Haha, I don’t. The books are fine but if we’re looking for the best of the best there are a lot of books that I consider much better than these that were already vetoed. My litmus is what books will I go back to repeatedly. None of these are “that book.”
I double veto Hellfire Vigil. This just might be the most disliked by fans issue of this era. Poor flow. Unbelievably all the heros standing by as the ICE stand ins take Dazzler. But I love Tom.
It is DIFFICULT, to say the least, to discuss the passing of Jim Shooter for those of us who were there at the bitter end of his tenure. It would be unfair to deny his achievements, yet also unfair to not balance those with what we experienced. Alas, I arrived at a moment where the achievements had stopped and the chaos began. I will say that the late great Mark Gruenwald had a strategy for the chaos. We would go to Jim with things that we KNEW we were going to change, things we KNEW he was going to have an issue with and make a BIG DEAL about it and what we should do. Jim would love being asked for help. He would sit down with us and calmly help us with the solution. We already KNEW the solution. But we would thank him and then update him on how much his help had improve the issue. He would leave us alone. Good strategy. But if we DID have an actual problem with a story, one we were stuck on...we could also rope in him. Mark would invite him to lunch. We'd go someplace nice than usual because Jim would always pay. He would help us solve the problem...and usually in a way that we wouldn't have thought he'd allow...Good strategy, Mark. So there's my positive story. The other stories will just have to wait.
Jim Shooter famously had a mandate that Marvel titles had to begin with characters demonstrating their power set. 20 yeas later, a different mandate said there should only be one character on a comics cover, even for team books. Are there any mandates now: ie, no time travel stories, no editor's notes?
Tom, do you mind clarifying what the deal is with comic appearances of the BIg Hero 6 characters? There’s a persistent rumor that marvel fully gave up the rights to the main cast of big hero 6 when the Disney film was made. Is that accurate or is it more that using what was already a fairly obscure team in the MU would just create confusion at this point?
Well, Disney owns Marvel, so Marvel didn't have to give up the rights as Disney already had them. What you might be thinking of is the possibility that Disney management communicated to Marvel editorial that the characters are off limits for general Marvel Universe use, in order to avoid any market/brand confusion with plans that Disney's non-Marvel divisions (which typically target a much younger audience) have for those characters.
I'll be the Grinch who vetoes "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" from Amazing Spider-Man #248. It's so heavy-handed and obvious in its attempt to tug at the heart-strings ("Surprise! Dead kid!") that it just feels like pandering.
As much as I love it, I think I'd like to veto Avengers Twilight, I just think the pacing wasn't perfect and it didn't have as much to say about the marvel universe or the characters it focused on as it seemed to tease in earlier issues. I'd also like to veto Punisher MAX, I think it leans too much on gore and shock value and while it certainly has some good commentary with that, I don't think the story it's telling is exceptional enough for that to be enough. (incidentally, that's my problem with a lot of Garth Ennis's stuff, though Punisher is definitely my favorite of his work)
I'd like to nominate X-Men Red Issue 4 by Al Ewing. Titled '3 Short Stories About Death,' this issue lives up to its name by showing us the death and resurrection of Empress Xandra, the sad fate of Wrongslide, and Magneto's denial of the Five's resurrection in a beautifully written and structured issue.
I know this will get vetoed immediately, but it's my single favorite issue of a marvel comic ever, and the thing that sold me on Ewing even more than Immortal Hulk so I've gotta put it out there
Realistically, once Xtinction Agenda did the same thing last week, it was inevitable it would happen again. As others have suggested, if Tom really wanted to measure the degree to which fans agree on the classics, he would have put some sort of restrictions on vetos (at a bare minimum, actually having to name the stories you're vetoing) to prevent outright sabotage. But he already approved Xtinction Agenda's blanket veto (and I knew he would), because he's doing this so that the next time anyone has a criticism of a comic he's working on, he can say "You guys can't even agree on 10 classics, it would be foolish of me to take your opinion seriously" or something to that effect. It's clever, because most won't recognize that he designed the rules of the "game" specifically to get the outcome he desired, which ultimately invalidates his point.
Tom, thank you for your reply. I greatly appreciate you interacting with fans in this way, as it is a valuable way to clear up confusion and misunderstandings. In that vein I will attempt to do that here.
Before suggesting that me and other fans like me were distorting things, likely you checked the article to make sure what was actually said.
AIPT: So, when sorting through X-Fans’ questions, I picked up on some concerns over their favorite characters not appearing in any promotional images. I’m going to list some characters and you tell me… whatever you can tell me!
Let’s start with Bishop.
Tom: It may take a little while. You’ll definitely see Bishop. We’re talking about Bishop.
AIPT: OK, how about Iceman?
