X-Men: Hidden Years
Firefall
Pick
Sanctify
It was shceduled to be cancelled at issue 18, smack dab in the middle of a
damn interesting story line, but Quesada gave Byrne an extra four issues to
totally wrap it up - the colossal prick (Quesada not Byrne). Even then the
last two issues fell apart with the last issue having the impression of
being thrown together by a very angry Byrne who couldn't care less about
Marvel (the last few pages are amongst the worst drawn Byrne pages I've ever
seen) - and no bloody wonder. Byrne was getting back to restoring his
reputation that had taken some serious battering with Chapter One and being
part of Mackie's Spiderman with solid artwork, a decent story-line going
that seemed to in for the long run and some fucking cretin decides to cancel
it on a whim. Didnd't make me too happy and pretty much soured me on Joey
Bag O'Donuts abilities as an EIC, especially with the false cancellation
reason given - you don't axe a book in order to 'cut down on the amount of
X-Titles in the market' and then create a few more X-Titles - the peon.
.
"Firefall" <alagonf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns915EDA133C...@208.33.253.13...
Aaron Forever
extremely boring, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to anything.
I was glad to see it go, even after I'd given up after issue 12 or 13 or so.
The excuse given for cancelling it was reasonable enough. It was a waste of
space with some rather dull stories to tell to fill in a rather boring
period of X-Men continuity (so boring in fact that it got cancelled and put
into reprints at the time). Certainly, it could have been a great title.
But still, it diluted the line. Even Exiles, as pointless as it is, is
infintely more interesting than continuity-gap plugging. That Byrne
completely overreacted and has made a complete ass of himself in the
aftermath (as he always so reliably does), makes its cancellation even more
enjoyable.
Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely. Apologies up
front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue 12, I'd
figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere extremely
slowly.....)
"Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9db7b$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
Shawn Hill
: We mustn't forget that the title itself was moving very slowly, was
: extremely boring, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to anything.
: I was glad to see it go, even after I'd given up after issue 12 or 13 or so.
It was relevant to its fans; which it did have some of. Aside from the
specious given reasons for cancelling it, I also think it's a mistake to
cancel anything that's found an audience.
: The excuse given for cancelling it was reasonable enough. It was a waste of
: space with some rather dull stories to tell to fill in a rather boring
: period of X-Men continuity (so boring in fact that it got cancelled and put
: into reprints at the time). Certainly, it could have been a great title.
Your explanation of what went on in the X-men in the early 70s is
glaringly simplistic.
: But still, it diluted the line. Even Exiles, as pointless as it is, is
: infintely more interesting than continuity-gap plugging. That Byrne
: completely overreacted and has made a complete ass of himself in the
: aftermath (as he always so reliably does), makes its cancellation even more
: enjoyable.
Hidden Years was a nostalgia trip, both for the creator and his audience.
So what? What's so bad about that? It looked (mostly) good, and it let him
play with some stuff from a very crucial point in Marvel history, the
point when Stan and Jack had moved on and a new generation had to take up
the reigns. There's a lot of stuff from that era worthy of mining, as
FabNic and KB consistently show today.
: Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely. Apologies up
: front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue 12, I'd
: figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere extremely
: slowly.....)
Nowhere you wanted to go, perhaps. I appreciated the insight into Warren,
Jean in unadulterated (by Phoenix-passion or Wolvie-love desires) and more
simple form (this was also an aspect I enjoyed about Children of the Atom,
before that title imploded), Beast not all blue and furry, the vision of
Storm still in Goddess-mode, Bobby with feelings for Polaris, etc.
Shawn
Justice
"Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9db7b$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> Bag O'Donuts
A ha ha! Joey Bag O' Donuts! The unbridled hilarity!
-Justice
Sanctify
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
in message news:9tcnok$u1$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> We mustn't forget that the title itself was moving very slowly, was
> extremely boring, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to anything.
> I was glad to see it go, even after I'd given up after issue 12 or 13 or
so.
We musn't forget that the title itself was moving at it's own pace - as was
always intended. Byrne went in with only one real certain - that no matter
what happened the stories would eventually end up at GS X-Men and thus X-Men
94 and that was it. As Byrne said - he could then take 20 issues to tell a
single afternoon's play if he wanted to. That appealed to me no end and
obviously to a lot of other people as well. Sorry if you found it borning,
I certainly didn't and neither did a lot of other people I've spoken to.
Stories don't always have to be about big bangs and doom and gloom.
>
> The excuse given for cancelling it was reasonable enough. It was a waste
of
> space with some rather dull stories to tell to fill in a rather boring
> period of X-Men continuity (so boring in fact that it got cancelled and
put
> into reprints at the time). Certainly, it could have been a great title.
> But still, it diluted the line. Even Exiles, as pointless as it is, is
> infintely more interesting than continuity-gap plugging. That Byrne
> completely overreacted and has made a complete ass of himself in the
> aftermath (as he always so reliably does), makes its cancellation even
more
> enjoyable.
The excuse given was utter bullshit. To cut down on titles was the main
excuse. To get the X-Universe back to a few core titles and thus not have
heaps of books out there to dilute the range. Fair enough excuse. But then
after axing THY and a couple of other titles Quesada then approves yet more
titles. Thus it negates the original excuse. Personally I think that Joey
boy just didn't understand what Byrne was doing, but then Joey's latter
actions (wanting more 'younger' talent at Marvel at the expense of 'older'
talent) kinda makes me think that Joey just wanted to get rid of Byrne.
After all this is the same idiot that allowed Larsen to do some half-arsed
Fantastic Four mini-series pretending to be Lee and Kirby. Larsen isn't
even Kirby's bootlace let alone fill in guy.
>
> Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely. Apologies up
> front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue 12,
I'd
> figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere extremely
> slowly.....)
If you gave up after issue 12 then you missed a lot. I enjoyed it far more
that I have any other X-Title in a long, long while. The insights into the
characters and their devlopment was going along nicely and the potential for
the book was pretty much untapped. You knew that the Avengers, Spiderman,
Captain America, Magneto - they were all going to be there eventually and
it'd have helped fill in a lot of gaps in the X-Men's past. It'll probably
never happen now, but knowing the clowns at Marvel they'll let Erik Larsen
fill in all of those gaps.
Aaron Forever
"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9tcovm$h0n$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Aaron Forever <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote:
> : We mustn't forget that the title itself was moving very slowly, was
> : extremely boring, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to
anything.
> : I was glad to see it go, even after I'd given up after issue 12 or 13 or
so.
