JMS' Bullet Points, newly announced comic project

[manwithnoname]

Comicbookresources.com reports: "Artist Tommy Lee Edwards has signed an exclusive contract with Marvel. His first project will be J. Michael Straczynski's Bullet Points, which traces how the course of one bullet would change the Marvel Universe."

[Jan]

I'm looking forward to this one. How many issues, do you know?

Jan

[frulad]

I think it's running six issues.

JMS talks about in this interview here.

[Dr Maturin]

Maybe the bullet is aimed at the Marvel EIC's office...

[Karachi Vyce]

Maybe the bullet is aimed at the Marvel EIC's office...

Anything to end the Quesada regime.

[manwithnoname]

Anything to end the Quesada regime.

Hate him or like him, Joe Q is the one that recognized Bendis as the talent to write the now powerhouse Ultimate Spider-Man. Remember, Todd McFarlane fired Bendis; how short-sighted is that. And, Joe was instrumental in courting JMS to write Spider-Man. Joe Q gave JMS more creative freedom than established comic writers to do his reimagining of Supreme Power (now Squadron Supreme).
Joe and Jimmy (Marvel Knights) were responsible in revamping/reinvigorating Daredevil from crappy-story Hell. Bendis' run on Daredevil surpasses Frank Miller's Daredevil run, and love Miller's take on Daredevil.

Does anybody want to return to the Bob Harras EIC days? I'm pretty sure fandom would answer "No." During Harras' era, readership was incredibly low. I stopped reading comics altogether. And, DC was just as bad.

[Karachi Vyce]

Hate him or like him, Joe Q is the one that recognized Bendis as the talent to write the now powerhouse Ultimate Spider-Man. Remember, Todd McFarlane fired Bendis; how short-sighted is that.

Recognizing Bendis talent is one thing, giving Bendis pretty much carte blanche to do what he wants to with the entire direction of the company is another. Avengers Disassembled was a big steaming pile of shit. New Avengers has evened out, but its early issues are filled with horrendous continuity errors so absurd that the editor of that book should have been fired (Bendis wrote characters into the Raft battle that a) weren't villains any longer or b) were dead and had been dead FOR YEARS, but now were suddenly appearing out of the blue, just to give two examples). House of M was another mess, and a completely unnecessary one that unfortunately took center stage of the company. The nonsense is still coming with this "Civil War" crap, which isn't written by Bendis but has his fingerprints on it. The guy's done great work on Daredevil, I'll give you that. That doesn't mean he should be the guy writing some of the flagship titles or dictating the status quo of the comic universe.

And, Joe was instrumental in courting JMS to write Spider-Man. Joe Q gave JMS more creative freedom than established comic writers to do his reimagining of Supreme Power (now Squadron Supreme).

Reading some of JMS' work for Marvel, in particular with Spider-Man, it would have probably been wise to NOT give him so much creative freedom.

[frulad]

Does anybody want to return to the Bob Harras EIC days? I'm pretty sure fandom would answer "No." During Harras' era, readership was incredibly low.

He may not have been a great EIC for Marvel, but I'm really enjoying Breach which only ran for 11 issues last year at DC. (I've read 8 issues so far...) Vastly under-rated.

[Jan]

The nonsense is still coming with this "Civil War" crap, which isn't written by Bendis but has his fingerprints on it.

How so? According to JMS's latest post, the idea was Mark Millar's:

This was one of the points I raised with Marvel when the idea first
came across the pond from Mark Millar...those who take sides on this
issue must, on balance (there are always folks on any side of an
argument who take that position for purposes of convenience) do so
because they actually *believe* that they are right.

Jan

[manwithnoname]

Thank you, Jan, for pointing that info out. For whatever reasons a reader dislikes a writer's take on a character or book, they seem to place blame for something that's not their doing.

Someone once posted here about how the clone sage sucked, and how Spidey comics sucked here and there. I was trying to be objective by saying that no matter how much you or I dislike/hate a story/storyline, someone out there likes/loves it.

KV, if you don't like JMS' Spidey, then you're in the minority. The first year JMS took over Spidey, according to Marvel in a Wizard magazine, sales DOUBLED. So, a lot of people like JMS' Spidey. Now, if a lot of people hate JMS' Spidey, Marvel would see a consistent drop in sales month after month, which isn't the case.

Re: Bendis "ruining" the Avengers
You're in the minority again. Sales spiked when Bendis took over. You could say it was due to the marketing efforts of the "Disassembled" storyline, but sales would have dropped if people were disappointed. In my local comics shop, pre-Bendis Avengers sold around 25 copies/month. Bendis' New Avengers sell around 100 copies/month. Who's right? Who's wrong? Answer: nobody.

Old saying: You can't please everyone all the time.

I understand where you're coming from though: Everyone was gah gah over Green Lantern: Rebirth. I didn't think it was spectacular whatsoever. For me, it was barely an average read. Infinite Crisis: I couldn't get into it until the fifth issue. And, I love Crisis on Infinite Earths; I own the Absolute Edition. Not everyone is blown away by Bendis, and I'm not blown away by Geoff Johns work. A lot of people love Geoff's writing, though.