Tom: Iceman, yes.
-------------------
Which totally tracks with what you are saying. Except, nobody is talking about that part of the article. We are talking about at the end where you tease big upcoming things.
-------------------
AIPT: OK, Tom — final question. Six months into the “From the Ashes” era… what three X-Men characters will X-Fans be talking about?
Tom: Wow. That’s a good question.
I’m pulling up my master chart here. For the sake of argument, rather than starting in May, let’s say from June. So that pretty much puts us around December. Let’s see… who do I have on my little chart and who can I point to?
I think we’ll definitely be talking about Inmate X.
I think we’ll definitely be talking about Iceman.
-------------------
While I am as grateful as any fan that Iceman was plucked from temporary comic book limbo to be added as a supporting character to EXCEPTIONAL X-MEN, Iceman has been appearing regularly and almost continuously in comics for 60 years. It's nothing in and of itself to write home about, much less have fans 'definitely be talking about Iceman'.
Tom - if you were in charge of the X-Office when X-Factor 1 (and the resurrection of Jean Grey happened) came out (which seemed to derail a lot of the X-office and Cyclops/Maddie in particular) - what would you have done?
Different character than Jean? Different team set up (no cyclops?)? Different creative team?
I also think it would have been cool if Kurt Busiek was the writer (since it was his idea on how to bring back Jean) and he has stated how much he likes the original team. What would he have done differently (Kurt if your around - chime in too!)
Tom - always love your memory on comic creators so thanks for sharing your thoughts on Jim. He was editor when I truly started collecting comics so he’s an important figure to me when it comes to Marvel.
I’d love to know more about Bobbi Chase. I just know Bobbi as the editor for most of Peter Davids Hulk run. So they are another figure I love but know little about what kind of person and editor they were.
"That project wound up not happening, despite my best efforts, for reasons that Jim had honed into a “tight five” over the years as part of his convention reminiscences. I unsurprisingly don’t really agree with Jim’s version of events, and he would no doubt not agree with mine, so the truth lies someplace in-between."
For those curious, some background...
In December 2001, CBR reported:
Shooter said that Quesada approached him months ago with the idea of writing for Marvel again.
***
The initial work from Shooter will be the sequel to the Korvac Saga (originally run in Avengers #167-177 and compiled in a trade paperback), which will involve the son of Korvac. He said that people were quick with suggestions, but nothing was ever forced on him. He had his pick. One suggestion was the Korvac sequel and he found he had a story that he felt wasn't going to repetitive or too derivative of his earlier work.
***
Shooter said Joe and editor Tom Brevoort have been "very respectful" and he hasn't gotten a "no" yet. "I also haven't told them I wanted to dress the Avengers in lingerie, but I know better," he said. "I know what I'm doing. I'm sure if I make any missteps, Joe will tell me. I hope I'm wise enough to know I realize that he's right. I think what's coming out will be good. We'll see. I hope I haven't lost my touch."
In September 2011, Shooter posted the agreement he signed with Marvel for the project:
"Back in 2001, Joe Quesada asked me to write an Avengers mini-series that would be a sequel to the Michael/Korvac Saga I wrote a couple of decades earlier. The plot for the series, entitled “Ill-Begotten: the Samuel Saga” is available for download here (in the sidebar). I ultimately decided not to do the project, but I was sent the paperwork. I don’t know exactly what Marvel’s deal with creators is these days, but this is what it was back then:
In July 2004, detailing why the project was ultimately aborted, Shooter stated:
"I found Brevoort to be a pain. Didn't get along with him, mostly because he kept insisting on lecturing me about introducing characters not doing "paper cut-out" characters in the action scenes and such…before I'd even started! I asked him if he lectured John Buscema about making sure to draw with proper perspective and correct anatomy, which only got him up onto a higher horse. I surmised that this wasn't going to be fun and I had plenty of other work, so I bailed."
Addressing those comments in July 2011, Shooter said:
"It wasn't "in response to criticism." It was out of nowhere, the kind of admonishment one might give to a first-timer. I learned to introduce characters probably before he was born.
Tom's only criticism was, as I recall (I still have all the e-mails, but it's not worth digging them up), that he felt that several characters could be eliminated and perhaps weren't necessary. I advised him that the specific characters he objected to were there because Quesada had told me to include them. My instructions were to bring back the Surfer and create a new Nova. I took pains to make those characters essential to the story and they were.
I withdrew the plot because I got the feeling Tom was going to make the job no fun at all. At that time, I had plenty of other work. I only agreed to do it in the first place because Quesada kept after me to do it and I thought it would be fun."