>
> It was relevant to its fans; which it did have some of. Aside from the
> specious given reasons for cancelling it, I also think it's a mistake to
> cancel anything that's found an audience.
>
Depends. If the audience its found cannot support the cost of putting it
out, it isn't a mistake. And if you can find a bigger audience by putting
your money into something else, then it isn't a mistake.
> : The excuse given for cancelling it was reasonable enough. It was a
waste of
> : space with some rather dull stories to tell to fill in a rather boring
> : period of X-Men continuity (so boring in fact that it got cancelled and
put
> : into reprints at the time). Certainly, it could have been a great
title.
>
> Your explanation of what went on in the X-men in the early 70s is
> glaringly simplistic.
>
As were the stories themselves....
> : But still, it diluted the line. Even Exiles, as pointless as it is, is
> : infintely more interesting than continuity-gap plugging. That Byrne
> : completely overreacted and has made a complete ass of himself in the
> : aftermath (as he always so reliably does), makes its cancellation even
more
> : enjoyable.
>
> Hidden Years was a nostalgia trip, both for the creator and his audience.
> So what? What's so bad about that? It looked (mostly) good, and it let him
> play with some stuff from a very crucial point in Marvel history, the
> point when Stan and Jack had moved on and a new generation had to take up
> the reigns. There's a lot of stuff from that era worthy of mining, as
> FabNic and KB consistently show today.
>
The difference is, they bring those stories and characters back and apply
them to the present, where they have a chance at being worthwhile. Writing
a continuity gap that takes place at a time when the book was cancelled, by
definition, cannot advance any sort of storyline. We know what's happened
since.
> : Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely. Apologies
up
> : front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue 12,
I'd
> : figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere extremely
> : slowly.....)
>
> Nowhere you wanted to go, perhaps.
Well that cetainly wouldn't be the Savage Land for something like 15 issues
straight, that's for sure.
Aaron Forever
>
> "Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
> in message news:9tcnok$u1$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > We mustn't forget that the title itself was moving very slowly, was
> > extremely boring, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to
anything.
> > I was glad to see it go, even after I'd given up after issue 12 or 13 or
> so.
>
> We musn't forget that the title itself was moving at it's own pace - as
was
> always intended. Byrne went in with only one real certain - that no
matter
> what happened the stories would eventually end up at GS X-Men and thus
X-Men
> 94 and that was it. As Byrne said - he could then take 20 issues to tell
a
> single afternoon's play if he wanted to. That appealed to me no end and
> obviously to a lot of other people as well. Sorry if you found it
borning,
No, this can work. It can work in something like Cerebus. Marginally. But
John Byrne doesn't have the skill to pull this kind of thing off. Check out
his relaunch of the Hulk. The same exact story for, what, 3? 4? 5 issues?
It drags.
> of
> > space with some rather dull stories to tell to fill in a rather boring
> > period of X-Men continuity (so boring in fact that it got cancelled and
> put
> > into reprints at the time). Certainly, it could have been a great
title.
> > But still, it diluted the line. Even Exiles, as pointless as it is, is
> > infintely more interesting than continuity-gap plugging. That Byrne
> > completely overreacted and has made a complete ass of himself in the
> > aftermath (as he always so reliably does), makes its cancellation even
> more
> > enjoyable.
>
> The excuse given was utter bullshit. To cut down on titles was the main
> excuse. To get the X-Universe back to a few core titles and thus not have
> heaps of books out there to dilute the range. Fair enough excuse. But
then
> after axing THY and a couple of other titles Quesada then approves yet
more
> titles. Thus it negates the original excuse.
Not really. Before the culling, there were several more than there are now.
And several with much better ideas than just filling in the period where the
core book was in reprints. Books that can change the characters, change the
books, tell stories relavent to today's society and today's continuity. By
definition, Hidden Years could do none of these things.
Personally I think that Joey
> boy just didn't understand what Byrne was doing, but then Joey's latter
> actions (wanting more 'younger' talent at Marvel at the expense of 'older'
> talent) kinda makes me think that Joey just wanted to get rid of Byrne.
You can't make an omelette without breakign some eggs. And befor eyou
start, it's best to look through your eggs and throw out the ones that are
past their expiration date.
> >
> > Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely. Apologies
up
> > front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue 12,
> I'd
> > figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere extremely
> > slowly.....)
>
> If you gave up after issue 12 then you missed a lot. I enjoyed it far
more
> that I have any other X-Title in a long, long while.
This, plus the fact that you don't like what Morrison's doing with his title
suggest to me that you long for the days of your childhood and wish to
return to the comic books of the 70's and 80's. Not a slam at you, but
really, things change. Marvel isn't going to get anywhere staying in the
same position and selling the same books to an ever-aging audience. They
tried that throughout the 90s, and it got them in a mess.
The insights into the
> characters and their devlopment was going along nicely and the potential
for
> the book was pretty much untapped.
Maybe that's because there's really no way to get more insight into those
characters that hasn't been dealt with again and again in the last 25 years.
After all, if you can't allow the characters to grow and change from your
start point to your end point, then really there's no point in offering any
insight at all.
Sanctify
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
in message news:9tcu1b$n8c$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
In your opinion. In mine I enjoyed it and appreciated the slower pace. It
appeared to me that Byrne was attempting to get as much out of the stories
as possible without having to rush and thus missing out points that might
become relevant later on down the track.
Agbain, I beg to differ. By filling in an important gap (between the
cancellation of the original series and the relaunch) Byrne was creating
continuity. He was altering the characters by the killing of Angel's
mother, the introduction of Storm pre-GS1. Thus I can't see how your
thinking works there.
As for being relevant to today's society - of course it wasn't going to be
relevant. The stories were set in the past and that was made clear from
word go. But should we then avoid retcons and any re-telling of an origin
or past story?
>
>
> Personally I think that Joey
> > boy just didn't understand what Byrne was doing, but then Joey's latter
> > actions (wanting more 'younger' talent at Marvel at the expense of
'older'
> > talent) kinda makes me think that Joey just wanted to get rid of Byrne.
>
> You can't make an omelette without breakign some eggs. And befor eyou
> start, it's best to look through your eggs and throw out the ones that are
> past their expiration date.
In which case Joey should have axed himself. At the very least Byrne was
producing quality product on time. Something that Quesada is incapable of
doing.
>
>
> > >
> > > Sorry, that's how I feel. I know some enjoyed it immensely.
