Comics WI: Jim Shooter Buys Marvel

I don't know much about comics, and I got the idea for this thread after watching part of Sfdebris's series on comics history. Former editor-in-chief Jim Shooter had attempted to purchase Marvel with the aide of a group of investers, but had narrowly lost to a company owned by Ron Perelman. Despite the conflicting reports about how Shooter was to work with he clearly cared dearly about the company and it's work, while Perelman thought it was distasteful to actually read what he was publishing. What would have changed had Shooter had purchased Marvel instead of Perelman?
 
Well I'm not really the guy, and I assume you're talking the 1988 bid not the 1998, but I have read Marvel Comics The Untold Story.

For starters Shooter coming back would be disruptive for outside contracts given that Marvel Comics had brought back people who had left because of Shooter. Plus there would be a huge and established anti-Shooter faction inside Marvel, another major problem in running the company. Finally what's his plan? Without the benefit of hindsight, that is. Knock-on effects re: VALIANT as well.

The winning bid in 1988 was $82.5 million, so Shooter's backers will also have to find at least that much money so perhaps limited tolerance for failure.
 
For starters Shooter coming back would be disruptive for outside contracts given that Marvel Comics had brought back people who had left because of Shooter. Plus there would be a huge and established anti-Shooter faction inside Marvel, another major problem in running the company.

Exactly: this will change everything Marvel did from 1988 on, and that'll change DC as well and other publishers as well as many jump ship and many are headhunted. There could be a massive turnover of staff and freelancers (Shooter was loathed by many at the end). He's also unlikely to think much of the Image founders, so that's another change; some will join DC (or not leave in Liefeld's case), others will alter their style to fit with Marvel, and you don't get that union of big-name artists getting big royalties for individual styles and thinking "I'd like more".

Also, does this lead to the "MAKE FOIL ISSUE #1s WITH BIG GUNS, PUMP UP SHARES" gold rush of OTL, does it delay it, does it create a different goldrush with the same outcome? Shooter's backers will want quick and easy cash, just like OTL's Marvel owners did.
 
I don't know if it would result in the stuff that happened in OTL, but I lean towards it not happening. This being since Shooter was a hands on leader who cared about the company, while Perelman never cared enough to actually read what he was publishing. I seriously doubt that Shooter's Marvel would make the decisions that lead to the ridiculously drawn out Clone Saga. Shooter's backers raised about 81 million, which means they only lost by about 1.5 million. And while Shooter reject Macfarlane his letter contained words of encouragement and advice on how to make it in the industry. Shooter's bad reputation seems to stem more from bruised egos than any actual mismanagement. Sfdebris's videos mentioned that he tried to keep the the creative people happy. Byrne writes something that contradicts what Claremont wrote earlier. When it's changed to fit earlier canon not only does Byrne get pissed but he views every thing done to his work as Shooter trying to f*ck with him. That sound more like it's Byrne's problem than Shooter's.

And I doubt that Shooter's Marvel had ended up in that huge legal battle with Icahn and Toy Biz.
 
Last edited:
One possibility is that, because of Shooter's influence, Marvel acquires those old Gold Key characters Valiant eventually used to start their universe, and integrates them into the Marvel continuity.
 

Heavy

Banned
Also, does this lead to the "MAKE FOIL ISSUE #1s WITH BIG GUNS, PUMP UP SHARES" gold rush of OTL, does it delay it, does it create a different goldrush with the same outcome? Shooter's backers will want quick and easy cash, just like OTL's Marvel owners did.

Question there is: does Marvel still go bankrupt? I don't think Shooter would have attempted to buy a distributor, which was really what pushed the company over the brink in 1996. Marvel Comics today is still very much defined by the measures Jemas and Quesada took in 2000-2002 or so to get Marvel back from the brink of ruin, most importantly a) starting Ultimate Marvel; b) hiring talent directly out of the indie field, most notably Bendis for Ultimate Spider-Man; and c) selling film rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men.

I think Shooter might have tried some of that if he had to. He'd tried something like Ultimate Marvel with the New Universe, but I am not sure whether he'd have tried to get indie talent onto the books; I don't see a reason why not. He started working in comics when he was 14 and I assume he'd be up for giving people a chance. Might not put somebody like Bendis on the flagship book of a new line, though.
 
Last edited:
Question there is: does Marvel still go bankrupt? I don't think Shooter would have attempted to buy a distributor, which was really what pushed the company over the brink in 1996.

If Shooter's still running the place then, I don't think he would - and even different cynical moneymen might decide "yeah, no" (at least not with Heroes World). Marvel would still be bleeding badly as with everyone else and Marvel UK's drokked, but that'd avoid the worst of it. And as you say, that means no Marvel Knights and Quesada-Jemas era. That butterflies move to trade paperbacks: not happening, delayed, or now inspired more by the manga boom (which seems unlikely to be butterflied away as AFAIK it wasn't dependant on OTL's US comic industry).
 
Top