Blogs:

Newsarama Blogs Home > Article: Brevoort: This time, it’s not snarky. No, really.

Brevoort: This time, it’s not snarky. No, really.

January 9th, 2007
Author Graeme McMillan

It’s really easy to make fun of Tom Brevoort these days. Look, I’ll do it now, with this quote from his thread on the CBR board about why Speedball became Penance:

Speedball had been around for close to twenty years, and hadn’t really broken out as a character. Sure, there were some who liked him (myself included), but he was always seen to some degree as a reclamation project–whether the ones doing the reclamation were Fabian back in NEW WARRIORS or whoever handles him today. So the notion of taking this Peter Parker-style young character, putting him through the crucible and having him come out the other side completely changed was very interesting, and a journey we haven’t seen with an established character before in quite this way. Plus, it allows us to leave the Speedball name behind, which is one of the things that held the character back–nobody’s going to do an action figure or a cartoon or whatnot about a character whose name is a drug cocktail, intentional or not.

Yes, because everyone wants to do an action figure or a cartoon or whatnot about a character who enjoys pain and has a costume modelled after an iron maiden that causes him enough pain to have superpowers.

See? But it’s too easy to make fun of Tom these days. It’s much harder to get Tom to give a fascinating interview about his time at Marvel Comics, as Brian Michael Bendis has done:

[E]very once in a while folks here tend to jump towards the thing that is most shocking or the thing that seems most dangerous, the edgiest thing. The other thing that sort of differentiates me, if anything, from the other guys—which kind of goes back to what you were talking about before—is that I try to take a long-term view… I don’t always manage it necessarily, but I do try to take the long-term view and go, “OK, you’re going to do this now. Well, what’s the ‘get’? How are we going to end up better as a result of this as opposed to worse? Yes, that will be shocking this week and will be exciting this week and maybe we’ll sell some comics this week, but once we’re done with this, are we going to end up in a better position or a worse position overall?” Part of that is the mentality that I have a decent chance of actually still being here when we get to that point five years from now and are all going, “Boy, that was a mistake” or “Boy, that was a really good idea.”

It’s a very revealing interview about Brevoort and his relationship with the current regime at Marvel; well worth reading.

17 Responses to “Brevoort: This time, it’s not snarky. No, really.”
  1. Joe Lawler Says:

    That Steve Gerber story was really interesting.

  2. Dawn Says:

    >>>>>>>So the notion of taking this Peter Parker-style young character, putting him through the crucible and having him come out the other side completely changed was very interesting, and a journey we haven’t seen with an established character before in quite this way>>>>>>>

    In just about every other freaking way known to mankind yes, but not quite, exactly, precisely in THIS way.

    Who’s the guy kidding? Putting a good character through a meatgrinder to produce some dark, boring thing at the other end is pratically a Marvel patented process.

  3. Chad Anderson Says:

    Maybe Bendis should be the new Wizard editor. If the whole magazine was that good of a read, I might actually buy it sometime.

  4. Morrison Says:

    In my opinion, Brevoort is one of the biggest problems in Marvel editorial right now. He says one thing and does another. I can’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth. I didn’t notice it until the whole Civil War mess (where he did nothing but blame Millar and McNiven instead of being a good editor and trying to take some of the heat away from them), but I had dropped all the books I was buying he was editing over the last year.

  5. Graeme McMillan Says:

    I honestly think that Brevoort’s in a really hard place. More than Millar or McNiven, he’s become the public face of Civil War, and has to take the blame for a lot of things that probably fall outside of his control. Not to say he’s not made plenty of bad decisions himself, but still…

  6. Morrison Says:

    He might be in a hard place, but that doesn’t excuse his behavior. A good editor would’ve said “Here I am, it’s my fault, don’t blame the creators they’re working as hard as they can”. Brevoort went out of his way to blame Millar and McNiven. That’s where he lost my respect.

  7. Knox Says:

    Why do you care so much, “Morrison”? Does it really effect your enjoyment of the books if Breevort doesn’t protect the creators from the mean, nasty Trolls on the Internet? Captain America is effin brilliant- Breevort could kill babies at Wizard World and I wouldn’t drop that book.

  8. Matthew Craig Says:

    Graeme, mate. Honestly: how do you not have ulcers the size of dinner plates?

    //\Oo/\\

  9. Morrison Says:

    Well, when you notice a common factor in all the books you’re dropping, you just might have found the reason you’re dropping them.

  10. Knox Says:

    OK but pretend you had no internet connection. Would you still hate Breevort and, more importantly, the books he edits? I would guess not. Lots of comic creators are shmucks in real life, but if the work is good I keep reading.

  11. Morrison Says:

    I dropped the books before I ever knew who Brevoort was. I wasn’t enjoying them. After discovering who Brevoort was because of the Civil War fiasco, I noticed that he was editing most of the books I dropped.

  12. Aqualad Says:

    Ok, I get you now.

  13. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez Says:

    I recently noticed the Breevort thread running through my cut list, too. Captain America is the only exception, and I decided to credit Brubaker’s talent for that one.

    As for his not taking the blame for Civil War, based his self-described editorial process, I’d say he’s accepted some of the blame, though in doing so, still points the finger at the creators. Bit of a Catch-22 there, I’d say.

  14. Morrison Says:

    That editorial style may explain all the contridictions between the Civil War mini and the tie-ins

  15. Jamie Coville Says:

    I agree with Graeme. It appers that Civil War was started up with *no* lead time to either get the creators on a schedual they could publish regularly or to get all the aspects of the story hammered down and out to everybody else. As a result, everything is done by the seat of their pants and full of screw ups.

    But he can’t blame his boss for all this. And considering it’s likely the best selling thing they’ve done in 10+ years, they aren’t overly concerned about the screw ups.

  16. AdamYJ Says:

    One of the problems with what they’re doing with Speedball is that there wasn’t any other character quite like him in the Marvel Universe. There were plenty of characters like the new Penance from what I seem to remember (by the way, the name “Penance” is already taken).

    The same goes for DC and what they did with Bart Allen. There wasn’t anyone else like Impulse out there. The closest was Plastic Man and he was still significantly different. Then, Bart just got more and more normalized as time went by until he seemed like just another guy carrying the Flash legacy.

    Comic book worlds have a lack of characters that are just great, big balls of kinetic motion and fun personified.

  17. Tom Foss Says:

    So the notion of taking this Peter Parker-style young character, putting him through the crucible and having him come out the other side completely changed was very interesting, and a journey we haven’t seen with an established character before in quite this way

    “See, because we put Peter Parker through the crucible every month, and every year or two (every six months, nowadays), we really put him through the crucible, and he never comes out completely changed. He’s always pretty much the same, if not stronger and more determined. It’s a nice change of pace to write a character as if he has no integrity or conviction.”

Leave a Reply »