The "Ask Erik" Thread

Gavin Higginbotham · **Joined:** Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:50 am **Posts:** 1130

Harras oversaw the X-Men's Age of Apocalypse. For that alone, he deserves kudos. And the Cline Saga was successful. It went on for so long because it was popular. Its quality may be up for debate but Harras did a lot of good for Marvel. Also, I dont think hr can take all the blame for bankruptcy. The owners and other higher ups ducked around with things a lot too.

Still, it was hardly a second Golden Age. Good though.

Darin Wagner · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:53 am

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Darin Wagner wrote:

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

I mean, if Bob Harras, who oversaw Marvel's steep decline can still get work, why not a successful editor like Jim Shooter?

I would like to point out that Bob Harras also presided over a second Golden Age over at Marvel during the Heroes Reborn and particularly during the Heroes Return era.

"Second golden age"? Are you joking?

Nope. I was buying more Marvel comics during that period than at any other time. Marvel may have filed for bankruptcy at this time, but you'd never have known it looking at the quality of their books, particularly during the Heroes Return period.

Benny Hasa · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:08 am

Yeah, Age Of Apocalpyse was great for its time. It's very well written and pretty entertaining and it just had a end of the world kinda feeling. I remember loving the clone saga too, until Ben Reily became Spider-Man. As a kid that really pissed me off.

Still, no way was he behind a second golden age.

Jim Purcell · **Joined:** Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:24 am **Posts:** 1345

Benny Hasa wrote:

Yeah, Age Of Apocalpyse was great for its time. It's very well written and pretty entertaining and it just had a end of the world kinda feeling. I remember loving the clone saga too, until Ben Reily became Spider-Man. As a kid that really pissed me off.

Still, no way was he behind a second golden age.

Don't forget Harras over saw the launch of the Marvel Knights line, which was a massive shot in the arm after the Heroes Reborn debacale. The only reason Harras was let go from Marvel, was because he failed to capitalize on the release of the first X-Men film. I actually agree that he over saw a spectacular 'near-Golden-Age' especially just after Heroes Return started picking up speed. (and even before; Thunderbolts, Avengers Forever, Earth X, MC2, Spider-Girl, Marvel Knights, Age of Apocalypse, etc... etc...). I mean, yeah Onslaught, Heroes Reborn, Clone Saga, were all miss-steps, but they were largely minor things compared to all the classics that got pumped out under his tenure. Joe Q has yet to do nearly as much IMO.

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

I'm not asking you to shit-talk anyone, so if you're uncomfortable answering this, just say so --

What's up with Jim Shooter? He was top dog in the business for much of the 80s but after that, he seemed to be on the fringes of the business, working on start-up stuff like Valiant or whatever. I mean, if Bob Harras, who oversaw Marvel's steep decline can still get work, why not a successful editor like Jim Shooter?

You should check out Jim Shooter's Blog. I don't have a lot of opinions about the man one-way or another. But his Blog is very insightful.

PeteM · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:44 am

Shooter's blog is fun reading. And Valiant can hardly be considered "fringe stuff", it was the first indie to really challenge Marvel & DC saleswise. It just seems that he has burned bridges everywhere he has gone.

Also, Re:Harras. He is DC's EiC and is hugely responsible for the "New 52". Love it or hate it, its a HUGE commercial success so far and (on some books) a big critical success as well.

Hanzo the Razor · **Joined:** Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:19 pm **Posts:** 1140

Darin Wagner wrote:

Nope. I was buying more Marvel comics during that period than at any other time. Marvel may have filed for bankruptcy at this time, but you'd never have known it looking at the quality of their books, particularly during the Heroes Return period.

Agree to disagree -- other than a few gems, I tend to think of mid to late 90's Marvel as absolute shit.

Jim wrote:

(and even before; Thunderbolts, Avengers Forever, Earth X, MC2, Spider-Girl, Marvel Knights, Age of Apocalypse, etc... etc...). I mean, yeah Onslaught, Heroes Reborn, Clone Saga, were all miss-steps, but they were largely minor things compared to all the classics that got pumped out under his tenure. Joe Q has yet to do nearly as much IMO.

I would say nearly everything you've mentioned falls short of "classic" status, though some of it's pretty good -- mainly Earth X and the concept of Age of Apocalypse.

I'd rather read the stuff created under Quesada's tenure, myself -- I'll take Brubaker's Captain America, Bendis' Daredevil & Ultimate Spider-Man, Millar's Ultimates, Whedon's X-Men, Morrison's X-Men, Pak's Planet Hulk, Ellis' Iron Man: Extremis, Waid/Wieringo's Fantastic Four, etc. over the stuff you listed.

But y'know, it's all just personal taste. I hate almost everything Marvel does at this point.

Darin Wagner · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:06 am

I loved the Heroes Return event in particular. The creative teams were excellent (Busiek/Perez on Avengers, etc) and shortly after the event ended we got stuff like Busiek and Erik on Defenders and Erik on Nova: The Human Rocket. Then Jemas took over and everything went to pot, as far as I'm concerned.

Hanzo the Razor · **Joined:** Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:19 pm **Posts:** 1140

PeteM wrote:

Shooter's blog is fun reading. And Valiant can hardly be considered "fringe stuff", it was the first indie to really challenge Marvel & DC saleswise.

While earning a fair degree of success for an indie label, I don't ever recall them "challenging" the Big Two. Only Image has done that when it briefly beat DC in sales to be the #2 publisher in the US for a few months.

And not "fringe" stuff? A short-lived publisher featuring little-known heroes like Turok or Bloodshot is mainstream?

PeteM · **Posted:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:09 pm

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

PeteM wrote:

Shooter's blog is fun reading. And Valiant can hardly be considered "fringe stuff", it was the first indie to really challenge Marvel & DC saleswise.

While earning a fair degree of success for an indie label, I don't ever recall them "challenging" the Big Two. Only Image has done that when it briefly beat DC in sales to be the #2 publisher in the US for a few months.

And not "fringe" stuff? A short-lived publisher featuring little-known heroes like Turok or Bloodshot is mainstream?

Well what exactly in comics, other than Superman/Batman/Spiderman can be considered mainstream? Valiant's story is very similar to Image's. In 1993 Valiant's marketshare was near-identical to DC's. They sold over 80 million comics in the 90's. There were popular videogames based on XO, Turok, and Shadowman. Acclaim paid millions to buy Valiant. And the characters are popular enough that they are being brought back sometime next year(supposedely). There is a Valiant message board that is as frequented as the Image boards and has been going for years. The big difference between Image & Valiant is that when the industry collapsed at the end of the 90's Valiant's characters were tossed aside by big business that owned the company while guys like Erik & Jim Valentino kept Image going until they could find TWD, Invincible, Chew, Morning Glories, etc. Just sayin...

Erik Larsen · **Joined:** Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:39 am **Posts:** 1101

Darin Wagner wrote:

Erik, in order for a single, episodic, 22-page comic book to be "good" in your eyes, what must be there?

Nothing specific. I just need to be entertained in some fashion.

Image Comics Community

The "Ask Erik" Thread

Who is online