Apologies
> up
> > > front for offending whoever that might conceivably be. But by issue
12,
> > I'd
> > > figured out this was going nowhere fast (rather, going nowhere
extremely
> > > slowly.....)
> >
> > If you gave up after issue 12 then you missed a lot. I enjoyed it far
> more
> > that I have any other X-Title in a long, long while.
>
> This, plus the fact that you don't like what Morrison's doing with his
title
> suggest to me that you long for the days of your childhood and wish to
> return to the comic books of the 70's and 80's. Not a slam at you, but
> really, things change. Marvel isn't going to get anywhere staying in the
> same position and selling the same books to an ever-aging audience. They
> tried that throughout the 90s, and it got them in a mess.
I might not like what Morrison is doing but that doesn't mean it should be
axed. I can accept that others enjoy it and good for them. People I know
are trying to get me to read the titles now and I give them the odd shot.
And be very aware that one day you'll be part of this 'ever aging audience'.
So are you suggesting that Marvel only produce books for 14-21 year olds and
screw the rest?
>
> The insights into the
> > characters and their devlopment was going along nicely and the potential
> for
> > the book was pretty much untapped.
>
> Maybe that's because there's really no way to get more insight into those
> characters that hasn't been dealt with again and again in the last 25
years.
> After all, if you can't allow the characters to grow and change from your
> start point to your end point, then really there's no point in offering
any
> insight at all.
Then why bother writing them anymore? Why not just kill them all and start
anew with new characters?
Perhaps what you're suggesting here is that Marvel have it's own Crisis.
The only thing being is that Marvel wouldn't have the forsight nor the guts
to attempt such a task.
Aaron Forever
> In your opinion. In mine I enjoyed it and appreciated the slower pace.
It
> appeared to me that Byrne was attempting to get as much out of the stories
> as possible without having to rush and thus missing out points that might
> become relevant later on down the track.
Or maybe he was just stalling, because he knew he couldn't tell all that
many important stories. I see it as treading water while he waits for
another irrelevent and dull plot point to come to mind.
> Agbain, I beg to differ. By filling in an important gap (between the
> cancellation of the original series and the relaunch) Byrne was creating
> continuity.
Important? We got by with not caring what happened there for, oh, about 24
years. Why? Because we know nothing important happened. And still, point
to something important that happened in X-Men The Hidden Years that wasn't
addressed as a plot element or character element somewhere else while the
X-Men were cancelled or after.
He was altering the characters by the killing of Angel's
> mother,
Yes, well we knew she was dead. And he seemed okay about it by the time
GS#1 came out and in the 25 years since, so I'm guessing it's really not all
that relevent or interesting. And certainly has little bearing on his
character.
>the introduction of Storm pre-GS1. Thus I can't see how your
> thinking works there.
This is perhaps my biggest problem with the series altogether. By the time
he'd gotten to the Storm intro, it comes off as him having run out of ideas
to do with these seven stale old X-Men already and had to find some rather
coincidental and unlikely way to telegraph Storm's involvement with the team
later. Really irked me that she was making a rather insignificant
appearance already. In fact, he was changing her history and relationship
to the team for no important reason at all.
>
> As for being relevant to today's society - of course it wasn't going to be
> relevant. The stories were set in the past and that was made clear from
> word go. But should we then avoid retcons and any re-telling of an origin
> or past story?
Retcons? Most of the time. It's gimmicky and lazy. But it can be done
well. Re-telling a past story? Yes, absolutely we should avoid.
Especially if you're asking me to pay for it. Why would I pay for a new
telling of the same old story that I probably already bought? Ridiculous.
Which is why I'd never pay money for something like Casey's "Children of the
Atom" (especially considering the stupid, arbitrary changes he made in it).
.
>
> In which case Joey should have axed himself. At the very least Byrne was
> producing quality product on time. Something that Quesada is incapable of
> doing.
Errr... of course you're overlooking what he did with the Marvel Knights
line and specifically his Daredevil artwork.
> I might not like what Morrison is doing but that doesn't mean it should be
> axed. I can accept that others enjoy it and good for them. People I know
> are trying to get me to read the titles now and I give them the odd shot.
>
> And be very aware that one day you'll be part of this 'ever aging
audience'.
> So are you suggesting that Marvel only produce books for 14-21 year olds
and
> screw the rest?
No. I'm 25 myself. Part of that ever-aging audience. And no, they
shouldn't produce only things for kids. However, neither should they put
out stale product like Hidden Years just to satiate people that remember the
'glory days'.
>
> Then why bother writing them anymore? Why not just kill them all and
start
> anew with new characters?
>
No, you're missing my point. The point is for the characters to evolve. By
definition and intent, Hidden Years would not be a vehicle for this.
> Perhaps what you're suggesting here is that Marvel have it's own Crisis.
Hardly.
> The only thing being is that Marvel wouldn't have the forsight nor the
guts
> to attempt such a task.
Or in the case of the new regime, they wouldn't have the sheer stupidity.
Maybe that's why they wanted to get Byrne out of there... to cut him off at
the pass before he tried to lead THEM down that path too.
PAL
just had to tweak a few things to end the storyline as best he could. So,
the work was already finished. IMO, Quesada gave JB zip!
~PAL
"Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9db7b$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> Issue 22.
>
> It was shceduled to be cancelled at issue 18, smack dab in the middle of a
> damn interesting story line, but Quesada gave Byrne an extra four issues
to
> totally wrap it up...<snip>
PAL
I wasn't looking for any major league continuity changes. I wasn't looking
for 'important' stories. I wasn't looking for anything 'relevant to today's
society.'
I knew from the start that JB was going into this to have fun. It was
something that he has always wanted to do. It was harmless to the current
convoluted continuity. It was an easy read. It was an escape from all the
other drek out there.
I went into reading Hidden Years knowing that the storyteller was having
fun. It made it fun for me, too.
It's just too bad the PTB didn't feel that way.
~PAL
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
in message news:9td6hl$agp$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Firefall
<3bf9db7b$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au>:
>Issue 22.
Thanks,
Pick
CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :
Found a lot safer place, I see...must not have the "intestinal
fortitude" to make good on the promises that you made to your friends
at AFM...right? ;)
Oh well...
[giggle]
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote in message news:<9tcu1b$n8c$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> No, this can work. It can work in something like Cerebus. Marginally. But
> John Byrne doesn't have the skill to pull this kind of thing off
>
> You can't make an omelette without breakign some eggs. And befor eyou
> start, it's best to look through your eggs and throw out the ones that are
> past their expiration date.