Tom replied to that saying:
"It's all water under the bridge, but I think that you'll find, if you look back at those e-mails, that I had more concerns than just the few things you mentioned here. These may have been the ones you felt most strongly opposed to or took the most umbrage to, but as I recall, I had a number of comments on your outline. It was an overview of eight issues, so that's somewhat to be expected.
I've got all of the e-mails too, and I'm perfectly happy to have you post the entire exchange here at some point if you're of a mind to, provided that everything gets posted, and not excerpted or edited. We didn't agree, you chose not to continue with the project as is your right (and an intelligent decision if you don't think you're going to be able to have an enjoyable experience, or get an end result that you'll be happy with.) But I'll completely stand behind the comments I wrote up and my portions of our exchanges.
From my point of view, I think it's a shame that you walked away. I don't think that our sensibilities and our instincts are so different, and I had every desire and intention of making the experience a fruitful and pleasant one. Didn't work out that way, and sometimes that's the way it goes."
"And so, here's an e-mail that I wrote to a well-established creator concerning a project that wound up not quite happening. I've taken out the one or two telltale signs that might indicate who it was, since there's no reason to air that sort of dirty laundry publicly. But hopefully, this will give you some idea as to how we might communicate with a creator when there's a difference of opinion on any number of story matters:
CREATOR'S NAME,
It seems as though you took offense to my comments on your outline, but really, no offense was meant. I've got great respect for your many accomplishments in the field. I certainly realize that you're not an amateur, and had no intention of treating you as one--if my comments came off that way, I apologize. But you know as well as anyone that it's the job of the editor to scrutinize the work, to examine it and see if there are any areas that could be made stronger, any options that may not have been considered. I certainly don't have all the answers--heck, I may not have _any_ of the answers--but it's a part of my job to ask these kinds of questions, and to offer up options and another perspective.
You're a professional. I'm a professional. I have confidence in your ability to tell a coherent story, and I'm aware that this is just an outline, with many details and specifics left open until the actual execution of the project. From my experience, however, it's always a mistake to hold off on voicing a concern or offering up an opinion until later in the process. If there's something I see, I'd rather put my cards on the table and discuss the issue up front, rather than have us take two steps forward and then have to take two steps back. If I don't state even what seems obvious up front, then if it doesn't end up in the final work, the fault is squarely on my shoulders.
I don't expect you to simply do what I say, but I think it's reasonable that if I have a question about why you're approaching a certain character/scene/idea/whatever a certain way that you articulate your point of view, and convince me of its correctness. If the logic is impeccable, then it's impeccable. But you and I could both point to plenty of mediocre comics that have been done by talented, seasoned professionals. I don't want to risk contributing to that pile through inaction, and I'd rather look like a moron and state the obvious than run the risk of having something get lost in the process. A good final product benefits all of us, and bringing up seemingly basic issues diminished neither of us. My focus is on the work, not on the individual behind the work. None of what I wrote was intended to be taken personally (bearing in mind that any act of creation is a personal affair), and I certainly didn't mean to insult or belittle you in any way.
So let me throw the ball back in your court. I'd still like to move ahead with the project. I hold to some of my reservations about the specific points raised in my first response, but we can work those out through discussion. But if you think this is just an unworkable situation, let's shake hands and walk away now. And if you'd like to speak about any of these issues directly, you can always reach me at PHONE NUMBER.
"In a nutshell, Joe Quesada badgered me into doing the Korvac project and I wrote the plot. Rich Rider died because Joe asked me to write him out and create a new Nova. Tom Brevoort was assigned as editor. We didn't get along. I had other, less aggravating things to do so I bailed out."
"Since I walked away from the Korvac Saga sequel due to what I felt was a condescending, I'll-show-you-who's-boss attitude from the editor, Marvel has expressed no interest in my services in any capacity.
***
I don't know why Tom felt he had to treat me like a rookie, even admonishing me to introduce the characters. Me! I learned to introduce characters before Tom could spell his name. Whether he likes my writing or not, I would think that anyone who had read any of it could see that I know the basics.
I'll end this with a sugar coating, sincere, not child-psych. I have heard a lot of good things about Tom and his work. He is highly regarded as an editor by many people whose opinions I respect. And he has been a gentleman when he has visited this blog. Too bad things didn't work out.
***
I "blew my top" [in response to Tom's feedback] approximately to the same degree I blew it in the answer you quote, for the reasons I stated. No histrionics. No confrontation, even. E-mail exchanges only. I finally sent a copy of all the exchanges to Quesada and asked him what next. Nothing, apparently. That was it."
***
Tom Brevoort was definitely talking about me and the Korvac sequel. I have all of his e-mails, including those quoted, and all of mine. He didn't quote the ones of his I found offputting.
