Hey, this is the first Substack post of yours that I have just received. It’s just brilliant. It’s so packed with brilliant info’ and so we’ll written in your approachable style. Thank you so much for this, and the effort you’ve give. Brilliant, thank you.
One thing that's always fascinated me is the editor-writer interaction. So, let's say there's a trend in popular culture that is resonating with audiences but which isn't yet appearing in comic scripts. Would you suggest to a writer that they include this trend in a script? I suppose this depends on how heavy-handed individual editors get, but whenever I see a pop culture trend or trope or motif that is also appearing in the comics, I always wonder if it's parallel development or something more organized than that. (For example: let's say overt patriotism becomes a trend in the movies as well as in the comics. Coincidence or coordination or something else?)
Thank you for answering my question, and delving more into your take on Spider-Man. Personally I found that I agreed with your take on the character a lot. I'm still reading 1985, so have many years to go before I see how it all went.
You mention Dan Slott a lot in this issue, so I thought I'd throw out a Slott-based question. I recently watched his episode of 616, which also features yourself. The documentary shows that he is often late turning in his writing; I think you say as much at the end of the episode.
I appreciate that a lot of this is played up for the documentary, and I know that his heavy workload is a key reason why things might be late, but I'm interested to know what strengths does Dan have (or any other similar creative) that makes up for their lack of punctuality.
I know Neil Gaiman talks about three qualities of a creative -- nice to work with, can deliver great work, can deliver work on time -- and the importance to have at least two of these. Is it as simple as Slott being both nice to work with and a very good writer?
Great”speil” on “story and … each individual comic being a complete unit of entertainment”. Thank you for recognizing this and taking the Marvel staff to task. I felt this issue in the last year or so reading Marvel (and other) comics. I hope your team takes this to heart and we see the changes in the near future.
I think you’ve undersold the popularity Tom of the two Annihilation series, plus the spin off mini’s and the DnA Guardians book. Those were all phenomenally popular comics with the Marvel fan base, and still much loved. Plus seriously good comics. We found that Star-Lord was in the MU after all this time, Warlock, Bug and Rocket Racoon all returned after years away, and Groot was born after his two older appearances.
I wish Marvel were doing books like that now, I have the omnibuses. Some seriously good artists and storylines, and the Guardians book was far better than the Bendis one that followed, and any other series with them in released since.
Hey Tom, genuinely not trying to be snarky but your "spiel that I made to the Marvel editorial team in the course of the last week" has three typos/auto-corrects in it. Is it important as an editor to be perfect at all times or not? Do you think writers would think less of an editor if they made spelling/grammar mistakes?
Great Spidey content this week (I loved the Stern/Romita Flashback issue) - I wonder if part of the backlash to one more day is the fact that Spidey 'lost' to Mephisto. Would it be better accepted if the marriage was erased but somehow we also showed how Mephisto did not get what he wanted? or some form of comeuppance?
The Nick Spencer run seem to imply this (how Spider-Girl in the future thwarts Mephisto) but never followed up on it - was this a seed to a future story to come?
Your thoughts ?
PS: I get why it was done and I agree that Peter works better as a single man in the comics (with maybe some 'imaginary stories set in the future where they are married with kids - like MC2 or the old imaginary stories of the Bat Family that Alfred used to narrate).
If you're not already a listener of the Imaginary Worlds podcast (think nerd culture by way of NPR) you may be interested in the new episode that was similarly inspired by the debut of Muppet Mayhem, in which the host interviews legendary Muppet designer Bonnie Erickson. https://www.imaginaryworldspodcast.org/episodes/making-the-muppets
Question:
What is your point-of-view regarding how much artists should stay "on-model"? Does Marvel have any rough guidelines? Or is it on case-by-case model. While I tend to value consistency, I also really love some design evolutions like "spaghetti webbing."
PS: As a diehard FF fan: do you prefer OG short Thing, or a hulking Thing that seems to be the new standard?
As someone who reads a lot of old comics (currently reading a lot of EC), one thing I've noticed about pre-Silver Age comics is that every panel advances the plot, whereas from the Silver Age onwards, it's more like every page. During the decompression era, maybe it's every scene.
At its most basic, I've always felt that stories are about change, and if things are the same at the end as they are at the beginning, then the writer hasn't done their job. Nice for an editor to point out when stories are treading water (and also how much they cost).
Thank you for posting these every Sunday, such an informative read. I’m curious if there are any writer’s that you’re currently approaching that you’ve wanted to work with that were to busy that may have some time now due to the Hollywood writers’ strike. I’m sure you can’t give names if you are, but I was wondering if the publishing side looks at this ad an opportunity
Great piece on the need for each issue to deliver a complete unit of entertainment. It echoed some recent observations of my own.
Via Marvel Unlimited I've recently been reading a lot of the late 80s to early 90s titles. This was the era I first started reading Marvel/DC comics and I missed a lot of issues due to poor distribution and/or lack of pocket money.
One of the things that struck me was how well many issues stood on their own, but also as part of a larger narrative. Take Iron Man #206 (the first US format comic I ever bought) as an example. The main story thread, Iron Man vs Goliath is resolved in the issue, but the issue also threads the ongoing AIM sub-plot that's been simmering in the background and moves that storyline forward in a meaningful way.
