| |
|
Here's the thing from Gutters:
Chuck Austen's run on "Uncanny X-Men," "Exiles," now on "New X-Men" and especially on "Avengers," has been derided by many. Most amusingly here, here and, oh look, now his recent "Avengers" piece has been pulled apart in a similar manner. However, Austen has been seen as a safe pair of hands, and while critically he hasn't matched up to his previous work on "Metropolis," he's kept franchises going, hasn't missed a deadline and has maintained sales on titles, if not setting them on fire.
But is it fair to blame Austen for all that may be lacking with his work?
On Joe Quesada's message boards, user el123chico wrote, "I spoke with Austen at the Dynamic Forces Fan Fest and he definitely did not seem happy with a lot of the editorial decisions that forced some of the storylines he wrote. Remember, Morrison and Claremont were basically given free range to do whatever they liked, while Austen was basically grounded and limited in what he could do.
"And honestly, could anyone tie up Morrison's run? I don't even think editorial knew what he was doing."
This thread has also linked to some earlier posts on the Nightcrawler forum by the user known as Bamfette. Bamfette is a confident of Chuck Austen, though she often talks freely on the forum.
So, regarding the bizarre reappearance of Xorn, back in March she wrote, "no, the return is a whole 'nother can of worms, and another decision by editors in an attempt to 'save' um... well, you'll see. it's big and will make people a whole lot more mad than the stuff with Gambit. and i don't know why the solicits say 'return' it's not a return of an existing character, actually. just a copycat character.
"really, the books are being almost written by editors again..."
As to Chuck's motivation when writing X-comics, "...before anyone says 'well if he hates it so much why doesn't he refuse?' it's just not that simple.... if he did they'd refuse to print it, they could change it to fit their needs anyway without asking him, could fire him for being uncooperative, whatever. he doesn't have absolute control over the book, never did. that's the sacrafice you make when working with company owned characters. and i think when they started telling him what to write starting with Angels (yes, the whole Romeo and Juliet thing and Josh having the same powers as Warren was the editors idea, not Chuck's.) he thouht 'ok, i'll do this one for them.... then it will be back to my own stories' and he was actually pretty happy with how Angels turned out in the end, even tho he wasn't keen on the idea at first. but then every one since then has been the editors. for the transitionary issues, that is perfectly understandable. they are being written as an introduction tothe relaunch so you know, it's to be expected. but he even had an argument with them there, and got a compromise. atleast this way he has a bit of control over the details ot make it work as best he can.... the 'return' character he says he's found an explanation that works, (it reeeeeeealy doesn't make any sense on the surface. if he says he found a solution that makes sense, hes sure more clever than i am, 'cus i can't make any sense of it.) but i don't know what it is.…"
There was a spate, during the 90's, when ex-X-book editor, then Editor In Chief of Marvel, was accused of basically writing the X-books, and it was his demands, reflecting licensing's wishes that led to Claremont's decision to leave, then crossover after crossover, with the toyline leading the direction of the book more than the writers or artists.
And even more recently, Bill Jemas was seen as a heavy hand on certain titles he felt he had an interest in. But even then, that was with a creative eye, rather than one solely influenced by the market.
Now, it seems much of the decisions from above come down to beliefs about avoiding any possibility of bad publicity, keeping the licenses sweet for the movies and upping sales in the short term, at the expense of the quality of the work where necessary. And when even Chuck Austen is complaining about editorial interference, well... die cut covers are next, you know this. |
|
|