>
> This, plus the fact that you don't like what Morrison's doing with his title
> suggest to me that you long for the days of your childhood
>
> After all, if you can't allow the characters to grow and change from your
> start point to your end point, then really there's no point in offering any
> insight at all.
>
-----
From: Aaron Forever (foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com)
Subject: Re: I really miss JAKOBUS
Oh, no doubt about it. They did. Good people, just looking to talk
about
Madonna, but they just didn't have the intestinal fortitude (I'll wait
while
you go look that up) to do what needed to be done.
Aaron Forever
stories, it got boring.
"PAL" <pal@don'tbother.com> wrote in message
news:7JqK7.33345$RG1.16...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
Aaron Forever
your head that A.F.M doesn't load for me so I can't very well post there.
In fact, I'm not even able to cross-post this back to AFM for you.
"CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :" <letemk...@leesmail.com> wrote in
message news:4c090bcb.0111...@posting.google.com...
CoCos skin looks soooooooooo pretty
Subject: Re: X-Men: Hidden Years...Red Rover, Red Rover...
letemk...@leesmail.com (CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :) wrote in message
news:<4c090bcb.0111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Red Rover, Red Rover, let Aaron come over!! :)
>
> Found a lot safer place, I see...must not have the "intestinal
> fortitude" to make good on the promises that you made to your friends
> at AFM...right? ;)
>
> Oh well...
>
> [giggle]
>
>
Yes, I think I can remember Aaron saying something like..."You'll have me to
deal with from now on!" ...I think that was Day-1 of his 1-Day war.
[rolls eyes]
> "Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote in
message news:<9tcu1b$n8c$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > No, this can work. It can work in something like Cerebus. Marginally.
But
> > John Byrne doesn't have the skill to pull this kind of thing off
> >
> > You can't make an omelette without breakign some eggs. And befor eyou
> > start, it's best to look through your eggs and throw out the ones that are
> > past their expiration date.
> >
> > This, plus the fact that you don't like what Morrison's doing with his
title
> > suggest to me that you long for the days of your childhood
> >
> > After all, if you can't allow the characters to grow and change from your
> > start point to your end point, then really there's no point in offering any
> > insight at all.
> >
>
> -----
>
> From: Aaron Forever (foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com)
> Subject: Re: I really miss JAKOBUS
>
>
> Oh, no doubt about it. They did. Good people, just looking to talk
> about
> Madonna, but they just didn't have the intestinal fortitude (I'll wait
> while
> you go look that up) to do what needed to be done.
--
CoCo just might have the prettiest skin that this world has ever seen,
ever...fact. :)
The proof:
http://community-2.webtv.net/cocoloveslife/LetemknowCoCo
Perfect!
Aaron Forever
"CoCos skin looks soooooooooo pretty" <thesn...@aol.comegetsome> wrote in
message news:20011120152915...@mb-fw.aol.com...
CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :
You had absolutely no problems with your wrist-trusting, until it
became obvious that you couldn't keep up, so you went straight back to
the NG that you were posting at, prior to your blister-pissied
frothing at AFM. Kind of turned out exactly the way we said it
would...correct? ;)
Oh well
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote in message news:<9te939$r96$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote in message news:<9tehsv$sl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Aaron Forever
group. Unfortunately, that's the way it's turned out with my either dodgy
local hookup to the news server or just the usual incomprehensible kinks of
Outlook Express. I'll be back as soon as I can.
"CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :" <letemk...@leesmail.com> wrote in
message news:4c090bcb.01112...@posting.google.com...
Jeremy Henderson
______________________________________________________
Jeremy Henderson, "Way too clever for this newsgroup."
Boring stories by a boring man can be found at
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm2/smshowauthorbox.cgi?page=1&author=HendersonJL
CoCos skin looks soooooooooo pretty
>From: "Aaron Forever"
>Not really. I didn't make a return to Usenet to post to just this one
>group. Unfortunately, that's the way it's turned out with my either dodgy
>local hookup to the news server or just the usual incomprehensible kinks of
>Outlook Express. I'll be back as soon as I can.
>
You sound easily defeated.
--
CoCos skin looks soooooooooo pretty
>From: Jeremy Henderson jhinh...@verizon.net
>
>Could you two please take this conversation to email?
>
Well, Aaron has never mentioned one word about email...just that we're "going
to have to deal with" him, from now on...what about it Aaron? Want to take it
to email...or is that not working either?
Oh well...
CoCos skin looks soooooooooo pretty
>
>From: "Aaron Forever" foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com
>
>as soon as I can access AFM I'll be back.
>
TAG, you're it!! :)
Enjoy your comic books, in the meantime...'kay? ;)
>> letemk...@leesmail.com (CoCo loves life sooooooo much! :) wrote in
>message
>> news:<4c090bcb.0111...@posting.google.com>...
>> >
>> > Red Rover, Red Rover, let Aaron come over!! :)
>> >
>> > Found a lot safer place, I see...must not have the "intestinal
>> > fortitude" to make good on the promises that you made to your
>> > friends at AFM...right? ;)
>> >
>> > Oh well...
--
Aaron
"Scott McAllister" <mis...@home.com> wrote in message
news:KDYK7.3154$%_4.7...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
>
> "Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
> in message news:9tct6o$7r3$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > > There's a lot of stuff from that era worthy of mining, as
> > > FabNic and KB consistently show today.
> > >
> >
> > The difference is, they bring those stories and characters back and
apply
> > them to the present, where they have a chance at being worthwhile.
> Writing
> > a continuity gap that takes place at a time when the book was cancelled,
> by
> > definition, cannot advance any sort of storyline. We know what's
happened
> > since.
>
> disagree.
I don't. The concept was a waste, even though something rather decent was
done with it.
There is nothing stopping writers from bringing into the modern
> MU characters or plot elemnets introduced in these "shoehorn" books.
Exactly which characters from Hidden Years do you think are worth bringing
back?
Isn't
> Citizen V vol 2 supposed to incorporate bits from Lost Generation? As to
> why UTOS isn't still around, I'm sure there are different opinions.
> Basically, it was underpriced. Good as it was, it couldn't keep going at
> $0.99. And when the writer is leaving, that's a good time to wrap it up.
> X:THY was not a 99-cent book. It covered its costs. And even with the
new
> X-stuff out today, I still would've found a spot on my pull list for it.
>
> I didn't expect X:THY to go on forever, but a little longer might not
> have hurt. It could've gone on to about issue 28, which would've covered
> the reprint period. Since the original series was bimonthly, it could've
> even gone twice that as a monthly. It would've been great if, in the last
> issue, the X-Men set off to Krakoa(?) the living island. "To be continued
> in Giant Sized X-Men #1". Then Marvel could've followed it up with a nice
> reprinting of GSXM #1, or hyped a Masterworks or Essentials edition for
that
> period.
