Jump to content

Talk:Joe Quesada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No mention of his named be slanged to Joe Quesadilla?

[edit]

In comics shops and conventions I visit, we all call him Quesadilla. Coffee4binky (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOR and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

The picture of this Joe guy, whoever he is, is pretty crap. It's blurred. Someone change it, please. I'm drunk at the moment and don't care too much for this Joe guy anyway (I stumbled here after going to the 'friendly neighbourhood spiderman page' which I got to after looking at the 'retroactive something or other'(begins with 'c') article), but I do hate it when people put their own shitty pictures on wikipedia when there's probably something much better available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.160.101 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Nice one! The new picture is much better. 81.153.40.62 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Knight?

[edit]

Didn't he work on Moon Knight also? I'm not 100% positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzas (talk • contribs) 15:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Can some one write about his smoking ban in mavel comics

[edit]

i dont have the knowledge or i would do it

August 2006 revision

[edit]

The problem is that the guy is not liked. Nor did he "bring marvel back from extinction" as much as ruin it and then sell off the remains to Disney. Id like to see a less positive article, as he doesn't seem to be that popular. There is a difference between weasel words and giving an honest picture of the man instead of a forced positive one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC) He most often comes up in conversation because of the sale of Marvel to Disney.. he had a big role in that, but its not even mentioned. Also, he seems to be very heavy handed with forcing the other writers to follow his creative rules rather then their own. Also, he didn't save the company. he just sold it off.[reply]

I revised the "editor in chief" section, mostly expanding stuff and removing passive voice. The paragraph I'm least satisfied with is the "his effect on Marvel" one, you know, about focusing on hiring top talent or somesuch. It's not the fault of whoever came before me; I tried to make it sound less weasel-y, and I don't think I succeeded.

My feeling is that Joey Q.'s legacy at Marvel is that he brought the company back from the brink because he was both a manager and a creative type, and thus, a lifeline, a bridge between the creative guys in the Bristol-board trenches and the penny-pinching bean-counters at the top (who are vital to Marvel's function). Previous Marvel managers were strictly business, running the company into the ground with careless exploitation of Marvel's lengthy lineup of long underwear characters. His plusses are also downsides, though, as being a "hands-on manager" has led to some pretty firm and unrelenting editorial policies (and my personal beef with Marvel comics becoming more extreeeeeeeme under his tenure). That is to say, Marvel runs the risk of homogenization with Joe on board... and those opposed to Joe's policies have his way or the highway to choose from. I can't back that up, of course, I'm just trying to bring balance to this long-winded comment.

What I'm trying to say is, as usual, all help and thoughts are appreciated... go ahead, take a whack at the article, it's Wikipedia, everything is a work in progress. My major concerns are weasel words ("Some people have criticized cheese based on rumors that it may, in fact, not be made of cheese at all") and the passive voice ("rumors that the moon is made of a hard, rock-like substance have come from a variety of sources, going back as far as the days of yore"). (Okay, that's also just vague. How do you cite that?) Remember, just because Wikipedia is strictly NPOV doesn't mean that this encyclopedia cannot be useful to anybody. The fact that Joey Q. presided over a rise to long-lost prominance for Marvel is verifiable and cite-able, but the "fact" that "some say" that he "did great things" isn't. (All examples are purely hypothetical and are for entertainment purposes only.) The more specific, the better, and I know you can do better than my vague-a-thon in the article.

