Read his answer about Bernie Wrightson and the Frankenstein comic in that voice - oh my word do they use the exact same speech patterns.

Jim Shooter definitely paints himself as the hero although all the stuff he says about the problems with current Marvel echo what many of us have said here. The decompressed comics where it takes six issues of a current Marvel comic to equal what six pages of a Jack Kirby comic did. The incentive covers to boost flagging sales. Some of his claims I find kind of dubious. Do Marvel creators really own 20 percent of their work for hire creations because of Shooter? If you create a title, you get 1 percent of that title for eternity?

When I trusted DC and Marvel to give me books I enjoyed--indeed a whole universe to jump into--I bought their whole line-ups.

For decades now, I haven't trusted editorial, so I only follow the talent.  I trust John Byrne to give me a good story, so I buy all his stuff.  I trust Neal Adams to give me beautiful pictures, so I buy all his stuff (even knowing the story may not be there)--it's worth it.  I trust Kurt Busiek, Brent Anderson, and Alex Ross to give me a great issue of ASTRO CITY every time (my gosh--what a run!).  Depending on the talent, the last few years, I've been buying 5 or 10 Marvels and DCs every month--because I trusted the talent on those books.

Since Hydra Cap, I can't trust Marvel at all.  So, I dropped all their books--even the ones unrelated to Cap.  (But, really, with all the crossover "events" they force down our throats, all of their books are too related.)

Even though DC lost my trust with way too many reboots, I'm open to buying them--but only because of the talent I like.  If Starlin or Adams do anything, I will buy it.

If both companies followed Shooter's basic guidelines, I'd be back.  I'd be back and a lot of other people would be back.  And those simple guidelines of engendering trust would also be the way to bring in new readers too.

Marvel's new Editor-In-Chief seems to be setting the 'bar' low.