Comics Joey Q. Should he be fired?

[Prognosticator]

if NOTHING else, he should be fired for what he let's writers do to Spiderman ALONE. Or, he should be fired for allowing writers to run Wolverine into the ground by overexposing him in 50 damn comics a month :

 

[Marc]

Lets go over these....

astonishing x-men - This existed before Joe Q.

the ultimate line - That was Bill Jemas and ultimate sucks bulls, reading half assed rip off's of the originals... yeah, let me pay a crapload for that.

daredevil - ???

civil war (so far) - So far I have heard the same reassurances I saw for the totem stuff, magic, gwen, iron suit etc.. Fool me once shame on you...

brubaker - So his exclusivity contract run out and he decided to write for the 'other' major comics publication. Tell me what exactly was Joe Q required for in this regard. Would a competant EIC fail to get him?

whedon - Whedon out of work and was already writing comics, again I fail to see how hard it would be to get him to write X-men comics.

joe mad - What has he done? Not a fan of him personally and again its this working in comics thing.

mcniven - As above.

maleev - Ok this is silly, what has this got to do with an EIC's ability to run the place and ability to get stories and people working correctly. An artist doing art for one of the two major comics companies, is this a feat I should be amazed at. Why are you throwing these names out as if it means anything. ANY EIC could pick up his portfolio and give a thumbs up. Who is the worst EIC ever in your mind, did they manage to hire people who did good art?

captain america (bru and epting) - You already listed brubaker, will you start listing individual issues of maleev's work to try and fill out a list?

spider-man/iron man relationship - Piss off, this has been sheer crap. People with more than 1 brain cell worked out that contrived positioning in less than five seconds. Its been a farce.

making 2nd and 3rd stringers relevant - By having a mass cull?

kirkman - A comicbook writer writing comics at marvel. *gasp*

slott - A comicbook writer writing comics at marvel. *gasp* And he was there before Joe Q, and owe's more to DC for his current standing than Joe Q/Marvel. A good editor would have fired one of the spidey hacks and got him writing a series.

planet hulk - I don't see how making good guys villains in this manner is a good idea, or why Joe Q is getting credit for it. Bendis basically runs marvel and does what he wants at the point, Joe Q just has a permanent thumbs up... Bendis' arse.

millar - Pretty sure Jemas brought him in for the ultimate line creation. And again, it is fairly inevitable to work for Marvel if you write comics.

GAIMAN - Gaiman has been looking to raise his film profile, marvel are launching their own studio. He has been ****ing himself all over the place and frankly, if he didn't write for Marvel... would you really care. Its not been stellar work IMO.

max comics - The failed comic line, which Joe Q basically dismantled himself?

isanove - Maybe I am missing the point of all this, what has hiring a colourist require in terms of being a good EIC? I seriously think you're just throwing names out for the sake of filling out a list as there is very little else brought to the table. All the job requires in terms of hiring people is to not hire **** artists. Could you manage that? Could a monkey manage that? Why yes, it really isn't that hard.

mack - Another comic writer/artist writing/rendering comics. *floored*

joe fridays - Yes, listening to that fat slug make infant like jokes and bask in his ruining of characters. Its a joy I will surely miss.

coipel - You know you could have summed this all up in one sentance by saying Joe gave new guys a chance to work at marvel. And you might realise... a lot of EIC's have done this 'feat'.

bendis (ult. spidey, daredevil, pulse, alias, etc.) - Which ignores the 90% of crap he writes, every character he writes is the same guy, the over exposed dialogue, the arrogance, the killing people for the hell of it.

SENTRY - This is good?

ennis and dillon - Again, I fail to see how hard it is to get ennis writing for Marvel. There is pretty much zero competition. If you write comics and have a name for yourself, you're very likely to write for Marvel and DC.

making us ALL anticipate thor's return by taking him away - This is non-sensical. Lets take spidey away and see if people anticipate his return. Well duh.

^hawkeye - So pissing people off as a marketing trick is considered good?

she-hulk - So Slott, yeah... the guy you already listed.

nextwave - Yes, well done to Ellis. No wait, don't credit him... it was Joe Q apparently?

middleton - Huh? So Joe Q failed to be on time with scripts and middleton leaves to sign for DC exclusively and Joe Q did good? Unless I'm thinking of someone else?

Joe's connections, of course because why would comicbook writers ever write for Marvel, it was surely Joe Q who allured them. I fail to see risks in comicbook shock events which he presses a rest button on in the wake of said event. A risk would be thinking long term and sacrificing the quick buck for common sense. A risk would be creating new comic book writers by keeping the EPIC line and getting behind it. A risk would be to admit you have done wrong and completely change things, "shake it up" as he likes to claim.

 

[iloveclones]

astonishing x-men - This existed before Joe Q.