Hmmm, you know what else Joe Q. brought back to Marvel? Wacky sign-offs ("EEK!" in place of "'Nuff said") and cutesy nicknames for the Distinguished Competition ("AOL Comics" in place of Stan's loving "Brand Eccch"). 67.100.45.171 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC) "The Colonel"[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with this in-depth analysis of Marvel's Tade Paperback policy towards the end. It seems like a deeper analysis of Marvel's use of Trades than of Joey Q, for starters. Secondly, it really gives the impression that Marvel creates the trades market, whereas DC had been capitalizing on trades for many years. Marvel DID introduce trades to mainstream bookstores, though. Zentinel 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could benefit from a "criticisms" section containing quotes form the comic book media deriding the direction he's pushed many characters in recent years... That short statement regarding him "addressing criticism about Spider-Man" doesn't go into the criticism (deus ex machina, damage to the core character, erasing 20 years of character history) or what his responses for... I just sort of makes it seem swept under the rug. Other decisions (Loeb, Punisher) have garnered a lot of criticism as well, but the article generally seems to kiss his feet. I'll look for some more sourced negatives we can include to balance out all the love. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Steve[reply]

Interaction with readers

[edit]

Should something be said about how unusually available he is to readers on the internet? I haven't been that into comics for a few years, but back when I was he often answered my emails, and those of a lot of people I knew. And not just form stuff, real replies. Responding to my fanboy bitching in kind, just like a regular comics fan on the internet. All during the early months and years of his tenure as Marvel EIC. What genre creative director type person of his high profile does that? It's extraordinary. -- AvatarMN 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. But for someone so "available", he sure doesn't listen. Not to anyone. Not the writers, not the fans, not anyone else. Unless maybe he intended to see Marvel all along, but he had been making it Disney friendly for a while. And I don't think that the fans wanted that. Nor the writers, either. Nor even the other "bean counters". So, I guess it depends what you mean by "available". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have confused "listening" with "letting other people dictate how you do your job".

I can listen to you, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to do what you're asking me to do when it's ultimately my call.

Doesn't mean I didn't listen, though. See how that works? 24.14.224.157 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

I noticed that there are three sources for this entire article, and there are numerous instances of odd writing that seems to have been written without any understanding of the fact that claims cannot be pulled out of one's ass. Just a few examples would be "During his partnership with Jemas, and more so afterwards, Quesada became an industry mover and shaker.", "Quesada dislikes comic book deaths" and "However, Quesada's policy of complete and well-presented trade paperbacks was one of the central pillars that brought Marvel back from the brink of bankruptcy following the disastrous years of the late 1990s.". This entire article is full of such comments that have no place in Wikipedia if they cannot be backed up by some source or another. As well, the article reads as very pro-Quesada. I don't know enough about him or his work to make an opinion of him, but the tone of the article just makes him sound like an angel sent from heaven. At the very least, I thought I heard mention that some of his decisions or influences on the "One More Day" plotline drew some criticisms (maybe I'm thinking of the guy who wrote it?). Again, I really don't know, but the whole article feels like it's making wild, untraceable claims to cast him in the best light possible. I don't want to start cutting whole paragraphs out of this article, but hopefully somebody more experienced than I could read it over and maybe try to fix it up? TheGuite (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The entire article is wildly slanted in favor of the subject, few if any citations are given for the wildest of the claims (indeed, for most of the claims), and with the exception of a single paragraph no opposing viewpoint is offered at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.225.90 (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One More Day outrage

[edit]

Should it be noted that Quesada has come under fire by many fans for his Spider-Man storyline that retconned his marriage to MJ? I really think it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.162 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

signed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.78 (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

[edit]

Comic Buyer's Guide Xtra says he was born January 12, 1962 - the article here says December 1. Anyone know which it is? ntnon (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's a mixup between the US and the European dating system. US generally follows a MMDDYY standard, while Europe follows a DDMMYY, thus 01/12/1967 would be January 12th in US, and December 1st in Europe. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Though "in the miniseries NYX, written by Quesada, the protagonist, Kiden, does smoke" is an interesting factoid, shouldn't References be used for, you know, source citations? --216.240.14.125 (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:12.21.10JoeQuesadaByLuigiNovi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:12.21.10JoeQuesadaByLuigiNovi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:12.21.10JoeQuesadaByLuigiNovi.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Quesada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Quesada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Quesada&oldid=1204292720"