans of the character rejected it; it was all about selling toys. That was Arad's profit maker and he saw comics as the ads for toys ONLY. Movies? More commercials for toys.

Harras DID produce X-Men comics for the movie. And he did learn from the experience, which is why Ultimate Spider-Man got added to the slate around the time of the Spider-Man film. It's all there in interviews. What I am talking about was Chris Claremont's issues at the direct time of the movie that were completely incomprehensible even for a number of readers.

Marvel's execs wanted to see big boosts in numbers from the film and saw a drop instead. It was unrealistic to see jumps in numbers — Batman got it, but Batman also was part of the upsurge in sales overall and the actual number of readers for his core books wasn't as great as purported. But the drop in sales had more to do with the book's unbelievably bad handling at Claremont's hands, for which Harras took the blame instead.

The X-Men had already gotten a boost from the cartoon, but that might also have to do with speculators (5 covers for X-Men #1). And while the cartoon was "the best we had" from Marvel, and the first X-Men cartoon to actually work into a series, look again at its competition. NONE of the other animated series based on comics from 1991-1995 had viewers going to the comics and learning what they saw was kinda right and kinda wrong. I worked in a comic store in those years: I remember the confusion on kids' faces when they had to learn the difference between cartoon comics and real X-Men comics.

I had many kids reject X-Men for its confusion. Not so with Spider-Man, Batman, or even The Tick.

Quesada's continuity rant about the Harras days wasn't aimed at Marvel overall, it was aimed at crossovers and at specific products like Mutant X and X-Men: The Hidden Years. And what do we have now? Oh yes, Exiles, First Class, Origins, Legacy… Quesada's books are MORE continuity-tied than Harras' were at this point, and that's without accounting for his whole "restart" attitude towards Spider-Man.

His one big change is how crossovers are handled. But while we're free to criticize how much better today's are from yesterday's, there still has to be an understanding that the industry hadn't had a lot of experiences around corssovers other than THEY SELL when Harras' reign was doing things like Onslaught or Age Of Apocalypse. And they did sell — keeping the books near the top of the sales charts.

Crossovers exhausted themselves out of the cycle, but again: THEY. WORKED. Readers and publications like Wizard paid a lot of attention to them. And that interest translated into sales, which was the point of them.

The problem in the nineties was speculators. It was also the comic store — and still is the comic store (because you need to want comics to go into one). Comics were struggling: the 99¢ line, which was much better for kids, was stopped by places like Wal-Mart because the profit line was too small. The industry was having a hard time bringing in new readers and is still struggling to some extent.

I doubt you'd be able to argue effectively that the strong majority of contributors here didn't read their first comics from somewhere outside the comic store.

Few were complaining about the quality of stories until the very last year, when editorial commands from up high were forcing changes on the stories… commands that were coming from a committee, not just one man. By that point, Seagle and Kelly were taking their complaints to the Internet and building up fan ire there.

Leifeld… well… sure Rob's art's got problems. But have you ever seen the man at a convention with kids at his booth? Rob gets people excited about comics. Which is a lot more than I can say about Jim Lee (who refused to sign a book for a 10-year old at the con I attended because the kid was one spot past his "end of the hour" limit) or Todd "toys are my life" MacFarlane. There are a lot more people we can all respect in the industry — but blaming its weaknesses on one or two men is the wrong way to go.

I believe, I read the "rumor" about DC in a semi-recent Lying in the Gutters. It might have been the same one that told a story about a then-recent meeting between a Warner's exec and a Vertigo exec which resulted in Vertigo changing their creator-owned contracts. Warner's weren't in the loop about that, apparently. I'd do the footwork on that, but I don't have the time today.

"There’s a number of great articles about it in relation to Burton’s Batman — including how the only company that didn’t want to play along was DC because they were so upset with the film they even considered killing off the character in response."

Doesn't that PROVE a lack of synergy. Jeez....write an outline first.

