••

Obviously, I am not going to go and pore thru Shooter's. . . writing, to find anything he might have to say on this subject.

But I will say that I have never heard Mike say a bad word about Mark, and never heard Mark say a bad word about Mike. Indeed, when Mark died, Mike was trying to coax him over to DC. I still think that move might well have saved his life.

John Byrne wrote: ...In SECRET WARS, he had the Beyonder scoop Galactus off to his planet, as one of the "villains" (despite my having spent two years -- at Shooter's order! -- establishing in FANTASTIC FOUR that Galactus was NOT a "villain")...

Being that "Secret Wars" was created as a toy merchandise tie-in, it's strange that Galactus was included to begin with, because there wasn't a Galactus action figure in the "Secret Wars" toy line. I wonder, was it Marvel or Mattel Toys that decided which villains and heroes were used for the series?

it's strange that Galactus was included to begin with, because there wasn't a Galactus action figure in the "Secret Wars" toy line.

******************

Only one hero actually carried a shield in the comics, too...

••

Originally, there was going to be a Galactus toy -- I was looking forward to it -- but it proved to be "too expensive", and as you may recall, that particular toy line was all about CHEAP. (Doctor Doom with Iron Man's arms and legs, for instance!)

(Doctor Doom with Iron Man's arms and legs, for instance!)

*********

Seems like I remember Kang shared some body parts with Doom. ( or maybe Iron Man. It's been a long time...)

••

In the toy biz, there is something called "perceived value". This is why so many action figures have superfluous crackerjack attached. The idea is to give the kids (or the parents, grandparents, etc) a perception of getting their money's worth.

Revisiting SECRET WARS as an adult was nothing short of a jarring experience.  I can't think of a comic series produced between 1961 and 1991 in which the characters were so blatantly written out of character.  I kept thinking, "this guy was the editor in chief?!?!?!"
____________________________________________________________ ___

I remember reading it at 11 or 12 and thinking that. Mainly over his handling of the X-Men and the way the other heroes perceived them.

I know it's 8 days later, but I was skimming the Internet and found this, which is (obviously) relevant to this thread:

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/03/11/comic-bo ok-legends-revealed-251/

And in Brian Cronin's analysis:

Ultimately, my take is that neither man is “wrong,” and it was likely a combination of the two events, but in Stern’s case, he specifically felt that the “broken string” reason was his main reason. It might be that had he agreed on THAT point that he would have still quit over the “no three issue stories” deal (which we do know WAS a short-lived edict at Marvel Comics during the early 80s), but his main reason was the one that he stated. And, as Byrne recalls, it WAS that Stern had a disagreement with the Cap editor and quit, which is what Stern says – just a slight variation as to the origin of the argument that directly led to Stern quitting.