>
This is about the only way the series could have worked. I'd have liked to
see it go out this way. However, sitting through painful months and months
of nothing happening in the Savage Land was too painful to endure. I don't
have anything against the book except 2 things: the pacing was awful and it
served little purpose except to tease things that happened in the books
later (Storm and Phoenix come to mind most readily). It could have worked,
but they spent too much time piddling around with irrelevent shit. Some
decent villains and a quicker pace would have helped immensely.
Scott McAllister
"Aaron Forever" <foreve...@donotemailmeidonotwanttotalktoyou.com> wrote
in message news:9tct6o$7r3$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > There's a lot of stuff from that era worthy of mining, as
> > FabNic and KB consistently show today.
> >
>
> The difference is, they bring those stories and characters back and apply
> them to the present, where they have a chance at being worthwhile.
Writing
> a continuity gap that takes place at a time when the book was cancelled,
by
> definition, cannot advance any sort of storyline. We know what's happened
> since.
By that argument, Untold Tales of Spider-Man was a waste. I totally
disagree. There is nothing stopping writers from bringing into the modern
MU characters or plot elemnets introduced in these "shoehorn" books. Isn't
Citizen V vol 2 supposed to incorporate bits from Lost Generation? As to
why UTOS isn't still around, I'm sure there are different opinions.
Basically, it was underpriced. Good as it was, it couldn't keep going at
$0.99. And when the writer is leaving, that's a good time to wrap it up.
X:THY was not a 99-cent book. It covered its costs. And even with the new
X-stuff out today, I still would've found a spot on my pull list for it.
I didn't expect X:THY to go on forever, but a little longer might not
have hurt. It could've gone on to about issue 28, which would've covered
the reprint period. Since the original series was bimonthly, it could've
even gone twice that as a monthly. It would've been great if, in the last
issue, the X-Men set off to Krakoa(?) the living island. "To be continued
in Giant Sized X-Men #1". Then Marvel could've followed it up with a nice
reprinting of GSXM #1, or hyped a Masterworks or Essentials edition for that
period.
BTW, I thought the farewell cover to #22 was nicely done.
Scott
Peter Gambardella
Brian Fried
> We musn't forget that the title itself was moving at it's own pace - as
was
> always intended. Byrne went in with only one real certain - that no
matter
> what happened the stories would eventually end up at GS X-Men and thus
X-Men
> 94 and that was it. As Byrne said - he could then take 20 issues to tell
a
> single afternoon's play if he wanted to. That appealed to me no end and
> obviously to a lot of other people as well. Sorry if you found it
borning,
> I certainly didn't and neither did a lot of other people I've spoken to.
> Stories don't always have to be about big bangs and doom and gloom.
> The excuse given was utter bullshit. To cut down on titles was the main
> excuse. To get the X-Universe back to a few core titles and thus not have
> heaps of books out there to dilute the range. Fair enough excuse. But
then
> after axing THY and a couple of other titles Quesada then approves yet
more
> titles. Thus it negates the original excuse. Personally I think that
Joey
> boy just didn't understand what Byrne was doing, but then Joey's latter
> actions (wanting more 'younger' talent at Marvel at the expense of 'older'
> talent) kinda makes me think that Joey just wanted to get rid of Byrne.
> After all this is the same idiot that allowed Larsen to do some half-arsed
> Fantastic Four mini-series pretending to be Lee and Kirby. Larsen isn't
> even Kirby's bootlace let alone fill in guy.
You're missing some very important points, though.
Originally, The Hidden Years was to start with issue 67 and run until issue
93, thereby replacing the reprint issues of Uncanny. But since the issues 1
through 66 were not commonly available (the Masterwork had gone out of print
and the Classic X-Men/X-Men Classic reprints hadn't been collected for
years), the only people who'd be interested in Hidden Years beyond a few
issues were those dedicated fans of the Silver Age. So they did the smart
thing: they started it back at #1, and Byrne "hid" the issue number into the
cover. That still wasn't enough, so they asked Byrne to come up with a
villain that could appear in a present issue of Uncanny X-Men to ensure the
series was relevant.
Byrne's solution was to create a villain to face young Storm in the midst of
the extensive Savage Land story. The plan backfired because (a) it had taken
so many issues to get there that many casual readers had lost interest, (b)
many fans disliked the retconning of Storm into previous X-Men missions, and
(c) Chris Claremont, writer at the time, wasn't interested in an old
villain, he wanted to make new ones.
To make matters worse, Byrne was also occupied with the art and co-plotting
chores on Amazing Spider-Man -- many people credit Mary Jane's "death" to
Byrne since it was used in a number of Byrne runs -- and he was doing the
Lost Generation. Amazing was not getting any great reviews, and The Lost
Generation turned out to be completely irrelevant to modern continuity.
Enter Joe Quesada. Quesada became Editor In Chief because of his brief stint
as editor of Marvel Knights. Marvel Knights took second rate characters and
made readers excited about them. Readers came because Marvel Knights
attracted big name creators with the promise of carte blanche. Compared to
Bob Harris, who's X-Men were perpetually working towards Days of Future Past
without actually ever getting there, it was a visible movement forward.
Quesada is not a fan of the mutants. His first task, though, was to fix the
Spider-Man books in anticipation of the feature film. So gone was Howard
Mackie and in was J. Michael Straczynski. Byrne had left a few months
before, pushed out as new Peter Parker scribe Paul Jenkins (given the book
because of the overwhelming positive response to his Webspinners story) got
Mark Buckingham and John Romita Jr. had to go elsewhere (like Amazing
Spider-Man).
When he got to the mutants, he knew quite well that a new reader won't come
on to one book when you have to read two others to get the full story. So no
more crossovers, no more links. And without those links, many books became
redundant. Why are there two next generations, and neither at the school?
Good-bye Generation X and X-Force. A book about an X-Man doing something on
top of the X-Men without a plan of how or with whom? Good-bye Bishop: XSE
and Gambit. An alternate reality which is based on convoluted events in the
regular Marvel universe you need knowledge of? Good-be X-Man and Mutant X.
And then there was X-Men: The Hidden Years. If the idea is to do something
new to get the franchise noticed, why have this nostalgia piece around? It
certainly wasn't contributing anything to the new adventures of the X-Men.