(Denny O'Neil was excellent at this kind of thing. So was Louise Simonson. On the DC side Paul Levitz also mastered this format on his Legion run and was front and center in his recent Avengers miniseries)
As a reader I got a beginning, middle, and end (The Goliath story). I also got a reason to pick up the next issue (the ongoing AIM story), and also a reason to check out a couple of back issues and other titles (West Coast Avengers).
A lot of monthly issues today feel more like a serialized graphic novel rather than serial stories that contribute and build into a larger narrative.
This kind of issue structure was Marvel's bread and butter, but now it seems to be lost among the "big stories" approach. So my question is this. Did we lose something somewhere?
(Ryan North's Fantastic Four seems to be following this structure and has been super refreshing after the last few "big story" runs. Gerry Duggan's and Keiron Gillen's X-Men books also seem to sail close to it)
Regarding that Alex Ross cover for FF 700: why are the heroes behind Doom all dressed in their “classic” costumes? Is it because they will appear like that in the story, or because Alex just produced the he art this way, regardless of the issue’s content? Thanks!
If we are talking about consistent creative teams on recent runs, we have to mention Immortal Hulk by Al Ewing & Joe Bennett. 50 issues by them both, except for certain shenanigans with POV characters/universes once or twice.
Long time reader - first time comment. (Though i encountered you many times in NYC at conventions and elsewhere, including once in line at the 9am showing for WATCHMEN the day it came out)
Anyway.
I was very confused (horrified?) by the reader listing the quintessential artists for DC by decade.
Obviously the 90's was Dan Jurgens. That's so clear that I'm wondering if the commentator even read comics in the 90's.
Not only was Dan drawing the bulk of Superman books (and sometimes JLA) - but he did THE key 90's DC book - Superman 75.
So after several people continue to bring up Iron Man Viva Las Vegas (which I don’t particularly care about). I started thinking of comic series that didn’t get finished. But that thought led to other series that took far too long to finish. Which brings me to Ultimate Wolverine Vs Hulk. The first two issues came out on schedule, and were amazing! But then nothing for 3 years. Then when those last four issues came out, they were (in my opinion) pretty terrible. I know Damon Lindelof was working on Lost at the time, but was there any behind the scenes information you could share on why it took so long? Was that the original story that was pitched? Was Lindelof sorta forced to come back to finish it? Or any other knowledge you have on that subject?
Hey, this is the first Substack post of yours that I have just received. It’s just brilliant. It’s so packed with brilliant info’ and so we’ll written in your approachable style. Thank you so much for this, and the effort you’ve give. Brilliant, thank you.
One thing that's always fascinated me is the editor-writer interaction. So, let's say there's a trend in popular culture that is resonating with audiences but which isn't yet appearing in comic scripts. Would you suggest to a writer that they include this trend in a script? I suppose this depends on how heavy-handed individual editors get, but whenever I see a pop culture trend or trope or motif that is also appearing in the comics, I always wonder if it's parallel development or something more organized than that. (For example: let's say overt patriotism becomes a trend in the movies as well as in the comics. Coincidence or coordination or something else?)
Thank you for answering my question, and delving more into your take on Spider-Man. Personally I found that I agreed with your take on the character a lot. I'm still reading 1985, so have many years to go before I see how it all went.
You mention Dan Slott a lot in this issue, so I thought I'd throw out a Slott-based question. I recently watched his episode of 616, which also features yourself. The documentary shows that he is often late turning in his writing; I think you say as much at the end of the episode.
I appreciate that a lot of this is played up for the documentary, and I know that his heavy workload is a key reason why things might be late, but I'm interested to know what strengths does Dan have (or any other similar creative) that makes up for their lack of punctuality.
I know Neil Gaiman talks about three qualities of a creative -- nice to work with, can deliver great work, can deliver work on time -- and the importance to have at least two of these. Is it as simple as Slott being both nice to work with and a very good writer?
Great”speil” on “story and … each individual comic being a complete unit of entertainment”. Thank you for recognizing this and taking the Marvel staff to task. I felt this issue in the last year or so reading Marvel (and other) comics. I hope your team takes this to heart and we see the changes in the near future.
I think you’ve undersold the popularity Tom of the two Annihilation series, plus the spin off mini’s and the DnA Guardians book. Those were all phenomenally popular comics with the Marvel fan base, and still much loved. Plus seriously good comics. We found that Star-Lord was in the MU after all this time, Warlock, Bug and Rocket Racoon all returned after years away, and Groot was born after his two older appearances.
I wish Marvel were doing books like that now, I have the omnibuses. Some seriously good artists and storylines, and the Guardians book was far better than the Bendis one that followed, and any other series with them in released since.
Hey Tom, genuinely not trying to be snarky but your "spiel that I made to the Marvel editorial team in the course of the last week" has three typos/auto-corrects in it. Is it important as an editor to be perfect at all times or not? Do you think writers would think less of an editor if they made spelling/grammar mistakes?