"I'd be happy to go through chapter-and-verse on the Korvac project at any point that Jim would like to. Like him, I've saved all of the correspondence from that period, and I'm happy to share all of it if Jim is, provided that it's all of it, and not some edited transcript designed to make one side look better or worse. I think it's a shame that the project never happened, but that's the way it goes sometimes."
"I never had any serious contentions with any creative people while I was at VALIANT, certainly not Quesada. VALIANT hired him again after I was gone. Though the Korvac Saga sequel he asked me to do never happened because editor Tom Brevoort seemed be intent on treating me like a rookie — no thanks — as far as I know, there wasn't and isn't bad blood between Quesada and me. Unless my recent reviews and evaluations of Marvel have pissed him off."
"Joe Quesada asked me to write the sequel to the Korvac Saga, and I said, “Alright, I can do that.” And he said, “I want a few things I want in there. I want you to have the Surfer in there, because he’s on some planet, and we want to get him back in the mix.” He said, “I want you to create a new Nova, and I want you to do some other things.”
I said, “Okay, I can do that.” … So, I wrote the plot. I said, “I want to make sure you guys are okay with this. You don’t have it paid yet, you tell me it’s good, we go. If you have any problems with it, we’ll discuss… If you don’t like it, that’s fine.”
So, I sent it in, and Quesada gave it to Brevoort, Tom Brevoort. And so, Brevoort sends me emails, or calls me, I don’t know what. And he says, “Where do you get off?… Just deciding to create a new Nova…” I said, “Talk to your boss.” He said, “Why are you putting the Surfer? We don’t need the Surfer in this.” I said, “He has a critical role, and we do need him, and again, Joe told me… That’s what he wanted.”
And so, he had objection to this, objection to that… And it was all stuff that Quesada told me to do. So, okay, he got over that part of it. And then he says, “Well, you have all these characters in here, you’re going to have to introduce these characters.” I said, “Tom, I was introducing characters before you were born. Come on…”
So, he’s giving me this… This hazing… And I get mad. And I said, “Why don’t you call John Buscema, and tell him to do proper anatomy… What are you talking about? I don’t need this… What, you’re going to nitpick everything I do?” I think, a lot of people there, they just didn’t want me around. I mean, somehow, I was a threat to them or something, I don’t know.
But anyway, so I just said, “You know what? Forget it. I’m not doing this. If this is going to be a hassle the whole way, for these…” I don’t remember how many issues… Eight issues, 10 issues, whatever it was. I said, “I don’t need this crap.” I had other work. I was doing it because it was fun. But if it’s not going to be fun, then why am I doing it."
And apropos of Tom's assertion that "Jim never told any story in which he wasn’t the absolute hero", back in June 2011, Shooter wrote on that subject:
"In a tale told by an honest man who's reasonably self aware, he is the student, the teacher, the smart one, the doofus, the wise adjudicator, the maker of bad judgments…. You get the drift. I was all of those things and each side of many more such couplings. I've cited some less than stellar moments. So have others. Brett Breeding's comment mentions a bad judgment I made as well as good ones. There are plenty more of both. Stay tuned.
I'm trying to be that honest man. I think I am reasonably self aware. I tell it like it was to the best of my ability."
Punisher MAX #13-18 - Mother Russia and Infinity Gauntlet were vetoed by Vic Vega in reply to Xtinction Agenda's nomination of them.
I veto:
Spectacular Spider-Man #310 by Chip Zdarsky
Avengers Twilight
FF 19 by North
Scarlet Witch by Robinson
Fantastic Four #587 (death of Johnny Storm)
Elektra: Assassin
ROM Spaceknight #25
Nth Man
I nominate:
Hellfire Vigil
Avengers #383
Count Duckula #14
Double Dragon #6
Secret Defenders #15
Spider-Man: Funeral for an Octopus
Atlantis Rising
I veto Hellfire Vigil avengers 383 and Double Dragon 6
Why do you hate Tom?
Haha, I don’t. The books are fine but if we’re looking for the best of the best there are a lot of books that I consider much better than these that were already vetoed. My litmus is what books will I go back to repeatedly. None of these are “that book.”
I double veto Hellfire Vigil. This just might be the most disliked by fans issue of this era. Poor flow. Unbelievably all the heros standing by as the ICE stand ins take Dazzler. But I love Tom.