It wasn't revealing anything new about the characters either, really. So
that book got cancelled.
Byrne was upset, and rightly so: he had plans for the book. Quesada and
Marvel gave Byrne the extra time to finish the series satisfactorily, given
how the issues had already been plotted ahead. Byrne never said thank you,
and instead bad mouthed Marvel where he could. Hopefully that rift can be
mended soon, but truth be told: none of Byrne's projects were garnering
great reviews or great sales.
The only other nostalgia piece at Marvel was Erik Larsen's Fantastic Four:
World's Greatest Comic Magazine BUT, unlike Byrne's Hidden Years, the series
had a finite length. Not wanting a repeat of the egg-on-the-face they got
with the premature cancellation of other mini-series (ie. Blade), they
allowed Larsen to do all twelve issues. Since Byrne had no end in sight,
Marvel had to put an end in themselves.
So what did that leave at the X-office? The Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, Wolverine
(the top three sellers) and Cable (which made the cut because of good
reviews and a potential writer). Chris Claremont was still on staff, and he
got X-Treme X-Men and its freedom from the others, which made book five.
X-Force's name was cool, and Milligan and Allred got that, which made it
back to six. Then came Brotherhood (work for Howard Mackie) and Exiles (a
cross between Generation X and Mutant X that wouldn't interfere with the
others). That puts it up to 8. X-Men Unlimited was still around, but it was
like an annual -- rare and relatively unimportant.
All the rest would be dealt with in mini-series that would focus on
characters but be otherwise irrelevant.
How that's hurting the X-line I'd really like to know, given that -- as a
retailer -- I've noticed that the books are much better at selling
themselves. The days of "buy one x-book, buy them all" are gone, and the
Bat-office at DC is getting ready to follow suit. Brotherhood is gone and
Unlimited is going bi-monthly: the eight still sell themselves individually
and that's a huge attraction, especially given the good press for New X-Men
and X-Force.
> If you gave up after issue 12 then you missed a lot. I enjoyed it far
more
> that I have any other X-Title in a long, long while. The insights into
the
> characters and their devlopment was going along nicely and the potential
for
> the book was pretty much untapped. You knew that the Avengers, Spiderman,
> Captain America, Magneto - they were all going to be there eventually and
> it'd have helped fill in a lot of gaps in the X-Men's past. It'll
probably
> never happen now, but knowing the clowns at Marvel they'll let Erik Larsen
> fill in all of those gaps.
They won't let anyone touch them. And, realistically, 12 issues is more than
more readers give any series. The first year was not impressive, and Byrne
admitted that his commitment to The Lost Generation kept him from increasing
the pace on Hidden Years. Angel's mother's death and the return of Magneto
were highlights, but much of the series can easily be ignored with little
consequence.
This book got cancelled because it had NO potential outside of understanding
the original five (plus two) better. The Avengers and Spider-Man match-ups
of importance happened in other books. There were no costume or line-up
changes. There were no new and important villains. This was a blank spot now
partially filled, but with other retcons (such as Xavier's having known
about the All-New All-Different X-Men from the beginning) in the Uncanny and
X-Men titles there wasn't a point of having these tales told this way other
than as a nostalgia trip which was, quite frankly, weighing the line down a
bit.
Look at what you have now at Marvel and you'll understand it better:
X-Men team books Uncanny, X-Men, X-Treme and X-Force
X-Men spinoff books Cable, Wolverine, Deadpool, Exiles
Spider-Man books Spider-Girl, Amazing, Peter Parker, Tangled Web
Marvel Knights books Daredevil, Punisher, Elektra, Captain America
Marvel team books FF, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Defenders
Marvel Avenger solos Iron Man, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Hulk
Ultimate books USM, UXM, UMT, Ultimates
Marvel Max books Alias, Blade, Witches, tba
see the tiers?
Sanctify
"Brian Fried" <brian...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:K2vM7.8047$Vm5.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>
> You're missing some very important points, though.
As are you, if I might point them out and also ask for your clarification.
>
> Originally, The Hidden Years was to start with issue 67 and run until
issue
> 93, thereby replacing the reprint issues of Uncanny. But since the issues
1
> through 66 were not commonly available (the Masterwork had gone out of
print
> and the Classic X-Men/X-Men Classic reprints hadn't been collected for
> years), the only people who'd be interested in Hidden Years beyond a few
> issues were those dedicated fans of the Silver Age. So they did the smart
> thing: they started it back at #1, and Byrne "hid" the issue number into
the
> cover. That still wasn't enough, so they asked Byrne to come up with a
> villain that could appear in a present issue of Uncanny X-Men to ensure
the
> series was relevant.
Who asked? Magneto was the villian running through the first few issues -
he's fairly well known surely?
>
> Byrne's solution was to create a villain to face young Storm in the midst
of
> the extensive Savage Land story. The plan backfired because (a) it had
taken
> so many issues to get there that many casual readers had lost interest,
(b)
> many fans disliked the retconning of Storm into previous X-Men missions,
and
> (c) Chris Claremont, writer at the time, wasn't interested in an old
> villain, he wanted to make new ones.
Let's see - Storm appeared in issue 6. You're telling me that people lost
interest by issue 6 after an 'extensive' six issue run in the Savage Land?
Please...gimme a break. Too many issues?
Chris Claremont wasn't the writer of THY, or are you refering to the mess
that he was creating at the time on the standard X-Titles?
>
> To make matters worse, Byrne was also occupied with the art and
co-plotting
> chores on Amazing Spider-Man -- many people credit Mary Jane's "death" to
> Byrne since it was used in a number of Byrne runs -- and he was doing the
> Lost Generation. Amazing was not getting any great reviews, and The Lost
> Generation turned out to be completely irrelevant to modern continuity.
Well I put the majority of the mess that was Spidey down to Mackie - or are
you also willing to give JRJR the blame as well, seeing how he was the
artist for PP and that was just as crap as ASM.
>
> Enter Joe Quesada. Quesada became Editor In Chief because of his brief
stint
> as editor of Marvel Knights. Marvel Knights took second rate characters
and
> made readers excited about them. Readers came because Marvel Knights
> attracted big name creators with the promise of carte blanche. Compared to
> Bob Harris, who's X-Men were perpetually working towards Days of Future
Past
> without actually ever getting there, it was a visible movement forward.
Yes. Reward medicoracy. Give a guy who is incapable of producing a monthly
book the top job. I wanna work at Marvel - or more importantly, I want a
job at Marvel and not do anything - I'd own the place within a year.