Great Spidey content this week (I loved the Stern/Romita Flashback issue) - I wonder if part of the backlash to one more day is the fact that Spidey 'lost' to Mephisto. Would it be better accepted if the marriage was erased but somehow we also showed how Mephisto did not get what he wanted? or some form of comeuppance?
The Nick Spencer run seem to imply this (how Spider-Girl in the future thwarts Mephisto) but never followed up on it - was this a seed to a future story to come?
Your thoughts ?
PS: I get why it was done and I agree that Peter works better as a single man in the comics (with maybe some 'imaginary stories set in the future where they are married with kids - like MC2 or the old imaginary stories of the Bat Family that Alfred used to narrate).
Sharing:
If you're not already a listener of the Imaginary Worlds podcast (think nerd culture by way of NPR) you may be interested in the new episode that was similarly inspired by the debut of Muppet Mayhem, in which the host interviews legendary Muppet designer Bonnie Erickson. https://www.imaginaryworldspodcast.org/episodes/making-the-muppets
Question:
What is your point-of-view regarding how much artists should stay "on-model"? Does Marvel have any rough guidelines? Or is it on case-by-case model. While I tend to value consistency, I also really love some design evolutions like "spaghetti webbing."
PS: As a diehard FF fan: do you prefer OG short Thing, or a hulking Thing that seems to be the new standard?
As someone who reads a lot of old comics (currently reading a lot of EC), one thing I've noticed about pre-Silver Age comics is that every panel advances the plot, whereas from the Silver Age onwards, it's more like every page. During the decompression era, maybe it's every scene.
At its most basic, I've always felt that stories are about change, and if things are the same at the end as they are at the beginning, then the writer hasn't done their job. Nice for an editor to point out when stories are treading water (and also how much they cost).
Thank you for posting these every Sunday, such an informative read. I’m curious if there are any writer’s that you’re currently approaching that you’ve wanted to work with that were to busy that may have some time now due to the Hollywood writers’ strike. I’m sure you can’t give names if you are, but I was wondering if the publishing side looks at this ad an opportunity
Great piece on the need for each issue to deliver a complete unit of entertainment. It echoed some recent observations of my own.
Via Marvel Unlimited I've recently been reading a lot of the late 80s to early 90s titles. This was the era I first started reading Marvel/DC comics and I missed a lot of issues due to poor distribution and/or lack of pocket money.
One of the things that struck me was how well many issues stood on their own, but also as part of a larger narrative. Take Iron Man #206 (the first US format comic I ever bought) as an example. The main story thread, Iron Man vs Goliath is resolved in the issue, but the issue also threads the ongoing AIM sub-plot that's been simmering in the background and moves that storyline forward in a meaningful way.
(Denny O'Neil was excellent at this kind of thing. So was Louise Simonson. On the DC side Paul Levitz also mastered this format on his Legion run and was front and center in his recent Avengers miniseries)
As a reader I got a beginning, middle, and end (The Goliath story). I also got a reason to pick up the next issue (the ongoing AIM story), and also a reason to check out a couple of back issues and other titles (West Coast Avengers).
A lot of monthly issues today feel more like a serialized graphic novel rather than serial stories that contribute and build into a larger narrative.
This kind of issue structure was Marvel's bread and butter, but now it seems to be lost among the "big stories" approach. So my question is this. Did we lose something somewhere?
(Ryan North's Fantastic Four seems to be following this structure and has been super refreshing after the last few "big story" runs. Gerry Duggan's and Keiron Gillen's X-Men books also seem to sail close to it)
Regarding that Alex Ross cover for FF 700: why are the heroes behind Doom all dressed in their “classic” costumes? Is it because they will appear like that in the story, or because Alex just produced the he art this way, regardless of the issue’s content? Thanks!
If we are talking about consistent creative teams on recent runs, we have to mention Immortal Hulk by Al Ewing & Joe Bennett. 50 issues by them both, except for certain shenanigans with POV characters/universes once or twice.
Tom,
Long time reader - first time comment. (Though i encountered you many times in NYC at conventions and elsewhere, including once in line at the 9am showing for WATCHMEN the day it came out)
Anyway.
I was very confused (horrified?) by the reader listing the quintessential artists for DC by decade.
Obviously the 90's was Dan Jurgens. That's so clear that I'm wondering if the commentator even read comics in the 90's.
Not only was Dan drawing the bulk of Superman books (and sometimes JLA) - but he did THE key 90's DC book - Superman 75.
I’m more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy, but am I off base in thinking that Curt Swan should be in that decades list somewhere?
Hello, Mr. Brevoort
So after several people continue to bring up Iron Man Viva Las Vegas (which I don’t particularly care about). I started thinking of comic series that didn’t get finished. But that thought led to other series that took far too long to finish. Which brings me to Ultimate Wolverine Vs Hulk. The first two issues came out on schedule, and were amazing! But then nothing for 3 years. Then when those last four issues came out, they were (in my opinion) pretty terrible. I know Damon Lindelof was working on Lost at the time, but was there any behind the scenes information you could share on why it took so long? Was that the original story that was pitched? Was Lindelof sorta forced to come back to finish it? Or any other knowledge you have on that subject?
Thanks for your time, sincerely Jeremy.