"Well, X-Men wasn’t too bad (it just had the misfortune of coming out prior to BTAS re-writing the book when it came to cartoon heroes; the first Spidey animated series was post-BTAS, and holds up a lot better as a result). "

Well said. I (as a fan) was pretty impressed at the time. Afterall, they were the best we had at the time. I think Wizard burned up plenty of pages on them (not that THAT"S any sign of quality.)

"Yeah, X-Men was probably the real tipping point, since Singer delivered it (IIRC) within budget and it made tons of money, which opened a lot of execs’ eyes. And the reaction of the fan community - namely, that it miraculously didn’t suck - led to the benefit of the doubt being given to Spidey, which is what REALLY sent things into the stratosphere."

Absolutely, Stephen. And I thought I remember reading an Arad interview (in Wizard, I think) at the time where he kind of spelled out the Hollywood trajectory at the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he was the juice behind the strategy, at least.

"Arad was VERY un-fan friendly. He basically came out and said fan opinions on the ‘net were best ignored. Arad was also reportedly pushing for complete changes to the uniforms from film to film so that he could have new sets of toys. He NEVER cared for the characters beyond their marketability: one of the main reasons for Bob Harris getting fired was the inability of the comic division to profit from the X-Men movie."

First, he was RIGHT about "fans." If you want the prerogitive of fans to rule, read fan fiction. Especially fans who bitch and whine on the internet.

Second, SO WHAT he wanted to sell toys. the x-men are a KID"S comic. If you're selling toys, you're probably doing something RIGHT. Now I want good stories as much as anyone, but this ain't shakespeare. Good comics and selling toys are not mutually exclusive.

Third, Bob Harris and Rob Liefeld could have saved the nineties comics-wise by being aborted. Harris just couldn't imagine a comic that was understandable without having read the whole line. That was the best decision Marvel ever made. Say what you want about Quesada, but who in this room is rooting for a return to the Harris-era?

And he just couldn't find a way to capitalize on the movie? Make all the exuses you want about no one expecting it to be a hit, but it was a big-budget summer movie with a decent director/cast and MASSIVE buildup/fan speculation. Making a strong effort to sell comics to the movie crowd is only as hard a foregone conclusion as being able to chew gum and walk. Even WILD WILD WEST was gonna get a tie-in (With BUTCH GUICE) for god's sake. That guy was TERRIBLE!

And, finally, Arad may have left two years ago, but don't you think all their major strategies which you see being played out today are AT LEAST that old???

Ohh, yeah. AND Glen still blows me.

Tano

Well, X-Men wasn't too bad (it just had the misfortune of coming out prior to BTAS re-writing the book when it came to cartoon heroes; the first Spidey animated series was post-BTAS, and holds up a lot better as a result). The latter two... yikes. Unlimited in particular was a massive misstep, and Spider-Man hasn't ever really recovered as a TV property (the current series is the closest they've gotten).

"Marvel wasn’t even being looked at as a movie slate until AFTER X-Men was made and that had less to do with Arad and more to do with the fact that X-Men made money, Blade made money, and Spider-Man was going to make money."

Yeah, X-Men was probably the real tipping point, since Singer delivered it (IIRC) within budget and it made tons of money, which opened a lot of execs' eyes. And the reaction of the fan community - namely, that it miraculously didn't suck - led to the benefit of the doubt being given to Spidey, which is what REALLY sent things into the stratosphere.

And while I don't think Harras should've taken the fall for it, the X-Men comics around the time of the movie's release really should have done more to springboard off the movie's success. Then again, I have the feeling that even Marvel were stunned it was as well-received as it was.

There's a number of great articles about it in relation to Burton's Batman — including how the only company that didn't want to play along was DC because they were so upset with the film they even considered killing off the character in response.

If DC didn't produce a Wild Wild West comic, it would have come down to one of two possible decisions: poor sales expectations or actor image licenses. Brian proves it to be the latter here.