Uh, not even close.

I could take a list of what Joey Q's done wrong and pretty much write the same excuses that you just did for his accomplishments. You want to blame him for everything that (you think) JMS has done, you have to give him credit for the other creators that he hires and gives projects to.

 

[shinlyle]

spider-man/iron man relationship - Piss off, this has been sheer crap. People with more than 1 brain cell worked out that contrived positioning in less than five seconds. Its been a farce.

Precisely.

Why people are praising this relationship is beyond me. Tony treats Peter like a child-servant. At least he treated Jarvis like a man-servant.

 

[Marc]

Uh, not even close.

I could take a list of what Joey Q's done wrong and pretty much write the same excuses that you just did for his accomplishments. You want to blame him for everything that (you think) JMS has done, you have to give him credit for the other creators that he hires and gives projects to.

They had astonishing x-men back in 95 ffs, ok miniseries but the fact is it existed before Joe Q's reign.

What excuses? 90% of that list was ONE point stretched into a dozen, bringing in new talent. While on the other hand you have Joe Q admitting responsability for having Gwen screw the green goblin. Whats your excuse for that? THAt alone is enough to condemn him let alone the rest of his ****. Dead is dead? Ha! I don't want to blame him, he IS to blame, and he has ADMITTED as such. He basically said the other was a piece of crap, HIS concept, the Iron-spidey rubbish, HIS idea and as above the Gwen stuff. He has admitted to these things. Trying to make this into some kind of personal vendetta is silly, if I did it is BECAUSE of these things. Cause and effect, I didn't suddenly wake up one day deciding to hate Joe Q. Credit for what? One is a passive decision, one is an active one. Deciding spidey needs to have his 'true love' butchered is an active decision, saying yes to the hiring of some guy is passive and may not even be handled directly by him. And some of these like Slott were already there. The others already had either years and years of experience, coming out of exclusivity contracts or off the back of a successful independent comic. I wouldn't expect credit for seeing a guy in plain sight who is good at his job and hiring him, it is a monkey's job.

Shin - And we know why, so we would all turn on Tony as the bad guy while they claim is a very grey area. Riiight. Iron Man is a good character that is getting shafted by Marvel for the sake of a quick buck.

 

[iloveclones]

That Astonishing had absolutely nothing to do with the current one. You're stretching the truth to make a case.

And that's what you're doing with the rest of it. Hiring and firing people is hardly passive. If you've ever had to do it, you would know. Approving/Disapproving projects is hardly passive. And promoting Slott to better projects (despite dismal sales) is hardly passive. Approving Young Avengers when everyone (especially around here) was calling it Teen Titans lite was hardly passive.

 

[Marc]

That Astonishing had absolutely nothing to do with the current one. You're stretching the truth to make a case.

And that's what you're doing with the rest of it. Hiring and firing people is hardly passive. If you've ever had to do it, you would know. Approving/Disapproving projects is hardly passive. And promoting Slott to better projects (despite dismal sales) is hardly passive. Approving Young Avengers when everyone (especially around here) was calling it Teen Titans lite was hardly passive.

And this amazing spider-man has sod all to do with the one I read, you're grabbing at straws to build a straw house. The title existed beforehand. The rearranging and new title stuff is absolute bluff. Did it really make a difference cancelling Spectacular only to bring in FNSM?

Its part of the job, its your normal day job stuff, it is not implementation and actively coming up with projects or idea's to push the company forward. There it is passive by comparison. He is the EIC, he wouldn't even be handling most of this stuff when invidual editors should be coming up with shortlists or something at least. Off the back of his (slots) success with DC, 'promoting' him to what, the funny miniseries stuff. Tell me if he'd prefer making those or being on one of the actual main titles. And these decisions aren't entirely handled by Joe Q, you have no idea if it was his idea or not. While we have direct quotes of him taking credit for crap projects. Which bears comparison to Supreme Power, obviously a knock off DC title. Joe Q turns it from a max comic doing well to a watered down crap version. How is it a risk or an active part to thumbs up an already successful idea.

 

[Themanofbat]

And this amazing spider-man has sod all to do with the one I read, you're grabbing at straws to build a straw house. The title existed beforehand. The rearranging and new title stuff is absolute bluff. Did it really make a difference cancelling Spectacular only to bring in FNSM?

While I don't want to start an inane fight, the Spider-Man you read in the past was different with the Spider-Man people read before you, and the Spider-Man kids read after you started was different than the Spidey you read and so forth.

It's always going to be different.