It is DIFFICULT, to say the least, to discuss the passing of Jim Shooter for those of us who were there at the bitter end of his tenure. It would be unfair to deny his achievements, yet also unfair to not balance those with what we experienced. Alas, I arrived at a moment where the achievements had stopped and the chaos began. I will say that the late great Mark Gruenwald had a strategy for the chaos. We would go to Jim with things that we KNEW we were going to change, things we KNEW he was going to have an issue with and make a BIG DEAL about it and what we should do. Jim would love being asked for help. He would sit down with us and calmly help us with the solution. We already KNEW the solution. But we would thank him and then update him on how much his help had improve the issue. He would leave us alone. Good strategy. But if we DID have an actual problem with a story, one we were stuck on...we could also rope in him. Mark would invite him to lunch. We'd go someplace nice than usual because Jim would always pay. He would help us solve the problem...and usually in a way that we wouldn't have thought he'd allow...Good strategy, Mark. So there's my positive story. The other stories will just have to wait.
Jim Shooter famously had a mandate that Marvel titles had to begin with characters demonstrating their power set. 20 yeas later, a different mandate said there should only be one character on a comics cover, even for team books. Are there any mandates now: ie, no time travel stories, no editor's notes?
Tom, do you mind clarifying what the deal is with comic appearances of the BIg Hero 6 characters? There’s a persistent rumor that marvel fully gave up the rights to the main cast of big hero 6 when the Disney film was made. Is that accurate or is it more that using what was already a fairly obscure team in the MU would just create confusion at this point?
Well, Disney owns Marvel, so Marvel didn't have to give up the rights as Disney already had them. What you might be thinking of is the possibility that Disney management communicated to Marvel editorial that the characters are off limits for general Marvel Universe use, in order to avoid any market/brand confusion with plans that Disney's non-Marvel divisions (which typically target a much younger audience) have for those characters.
I nominate:
Fantastic Four: Solve Everything by Jonathan Hickman
X-Men Red #4 “Three Short Stories About Death” by Al Ewing
Sabretooth: The Adversary by Victor Lavalle
Hey Tom, Hope you’re well! Am I allowed to nominate that people stop complaining about Peter and MJ not being married?
I also still think that this exercise is to prove that there can never be a true consensus on a top 10.
I’ll also nominate Black Bolt by Saladin Ahmed and Immortal Iron Fist #16.
Good call on that iron Fist issue - it was very cool.
I'll be the Grinch who vetoes "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" from Amazing Spider-Man #248. It's so heavy-handed and obvious in its attempt to tug at the heart-strings ("Surprise! Dead kid!") that it just feels like pandering.
You’re a monster.
As much as I love it, I think I'd like to veto Avengers Twilight, I just think the pacing wasn't perfect and it didn't have as much to say about the marvel universe or the characters it focused on as it seemed to tease in earlier issues. I'd also like to veto Punisher MAX, I think it leans too much on gore and shock value and while it certainly has some good commentary with that, I don't think the story it's telling is exceptional enough for that to be enough. (incidentally, that's my problem with a lot of Garth Ennis's stuff, though Punisher is definitely my favorite of his work)
I'd like to nominate X-Men Red Issue 4 by Al Ewing. Titled '3 Short Stories About Death,' this issue lives up to its name by showing us the death and resurrection of Empress Xandra, the sad fate of Wrongslide, and Magneto's denial of the Five's resurrection in a beautifully written and structured issue.
I know this will get vetoed immediately, but it's my single favorite issue of a marvel comic ever, and the thing that sold me on Ewing even more than Immortal Hulk so I've gotta put it out there
I've lost every interest on the survey after each and an every silver age story has been vetoed by somebody that eventually never read them.
So, I put my veto on each and every story left on the list.
I believe the survey is to demonstrate a message that all fans cannot be pleased.
Wow, it really speaks poorly of you to be so petty
Realistically, once Xtinction Agenda did the same thing last week, it was inevitable it would happen again. As others have suggested, if Tom really wanted to measure the degree to which fans agree on the classics, he would have put some sort of restrictions on vetos (at a bare minimum, actually having to name the stories you're vetoing) to prevent outright sabotage. But he already approved Xtinction Agenda's blanket veto (and I knew he would), because he's doing this so that the next time anyone has a criticism of a comic he's working on, he can say "You guys can't even agree on 10 classics, it would be foolish of me to take your opinion seriously" or something to that effect. It's clever, because most won't recognize that he designed the rules of the "game" specifically to get the outcome he desired, which ultimately invalidates his point.
Hey, I already vetoed punisher 13-18, infinity gauntlet, hulk 340, X-men 205 and DD 253 :)
Tom, thank you for your reply. I greatly appreciate you interacting with fans in this way, as it is a valuable way to clear up confusion and misunderstandings. In that vein I will attempt to do that here.
Before suggesting that me and other fans like me were distorting things, likely you checked the article to make sure what was actually said.
https://aiptcomics.com/2024/05/06/x-men-monday-tom-brevoort-from-the-ashes/
And got to the part
-------------------
AIPT: So, when sorting through X-Fans’ questions, I picked up on some concerns over their favorite characters not appearing in any promotional images. I’m going to list some characters and you tell me… whatever you can tell me!