[manwithnoname]

He may not have been a great EIC for Marvel, but I'm really enjoying Breach which only ran for 11 issues last year at DC. (I've read 8 issues so far...) Vastly under-rated.

I grew up reading Harras' stuff which I enjoyed. I just think he was a bad EIC. I love Bendis' stuff, but would he make a great EIC? Maybe, maybe not.

[Karachi Vyce]

Someone once posted here about how the clone sage sucked, and how Spidey comics sucked here and there. I was trying to be objective by saying that no matter how much you or I dislike/hate a story/storyline, someone out there likes/loves it.

What the hell is this nonsense? Someone, somewhere, might like it, so we shouldn't criticize? That's ridiculous. This isn't an objective issue here.

The clone saga, since you brought it up, did suck, and since you brought up sales, let's put a rest to that whole particular storyline because people abandoned the Spidey books in DROVES because of it, so badly that Marvel panicked and ended it and quickly retconned the story enough so that Parker was eventually revealed as the original, with Ben Reilly the clone. The story sucked. It was a massive failure. You really don't have to be nice here.

KV, if you don't like JMS' Spidey, then you're in the minority. The first year JMS took over Spidey, according to Marvel in a Wizard magazine, sales DOUBLED. So, a lot of people like JMS' Spidey. Now, if a lot of people hate JMS' Spidey, Marvel would see a consistent drop in sales month after month, which isn't the case.

When he first started, things were good. The last couple years, it's gone majorly downhill. JMS is a good storyteller, so the stories are still technically done well, in that they tell a good story. It's just that he's taken a shit on the character and its continuity, from the mildy troubling (the whole 'totem' aspect of Peter's powers, which wasn't horrible but was a completely unnecessary addition to / revision of the origin of the character) to the supremely outrageous (Sins of the Past, which is just under the Clone Saga on the list of unforgivable sins committed against the continuity of the entire character). There are other examples I could give, but it might be redundant. It's different when he mucks around with characters like the Squadron Supreme, because no one really cares how badly he might damage those characters. Spider-Man is Marvel's most popular / recognizable character / franchise, next to the X-Men.

Re: Bendis "ruining" the Avengers
You're in the minority again. Sales spiked when Bendis took over. You could say it was due to the marketing efforts of the "Disassembled" storyline, but sales would have dropped if people were disappointed. In my local comics shop, pre-Bendis Avengers sold around 25 copies/month. Bendis' New Avengers sell around 100 copies/month. Who's right? Who's wrong? Answer: nobody.

You neglected to notice how I said that the book has evened out now. It doesn't change the fact that the "Disassembled' storyline was horrid, and the first few issues of New Avengers were filled with really embarrassing errors. What editor worth his salt would have let Bendis get away with some of that crap?

But you're seeming to think that high sales = good. That's crap. The X-books, for example, always sell well, in the top 25 of comics every month, and most of them are absolutelly HORRID. Claremont is godawful these days and shouldn't be anywhere near the main X-books, but he'll sell out damn near every time, because people buy books these days mainly because of a) characters they know / love or b) name talent. Marvel knows this, which is why they're signing guys like JMS or Bendis or whomever to exclusive contracts. And their books sell well, because there's either brand recognition there, or name recognition. Terribly done books like the main X-titles sell well, while some of the really great comics out there, like for example "Breach", struggle to survive or get cancelled long before they should.

I understand where you're coming from though: Everyone was gah gah over Green Lantern: Rebirth. I didn't think it was spectacular whatsoever. For me, it was barely an average read.

Don't get me started on GL, and how DC has screwed things up by caving into the Hal Jordan fanboys, while simultaneously eroding away everything about the character that made him interesting in the last 10-15 years.

Infinite Crisis I'm enjoying, but I'm actually disappointed with, because for two years it looked as if they were going to give us this really great story about the DC universe villains waging a massive attack / war against the DC heroes for screwing with their minds - I mean, spent at least two YEARS building to this - only when IC hit, they basically said, "Oops! Hey, sorry about that. This is just a direct sequel to Crisis of Infinite Earths."

It's still good stuff, but I can't help but feel the original direction (what seemed to be the original direction) would have been a MUCH better story than just Crisis of Infinite Earths 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[manwithnoname]

What the hell is this nonsense? Someone, somewhere, might like it, so we shouldn't criticize? That's ridiculous. This isn't an objective issue here.

I don't have a problem with anybody's critique, but vitriolic criticism is another matter. Point: Your words come across really harsh and bitter. Discussion is one thing. Criticism is valid, but not in a critically demeaning way.

You made some valid points: books selling regardless of good/bad story & IC sort of a letdown & Green Lantern. This happens on the NY Times bestsellers list. I've read books in the top 10 NY Times bestsellers list that are bad.

Harpooning stories based on continuity is a HUGE deal for some, but for others it's not. Some people just want a good/great story. Sometimes continuity gets in the way. Continuity is contentious because, honestly, continuity contradicts itself -- all the time.

Local comics shop owner grades comics on par with the CGC graders. So, as he's inspecting each page he'll read the stories. He tells me these golden & silver age stories that contradict stories published in previous months. Continuity is an ever-evolving thing.

Also, it's an objective issue. It doesn't matter if you don't think so, but it is. I'm not trying to rile you up whatsoever.