My wife and i were discussing Mary Jane last night (in regards to the movie) and I was telling her the role was between Dunst & Kate Hudson. She thought Judson would have been a bad choice because Mary Jane was a sweet girl next door type in the comics. I argued that she was more the party girl. And you know what? We're both right. Because her Mary Jane was from the mid-80's when her character was more serious and some depth was added to her childhood, making Mary Jane seem less the partier in my wife's eyes in the 80's. However, I remember a more swingin' Mary Jane from the 70's and thanks to Marvel Tales, from the 60's... hence my regards to her as a party girl (who has obviously matured into a grown woman).

My point is that the Spider-Man we all loved as a child is gone and will be gone forever... because the character will change and evolve over time. Are some of the changes I've seen over the close to 32 years ofe reading Spidey books good? Some are, some aren't... Do I like the current changes? Not so much. But I gave up on this character in 1997, and I'm not going to do it again. Good times will be in Spidey's future, as will bad times.

But it will never be as good as the Spider-Man I grew up reading.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Themanofbat]

if NOTHING else, he should be fired for what he let's writers do to Spiderman ALONE. Or, he should be fired for allowing writers to run Wolverine into the ground by overexposing him in 50 damn comics a month :

Every past EIC since the 80's at Marvel should be horsewhipped for overexposing characters like Wolverine, Venom, the Punisher, Ghost Rider, etc...

He's not the first to use popular characters to boost books nor will he be the last.... unfortunately.

 

[Cullen]

While I don't want to start an inane fight, the Spider-Man you read in the past was different with the Spider-Man people read before you, and the Spider-Man kids read after you started was different than the Spidey you read and so forth.

It's always going to be different.

My wife and i were discussing Mary Jane last night (in regards to the movie) and I was telling her the role was between Dunst & Kate Hudson. She thought Judson would have been a bad choice because Mary Jane was a sweet girl next door type in the comics. I argued that she was more the party girl. And you know what? We're both right. Because her Mary Jane was from the mid-80's when her character was more serious and some depth was added to her childhood, making Mary Jane seem less the partier in my wife's eyes in the 80's. However, I remember a more swingin' Mary Jane from the 70's and thanks to Marvel Tales, from the 60's... hence my regards to her as a party girl (who has obviously matured into a grown woman).

My point is that the Spider-Man we all loved as a child is gone and will be gone forever... because the character will change and evolve over time. Are some of the changes I've seen over the close to 32 years ofe reading Spidey books good? Some are, some aren't... Do I like the current changes? Not so much. But I gave up on this character in 1997, and I'm not going to do it again. Good times will be in Spidey's future, as will bad times.

But it will never be as good as the Spider-Man I grew up reading.

Just my 2 cents...

Hell, the Spider-Man I grew up reading isn't the Spider-Man I grew up reading. As an adult, you see a whole lot of things different than you do as a kid.

 

[stillanerd]

And this amazing spider-man has sod all to do with the one I read, you're grabbing at straws to build a straw house. The title existed beforehand. The rearranging and new title stuff is absolute bluff. Did it really make a difference cancelling Spectacular only to bring in FNSM?

Its part of the job, its your normal day job stuff, it is not implementation and actively coming up with projects or idea's to push the company forward. There it is passive by comparison. He is the EIC, he wouldn't even be handling most of this stuff when invidual editors should be coming up with shortlists or something at least. Off the back of his (slots) success with DC, 'promoting' him to what, the funny miniseries stuff. Tell me if he'd prefer making those or being on one of the actual main titles. And these decisions aren't entirely handled by Joe Q, you have no idea if it was his idea or not. While we have direct quotes of him taking credit for crap projects. Which bears comparison to Supreme Power, obviously a knock off DC title. Joe Q turns it from a max comic doing well to a watered down crap version. How is it a risk or an active part to thumbs up an already successful idea.

Just to drive the point home, the current Astonishing X-Men title is essentially a continuation, with some exceptions, of Grant Morrison's New X-Men, a run--despite winning the Eisner Award--Joe Q has systematically tried to diminish and dismantle at every turn in every other X-Men title. You'd only have to look at X-Men: Reloaded, House of M, and the convoluted retconning of Xorn not being the real Magneto--even though he clearly was--to see that.

 

[iloveclones]

Just to drive the point home, the current Astonishing X-Men title is essentially a continuation, with some exceptions, of Grant Morrison's New X-Men, a run--despite winning the Eisner Award--Joe Q has systematically tried to diminish and dismantle at every turn in every other X-Men title. You'd only have to look at X-Men: Reloaded, House of M, and the convoluted retconning of Xorn not being the real Magneto--even though he clearly was--to see that.

But it was Queseda that put Morisson on New X-Men. If it's that great, doesn't he get credit for that? You guys only want to look at the mistakes. You have no intention of giving him the credit.

 

[stillanerd]

But it was Queseda that put Morisson on New X-Men. If it's that great, doesn't he get credit for that? You guys only want to look at the mistakes. You have no intention of giving him the credit.