Let’s start with Bishop.
Tom: It may take a little while. You’ll definitely see Bishop. We’re talking about Bishop.
AIPT: OK, how about Iceman?
Tom: Iceman, yes.
-------------------
Which totally tracks with what you are saying. Except, nobody is talking about that part of the article. We are talking about at the end where you tease big upcoming things.
-------------------
AIPT: OK, Tom — final question. Six months into the “From the Ashes” era… what three X-Men characters will X-Fans be talking about?
Tom: Wow. That’s a good question.
I’m pulling up my master chart here. For the sake of argument, rather than starting in May, let’s say from June. So that pretty much puts us around December. Let’s see… who do I have on my little chart and who can I point to?
I think we’ll definitely be talking about Inmate X.
I think we’ll definitely be talking about Iceman.
-------------------
While I am as grateful as any fan that Iceman was plucked from temporary comic book limbo to be added as a supporting character to EXCEPTIONAL X-MEN, Iceman has been appearing regularly and almost continuously in comics for 60 years. It's nothing in and of itself to write home about, much less have fans 'definitely be talking about Iceman'.
Tom - if you were in charge of the X-Office when X-Factor 1 (and the resurrection of Jean Grey happened) came out (which seemed to derail a lot of the X-office and Cyclops/Maddie in particular) - what would you have done?
Different character than Jean? Different team set up (no cyclops?)? Different creative team?
I also think it would have been cool if Kurt Busiek was the writer (since it was his idea on how to bring back Jean) and he has stated how much he likes the original team. What would he have done differently (Kurt if your around - chime in too!)
I would have done a lot differently!
Maddie would have taken Jean's place at the bottom of Jamaica Bay? :P
People like to veto more than they like to nominate.
Tom - always love your memory on comic creators so thanks for sharing your thoughts on Jim. He was editor when I truly started collecting comics so he’s an important figure to me when it comes to Marvel.
I’d love to know more about Bobbi Chase. I just know Bobbi as the editor for most of Peter Davids Hulk run. So they are another figure I love but know little about what kind of person and editor they were.
"That project wound up not happening, despite my best efforts, for reasons that Jim had honed into a “tight five” over the years as part of his convention reminiscences. I unsurprisingly don’t really agree with Jim’s version of events, and he would no doubt not agree with mine, so the truth lies someplace in-between."
For those curious, some background...
In December 2001, CBR reported:
Shooter said that Quesada approached him months ago with the idea of writing for Marvel again.
***
The initial work from Shooter will be the sequel to the Korvac Saga (originally run in Avengers #167-177 and compiled in a trade paperback), which will involve the son of Korvac. He said that people were quick with suggestions, but nothing was ever forced on him. He had his pick. One suggestion was the Korvac sequel and he found he had a story that he felt wasn't going to repetitive or too derivative of his earlier work.
***
Shooter said Joe and editor Tom Brevoort have been "very respectful" and he hasn't gotten a "no" yet. "I also haven't told them I wanted to dress the Avengers in lingerie, but I know better," he said. "I know what I'm doing. I'm sure if I make any missteps, Joe will tell me. I hope I'm wise enough to know I realize that he's right. I think what's coming out will be good. We'll see. I hope I haven't lost my touch."
https://www.cbr.com/jim-shooter-assemble-discusses-upcoming-avengers-work/
In September 2011, Shooter posted the agreement he signed with Marvel for the project:
"Back in 2001, Joe Quesada asked me to write an Avengers mini-series that would be a sequel to the Michael/Korvac Saga I wrote a couple of decades earlier. The plot for the series, entitled “Ill-Begotten: the Samuel Saga” is available for download here (in the sidebar). I ultimately decided not to do the project, but I was sent the paperwork. I don’t know exactly what Marvel’s deal with creators is these days, but this is what it was back then:
http://jimshooter.com/2011/09/few-more-thoughts-regarding-art-return.html/
And the plot outline:
https://www.shooterswork.com/docs/korvac-sequel-shooter.htm
In July 2004, detailing why the project was ultimately aborted, Shooter stated:
"I found Brevoort to be a pain. Didn't get along with him, mostly because he kept insisting on lecturing me about introducing characters not doing "paper cut-out" characters in the action scenes and such…before I'd even started! I asked him if he lectured John Buscema about making sure to draw with proper perspective and correct anatomy, which only got him up onto a higher horse. I surmised that this wasn't going to be fun and I had plenty of other work, so I bailed."
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/forum/index.php?topic=2874.0
Addressing those comments in July 2011, Shooter said:
"It wasn't "in response to criticism." It was out of nowhere, the kind of admonishment one might give to a first-timer. I learned to introduce characters probably before he was born.