As for Arad and his ability to turn it into a movie slate: Arad said after coming to power that Perlmutter would license the films in such a way to not get made so that Revlon could use the losses at Marvel to lessen its income for tax purposes. Arad was the one who pushed for the cartoons so he could sell more toys — and he's responsible for X-Men, Spider-Man Unlimited, Avengers: United They Stand, etc. Which all sucked by most fan's opinions at the time.

Fox bought the license for X-Men, Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer right out because (a) the animated series made money, (b) they expected they could do a Batman-style marketing push, and (c) it was cheap at $500k because Marvel was so desperate. Marvel wasn't even being looked at as a movie slate until AFTER X-Men was made and that had less to do with Arad and more to do with the fact that X-Men made money, Blade made money, and Spider-Man was going to make money. And even then, it was expected to be a temporary fad at best like it had been in the 90s until lesser characters (not Marvel) were beginning to make money.

Arad was VERY un-fan friendly. He basically came out and said fan opinions on the 'net were best ignored. Arad was also reportedly pushing for complete changes to the uniforms from film to film so that he could have new sets of toys. He NEVER cared for the characters beyond their marketability: one of the main reasons for Bob Harris getting fired was the inability of the comic division to profit from the X-Men movie.

And then there's the whole Stan Lee miscalculation.

The real recognition of Marvel as powerhouse — especially the $585 floating loan Marvel has to produce movies on their own — came after Arad left in 2006 after months of speculation that he was going to become a license broker rather than a film producer.

(this was the film that had a giant robot spider, which supposedly the producer of the film, Jon Peters, wanted in the Superman film he was producing at the time and when that didn’t work out, it ended up in this film, instead).

He also wanted it in an adaptation of Gaimans Sandman.

It's pretty funny that you can find interviews with two prominent comic writers talking about a guy trying to force a giant spider into two different scripts.

Didn't Pat Lee do something like that? Sell the Intellectual Property of DreamWave to his new company DreamEngine? Or something like that, I don't remember...

"Your response validates my sarcasm. Only the people who read comic books treat them religiously. To everyone else (namely, the people that actually OWN the characters in question), they are commodities like bricks, televisions, mobile homes, etc.."

This is where I take issue. That's fine if that's your opinion. BUT, do you take time to comment on mobile home websites, too? Fuckiung BRICK websites?

This is not a brick. Art is not a brick (though x-men might sometimes be a brick.) If there were less of you and more of me, comics might not be novelty-items.

You're the schmuck. Bloiw me.

Tano,

Your response validates my sarcasm. Only the people who read comic books treat them religiously. To everyone else (namely, the people that actually OWN the characters in question), they are commodities like bricks, televisions, mobile homes, etc.. I remember when Marvel was in Chapter 11, there were people who could not conceive of a universe without Marvel comic books in it because Marvel had always been around in their lifetime, ergo it would always be around. Marvel was no more sacred than any other company that had filed for bankruptcy. Marvel came very, very close to getting out of the comic book business, and the people that would have made that decision would not have cared one whit for you or anyone else that thinks that comic books are important. You wouldn't even have been on their radar.

How is presenting the accurate facts as to how Ronald Perelman bought Marvel "hermetically-sealed geekness"? Unless accuracy doesn't count anymore?

If that was referencing the Kara Zor-El thing; http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001127.html

Aquaman was, from my reading, slowly turning into Swamp Thing. He communed with The Clear, the same way Swamp Thing was communing with The Green and Animal Man was communing with The Red. His adventures were steeped in mythology and the supernatural. I bet if it had been a Vertigo comic instead of a mainstream DC book no one would have batted an eye.

What I always found ironic about DC's stance that killing off two "popular" title characters would alienate readers is that it was PAD's work on Aquaman, and Morrison's maintainance of the same character personality and continuity in JLA, that made the character "popular" in the first place. It was like they were saying, "I'm sorry, but you made the character sell to well to continue with the story that made it popular."

Theno