>
> Quesada is not a fan of the mutants. His first task, though, was to fix
the
> Spider-Man books in anticipation of the feature film. So gone was Howard
> Mackie and in was J. Michael Straczynski. Byrne had left a few months
> before, pushed out as new Peter Parker scribe Paul Jenkins (given the book
> because of the overwhelming positive response to his Webspinners story)
got
> Mark Buckingham and John Romita Jr. had to go elsewhere (like Amazing
> Spider-Man).
Byrne had always stated that he was leaving Spidey after the first 20
issues. So he wasn't 'pushed', he was always going to leave. You wanna
bash Byrne then fine, but do get the facts right.
>
> When he got to the mutants, he knew quite well that a new reader won't
come
> on to one book when you have to read two others to get the full story. So
no
> more crossovers, no more links. And without those links, many books became
> redundant. Why are there two next generations, and neither at the school?
> Good-bye Generation X and X-Force. A book about an X-Man doing something
on
> top of the X-Men without a plan of how or with whom? Good-bye Bishop: XSE
> and Gambit. An alternate reality which is based on convoluted events in
the
> regular Marvel universe you need knowledge of? Good-be X-Man and Mutant X.
Fine. Dump the crap titles, but don't lie about it.
>
> And then there was X-Men: The Hidden Years. If the idea is to do something
> new to get the franchise noticed, why have this nostalgia piece around? It
> certainly wasn't contributing anything to the new adventures of the X-Men.
> It wasn't revealing anything new about the characters either, really. So
> that book got cancelled.
Well I beg to differ. It was revealing new details about the characters.
It was a good solid book, something that Marvel doesn't produce all that
often. It came out on time, was entertaining and had some of Byrne's best
artwork in years.
>
> Byrne was upset, and rightly so: he had plans for the book. Quesada and
> Marvel gave Byrne the extra time to finish the series satisfactorily,
given
> how the issues had already been plotted ahead. Byrne never said thank you,
> and instead bad mouthed Marvel where he could. Hopefully that rift can be
> mended soon, but truth be told: none of Byrne's projects were garnering
> great reviews or great sales.
Well how big of Joey. Maybe we should all line up and kiss his arse. Joey
only gave Byrne the extra issues when Byrne went public about the axing.
For a title that so many people supposedly didn't care about the public
response was sufficient for Joey to at least give Byrne the amount of time
to wrap it up.
Byne wasn't happy for the same reason a lot of other people weren't happy at
the time and still aren't - Joey's excuse doesn't hold water. If he'd came
out and said "I don't like the book, I don't think it's relevant and I just
wanna axe it." then I could have lived with it. But to come out and say
it's being axed to streamline the titles and cut down on the sheer amount of
X-Titles in the market, and then create more titles to fill the void, well
someone's not telling the truth there. The way it was handled was a joke.
>
> The only other nostalgia piece at Marvel was Erik Larsen's Fantastic Four:
> World's Greatest Comic Magazine BUT, unlike Byrne's Hidden Years, the
series
> had a finite length. Not wanting a repeat of the egg-on-the-face they got
> with the premature cancellation of other mini-series (ie. Blade), they
> allowed Larsen to do all twelve issues. Since Byrne had no end in sight,
> Marvel had to put an end in themselves.
You'd pick Larsen's reworking over Byrne's creating?
>
> So what did that leave at the X-office? The Uncanny X-Men, X-Men,
Wolverine
> (the top three sellers) and Cable (which made the cut because of good
> reviews and a potential writer). Chris Claremont was still on staff, and
he
> got X-Treme X-Men and its freedom from the others, which made book five.
> X-Force's name was cool, and Milligan and Allred got that, which made it
> back to six. Then came Brotherhood (work for Howard Mackie) and Exiles (a
> cross between Generation X and Mutant X that wouldn't interfere with the
> others). That puts it up to 8. X-Men Unlimited was still around, but it
was
> like an annual -- rare and relatively unimportant.
Again, you'd pick Mackie over Byrne?
They won't now, but what's the bet that down the track Joey taps one of his
pals to do something retro with the X-Men.
>
> This book got cancelled because it had NO potential outside of
understanding
> the original five (plus two) better. The Avengers and Spider-Man match-ups
> of importance happened in other books. There were no costume or line-up
> changes. There were no new and important villains. This was a blank spot
now
> partially filled, but with other retcons (such as Xavier's having known
> about the All-New All-Different X-Men from the beginning) in the Uncanny
and
> X-Men titles there wasn't a point of having these tales told this way
other
> than as a nostalgia trip which was, quite frankly, weighing the line down
a
> bit.
>
> Look at what you have now at Marvel and you'll understand it better:
> X-Men team books Uncanny, X-Men, X-Treme and X-Force
> X-Men spinoff books Cable, Wolverine, Deadpool, Exiles
> Spider-Man books Spider-Girl, Amazing, Peter Parker, Tangled Web
> Marvel Knights books Daredevil, Punisher, Elektra, Captain America
> Marvel team books FF, Avengers, Thunderbolts, Defenders
> Marvel Avenger solos Iron Man, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Hulk
> Ultimate books USM, UXM, UMT, Ultimates
> Marvel Max books Alias, Blade, Witches, tba
> see the tiers?
I'd rather not look at Marvel. For the past few years it's been going down
the shit-chute rapidly. What they need are decent writers, artists and
titles that sell. It should come as no surprise that The Avengers took the
comics world by storm with Busiek and Perez doing magic month in and month
out. Marvel has a rendancy to hire the latest 'hot' artist or writer -
pretty sad when you consider that once upon a time they were the ones making
the 'hot' people - now they follow trends and leap on bandwagons. Very sad
indeed.
Luis
Sanctify wrote:
SNIP
> I'd rather not look at Marvel. For the past few years it's been going down
> the shit-chute rapidly. What they need are decent writers, artists and
> titles that sell. It should come as no surprise that The Avengers took the
> comics world by storm with Busiek and Perez doing magic month in and month
> out. Marvel has a rendancy to hire the latest 'hot' artist or writer -
> pretty sad when you consider that once upon a time they were the ones making
> the 'hot' people - now they follow trends and leap on bandwagons. Very sad
> indeed.
What are you talking about? X-Force and New X-Men are great (although New X-Men
is very late.) Peter Parker Spider-Man is great also. Ultimate Spider-Man is
great. Punisher is great. What do all these titles have in common, um well,
they used to suck but now they are good because they have "hot" writers.