Tom's only criticism was, as I recall (I still have all the e-mails, but it's not worth digging them up), that he felt that several characters could be eliminated and perhaps weren't necessary. I advised him that the specific characters he objected to were there because Quesada had told me to include them. My instructions were to bring back the Surfer and create a new Nova. I took pains to make those characters essential to the story and they were.
I withdrew the plot because I got the feeling Tom was going to make the job no fun at all. At that time, I had plenty of other work. I only agreed to do it in the first place because Quesada kept after me to do it and I thought it would be fun."
Tom replied to that saying:
"It's all water under the bridge, but I think that you'll find, if you look back at those e-mails, that I had more concerns than just the few things you mentioned here. These may have been the ones you felt most strongly opposed to or took the most umbrage to, but as I recall, I had a number of comments on your outline. It was an overview of eight issues, so that's somewhat to be expected.
I've got all of the e-mails too, and I'm perfectly happy to have you post the entire exchange here at some point if you're of a mind to, provided that everything gets posted, and not excerpted or edited. We didn't agree, you chose not to continue with the project as is your right (and an intelligent decision if you don't think you're going to be able to have an enjoyable experience, or get an end result that you'll be happy with.) But I'll completely stand behind the comments I wrote up and my portions of our exchanges.
From my point of view, I think it's a shame that you walked away. I don't think that our sensibilities and our instincts are so different, and I had every desire and intention of making the experience a fruitful and pleasant one. Didn't work out that way, and sometimes that's the way it goes."
http://jimshooter.com/2011/07/storytelling-ran.html/
In November 2009, Tom wrote:
"And so, here's an e-mail that I wrote to a well-established creator concerning a project that wound up not quite happening. I've taken out the one or two telltale signs that might indicate who it was, since there's no reason to air that sort of dirty laundry publicly. But hopefully, this will give you some idea as to how we might communicate with a creator when there's a difference of opinion on any number of story matters:
CREATOR'S NAME,
It seems as though you took offense to my comments on your outline, but really, no offense was meant. I've got great respect for your many accomplishments in the field. I certainly realize that you're not an amateur, and had no intention of treating you as one--if my comments came off that way, I apologize. But you know as well as anyone that it's the job of the editor to scrutinize the work, to examine it and see if there are any areas that could be made stronger, any options that may not have been considered. I certainly don't have all the answers--heck, I may not have _any_ of the answers--but it's a part of my job to ask these kinds of questions, and to offer up options and another perspective.
You're a professional. I'm a professional. I have confidence in your ability to tell a coherent story, and I'm aware that this is just an outline, with many details and specifics left open until the actual execution of the project. From my experience, however, it's always a mistake to hold off on voicing a concern or offering up an opinion until later in the process. If there's something I see, I'd rather put my cards on the table and discuss the issue up front, rather than have us take two steps forward and then have to take two steps back. If I don't state even what seems obvious up front, then if it doesn't end up in the final work, the fault is squarely on my shoulders.
I don't expect you to simply do what I say, but I think it's reasonable that if I have a question about why you're approaching a certain character/scene/idea/whatever a certain way that you articulate your point of view, and convince me of its correctness. If the logic is impeccable, then it's impeccable. But you and I could both point to plenty of mediocre comics that have been done by talented, seasoned professionals. I don't want to risk contributing to that pile through inaction, and I'd rather look like a moron and state the obvious than run the risk of having something get lost in the process. A good final product benefits all of us, and bringing up seemingly basic issues diminished neither of us. My focus is on the work, not on the individual behind the work. None of what I wrote was intended to be taken personally (bearing in mind that any act of creation is a personal affair), and I certainly didn't mean to insult or belittle you in any way.
So let me throw the ball back in your court. I'd still like to move ahead with the project. I hold to some of my reservations about the specific points raised in my first response, but we can work those out through discussion. But if you think this is just an unworkable situation, let's shake hands and walk away now. And if you'd like to speak about any of these issues directly, you can always reach me at PHONE NUMBER.
Please let me know.
Tom Brevoort"
https://web.archive.org/web/20091129040916/http://marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/1649
In September 2011, Shooter wrote:
"In a nutshell, Joe Quesada badgered me into doing the Korvac project and I wrote the plot. Rich Rider died because Joe asked me to write him out and create a new Nova. Tom Brevoort was assigned as editor. We didn't get along. I had other, less aggravating things to do so I bailed out."
http://jimshooter.com/2011/09/animal-house.html/
In October 2011, Shooter wrote:
"Since I walked away from the Korvac Saga sequel due to what I felt was a condescending, I'll-show-you-who's-boss attitude from the editor, Marvel has expressed no interest in my services in any capacity.