Oh, sure Quesada can take credit for that. Also, some credit is given to former Marvel president Bill Jemas. However, once Jemas was gone and Morrison left, Quesada immediately turn around and systematically began to virtually retcon everything Morrison ever did with the X-Men within a month's time. Sure, it's his perogative as an editor, but considering how successful Morrison's run was, why not try to capitalize on it instead of dismantling it?

 

[iloveclones]

Well, I don't know what New X-Men did sales-wise, but I do know that there seems to be as many people who hate that run as who love it. Me, I would've liked it a lot more if it would've had consistent art. It seemed to constantly be changing artists. I thought Qutely was great (although I know a lot of people don't like him either).

 

[stillanerd]

Well, I don't know what New X-Men did sales-wise, but I do know that there seems to be as many people who hate that run as who love it. Me, I would've liked it a lot more if it would've had consistent art. It seemed to constantly be changing artists. I thought Qutely was great (although I know a lot of people don't like him either).

Well, it did sell very well in the beginning I believe, unless somebody can correct me on that, although I think "Planet X" and "Here Comes Tommorrow" left a sour taste in some people's mouths. Even so, the comic won the Will Eisner Award so Morrison must have been doing something right. I do agree though with the rotating artists though. Qutely should've just been on for the entire run.

Anyway, isn't this a topic for the X-Men boards rather than Spider-Man?

 

[Cullen]

Well, it did sell very well in the beginning I believe, unless somebody can correct me on that, although I think "Planet X" and "Here Comes Tommorrow" left a sour taste in some people's mouths. Even so, the comic won the Will Eisner Award so Morrison must have been doing something right. I do agree though with the rotating artists though. Qutely should've just been on for the entire run.

Anyway, isn't this a topic for the X-Men boards rather than Spider-Man?

Technically, shouldn't this whole thread be in the Marvel forum?

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Quote:
SENTRY

Worst. Character. Ever.

Indeed.

Joe Q should be fired for what he allowed to happen to 616 Spider-Man.Also for letting Bendis do what ever he wants in the 616 Universe.Let him do what he wants with Ultimate Spider-Man,who cares.

Blame him for running Marvel in to the ground.

 

[Grim Goblin]

But it was Queseda that put Morisson on New X-Men. If it's that great, doesn't he get credit for that? You guys only want to look at the mistakes. You have no intention of giving him the credit.

Well look, it's his job as EIC to make sure the good ideas that others come up with reach the stands, while preventing the bad ones from doing the same thing. He, on the other hand, has personally claimed the last few bad ideas as his! What else do you want from us?

 

[Marc]

While I don't want to start an inane fight, the Spider-Man you read in the past was different with the Spider-Man people read before you, and the Spider-Man kids read after you started was different than the Spidey you read and so forth.

It's always going to be different.

My wife and i were discussing Mary Jane last night (in regards to the movie) and I was telling her the role was between Dunst & Kate Hudson. She thought Judson would have been a bad choice because Mary Jane was a sweet girl next door type in the comics. I argued that she was more the party girl. And you know what? We're both right. Because her Mary Jane was from the mid-80's when her character was more serious and some depth was added to her childhood, making Mary Jane seem less the partier in my wife's eyes in the 80's. However, I remember a more swingin' Mary Jane from the 70's and thanks to Marvel Tales, from the 60's... hence my regards to her as a party girl (who has obviously matured into a grown woman).

My point is that the Spider-Man we all loved as a child is gone and will be gone forever... because the character will change and evolve over time. Are some of the changes I've seen over the close to 32 years ofe reading Spidey books good? Some are, some aren't... Do I like the current changes? Not so much. But I gave up on this character in 1997, and I'm not going to do it again. Good times will be in Spidey's future, as will bad times.

But it will never be as good as the Spider-Man I grew up reading.

Just my 2 cents...

.... this was my point, that what it reads like and what the title is aren't connected. Social age alone will make it different, doesn't change the fact it is under the same title though which was what I was saying.

As for Morisson, I liked his run personally although I am way more of a Morrison fan than I am an X-men fan so can understand an X-men fan not liking it. Still as pointed out, the idea's were greenlighted then backtracked. How is it EVER going to be a gamble; or a risk; or a shock when you simply ignore the change or change it back. The other **** was supposed to change spidey forever, they didn't stick by that, guys like colossus were supposed to stay dead. All of this destroys credability until you can't cry wolf anymore. He is not only greenlighting stuff that he contradictively changes back afterwards, he is the one coming up with these projects then admitting they are crap and backtracking. Even if stuff like the other was pure gold writing, this behaviour singles him out as being incompetent and crap at his job. His arrogance and lack of tact only intensifies these negatives.... until I want to stab him with a spoon.