***
I don't know why Tom felt he had to treat me like a rookie, even admonishing me to introduce the characters. Me! I learned to introduce characters before Tom could spell his name. Whether he likes my writing or not, I would think that anyone who had read any of it could see that I know the basics.
I'll end this with a sugar coating, sincere, not child-psych. I have heard a lot of good things about Tom and his work. He is highly regarded as an editor by many people whose opinions I respect. And he has been a gentleman when he has visited this blog. Too bad things didn't work out.
***
I "blew my top" [in response to Tom's feedback] approximately to the same degree I blew it in the answer you quote, for the reasons I stated. No histrionics. No confrontation, even. E-mail exchanges only. I finally sent a copy of all the exchanges to Quesada and asked him what next. Nothing, apparently. That was it."
***
Tom Brevoort was definitely talking about me and the Korvac sequel. I have all of his e-mails, including those quoted, and all of mine. He didn't quote the ones of his I found offputting.
http://jimshooter.com/2011/10/new-52-general-conclusions-and-secre.html/
Tom wrote:
"I'd be happy to go through chapter-and-verse on the Korvac project at any point that Jim would like to. Like him, I've saved all of the correspondence from that period, and I'm happy to share all of it if Jim is, provided that it's all of it, and not some edited transcript designed to make one side look better or worse. I think it's a shame that the project never happened, but that's the way it goes sometimes."
http://jimshooter.com/2011/10/ultimate-comics-all-new-spider-man-1.html/
In November 2011, Shooter wrote:
"I never had any serious contentions with any creative people while I was at VALIANT, certainly not Quesada. VALIANT hired him again after I was gone. Though the Korvac Saga sequel he asked me to do never happened because editor Tom Brevoort seemed be intent on treating me like a rookie — no thanks — as far as I know, there wasn't and isn't bad blood between Quesada and me. Unless my recent reviews and evaluations of Marvel have pissed him off."
http://jimshooter.com/2011/11/first-this-one-more-thing-about-mass.html/
In 2021, Shooter said:
"Joe Quesada asked me to write the sequel to the Korvac Saga, and I said, “Alright, I can do that.” And he said, “I want a few things I want in there. I want you to have the Surfer in there, because he’s on some planet, and we want to get him back in the mix.” He said, “I want you to create a new Nova, and I want you to do some other things.”
I said, “Okay, I can do that.” … So, I wrote the plot. I said, “I want to make sure you guys are okay with this. You don’t have it paid yet, you tell me it’s good, we go. If you have any problems with it, we’ll discuss… If you don’t like it, that’s fine.”
So, I sent it in, and Quesada gave it to Brevoort, Tom Brevoort. And so, Brevoort sends me emails, or calls me, I don’t know what. And he says, “Where do you get off?… Just deciding to create a new Nova…” I said, “Talk to your boss.” He said, “Why are you putting the Surfer? We don’t need the Surfer in this.” I said, “He has a critical role, and we do need him, and again, Joe told me… That’s what he wanted.”
And so, he had objection to this, objection to that… And it was all stuff that Quesada told me to do. So, okay, he got over that part of it. And then he says, “Well, you have all these characters in here, you’re going to have to introduce these characters.” I said, “Tom, I was introducing characters before you were born. Come on…”
So, he’s giving me this… This hazing… And I get mad. And I said, “Why don’t you call John Buscema, and tell him to do proper anatomy… What are you talking about? I don’t need this… What, you’re going to nitpick everything I do?” I think, a lot of people there, they just didn’t want me around. I mean, somehow, I was a threat to them or something, I don’t know.
But anyway, so I just said, “You know what? Forget it. I’m not doing this. If this is going to be a hassle the whole way, for these…” I don’t remember how many issues… Eight issues, 10 issues, whatever it was. I said, “I don’t need this crap.” I had other work. I was doing it because it was fun. But if it’s not going to be fun, then why am I doing it."
https://comicbookhistorians.com/jim-shooter-biographical-interview-by-alex-grand-jim-thompson/
And apropos of Tom's assertion that "Jim never told any story in which he wasn’t the absolute hero", back in June 2011, Shooter wrote on that subject:
"In a tale told by an honest man who's reasonably self aware, he is the student, the teacher, the smart one, the doofus, the wise adjudicator, the maker of bad judgments…. You get the drift. I was all of those things and each side of many more such couplings. I've cited some less than stellar moments. So have others. Brett Breeding's comment mentions a bad judgment I made as well as good ones. There are plenty more of both. Stay tuned.
I'm trying to be that honest man. I think I am reasonably self aware. I tell it like it was to the best of my ability."
http://jimshooter.com/2011/06/answer-to-commen.html/