Why do people hate "hot" writers or "hot" artists. They're "hot" because
they're talented. If Chris Claremont could writer great stories again, he would
be "hot" also. If John Byrne coud writer great stories again, he would be a
"hot" also. I was "loyal" to Joe Casey untill his recent mess in Uncanny. I
couldn't care about Bendis until I began reading Powers. Likewise with Jenkins,
after reading Inhumans and some of his other works, I loved his work. Of course
every "hot"writer that I have mentioned has written crummy stories, but for the
most part, I think they deserve to be on the flagship books they are writing.
Why so much hate to the popular writers. They're popular because they are good.
Nuff said. Boo the bad writers.
Follow trends, leap bandwagons? What are you talking about, Marvel is doing the
right thing by courting the good writers and rewarding them with top
assignments. I can't understand how you would call assigning Jenkins an
Inhumans LS as bandwagon jumping?
I can understand if a person doesn't like the writing style of these new "hot"
writers. But considering the fact that these new "hot" writers are selling more
books and getting more praise for the same work that older writers did, I don't
think its right to attack them or Marvel for 'jumping on a bandwagon' or
whatever. If you don't like the writng style of Bendis, Jenkins, Milligan,
Morrison or Ennis just say so, but don't call them a trend These guys have
proven themselves. I'm glad and very happy that Marvel is giving new talent a
chance. The old talent has been given many chances, and many times they blew
it- oh well. Even new talent has done a bad job with their chances. But the
entertainment business is very hard. Its unfortunately a kill or be killed type
of environment.
Don't get me wrong, I like old talent too. I recently got into Spider-Girl
despite disliking DeFalco's style for a long time, but I really like his
current work now. I also don't eat up everything that has a "hot" writer or
artist. Like I said I'm no longer buying Uncanny X-Men nor did I buy the Rogue
and Cyclops LS. Or Exiles or Cable or Deadpool or Wolverine.
What's wrong with "following" "hot" writers if they consistently put out good
work.
Luis.
Steven Dumont
Luis wrote:
>
> What's wrong with "following" "hot" writers if they consistently put out good
> work.
Well to be fair, not all "hot" writers are that great. Usually they are
just promoted as being such and there is a vast array of reasons for
that beyond just mere talent.
Steve
Sanctify
"Luis" <ramNOS...@uclink4.berkeley.eduSPAM> wrote in message
news:3C052EA4...@uclink4.berkeley.eduSPAM...
<snip>
>
> Why do people hate "hot" writers or "hot" artists. They're "hot" because
> they're talented. If Chris Claremont could writer great stories again, he
would
> be "hot" also. If John Byrne coud writer great stories again, he would be
a
> "hot" also. I was "loyal" to Joe Casey untill his recent mess in Uncanny.
I
> couldn't care about Bendis until I began reading Powers. Likewise with
Jenkins,
> after reading Inhumans and some of his other works, I loved his work. Of
course
> every "hot"writer that I have mentioned has written crummy stories, but
for the
> most part, I think they deserve to be on the flagship books they are
writing.
> Why so much hate to the popular writers. They're popular because they are
good.
> Nuff said. Boo the bad writers.
I've nothing at all against so called hot writers or hot artists - as long
as they can actually write or draw. Remember - at one stage Rob Leifeld was
the hottest property out there. That says it all.
Brian Fried
> Who asked? Magneto was the villian running through the first few issues -
> he's fairly well known surely?
When X-Men: The Hidden Years was first announced, IIRC, it was mentioned
that The Hidden Years would feature the first appearance of a villain that
would come back to haunt the X-Men in either Uncanny or adjectiveless. My
guess is that Bob Harris asked Byrne on behalf of the board of directors for
this, since it would not only be great cross-marketing but make the book
somewhat relevant to the portion of the readership who *didn't* care for the
original five's missing adventures.
> Let's see - Storm appeared in issue 6. You're telling me that people lost
> interest by issue 6 after an 'extensive' six issue run in the Savage Land?
> Please...gimme a break. Too many issues?
Issue 6 was still part of the Savage Land saga, as Iceman, Havok and Lorna
were looking for the missing X-Men. The fact that issue 6 was the first
issue to have the majority of the issue set OUTSIDE of the Savage Land since
issue 1, was hard on a lot of the readership who only checked out The Hidden
Years because it was an X-book. See the reviews and assorted posts from here
at the time the early issues were being released.
> Chris Claremont wasn't the writer of THY, or are you refering to the mess
> that he was creating at the time on the standard X-Titles?
Claremont was writing Uncanny and adjectiveless. The board, via Harris and
Powers, wanted greater interconnection between the X-books for good reason:
crossovers boosted sales on the second tier books. It was their hope to
connect Hidden Years with the rest, but that never happened.
> > Amazing was not getting any great reviews
> Well I put the majority of the mess that was Spidey down to Mackie - or
are
> you also willing to give JRJR the blame as well, seeing how he was the
> artist for PP and that was just as crap as ASM.
If I were to blame someone, Mackie would be target #1. I'm not. The
statement says "not getting any great reviews" and that means that it wasn't
doing anything for Byrne's (somewhat tarnished) reputation.
> Yes. Reward medicoracy. Give a guy who is incapable of producing a
monthly
> book the top job. I wanna work at Marvel - or more importantly, I want a
> job at Marvel and not do anything - I'd own the place within a year.
There are tens of thousands out there who will tell you that Kevin Smith and
David Mack's Daredevil, Jenkins & Lee's Inhumans, and Christopher Priest's
Black Panther are anything BUT mediocre. Devin Greyson's Black Widow wasn't
that bad either, and Ennis' Punisher maxi-series garned excellent reviews.
Marvel Knights was plagued by production problems on Daredevil, ranging from
the writer having to do editing/promotion for his films, the inker losing
his father and re-evaluating his priorities, printing problems in Montreal,
and Quesada having to edit the other books ON TOP of his art duties. That
said, Daredevil is on time now and has never dropped in quality... a credit
that the book certainly deserves in today's industry.
> It was a good solid book, something that Marvel doesn't produce all that
> often. It came out on time, was entertaining and had some of Byrne's best
> artwork in years.
On time? Great artwork? Then get Byrne on a book that would certainly boost
his profile. Hidden Years was a poor seller that was irrelevant to the core
books. And with Quesada under the mandate from the board to connect the
comics to the movie better (which Harris failed to do), coming up with
little nuances on characters now long established with their personalities
and - for two of them - given much more establishment on film seemed a small
effort that was, quite frankly, unneccessary. To be honest: none of the
original five reflected any of these revelations Byrne was producing on
Hidden Years.
> Well how big of Joey. Maybe we should all line up and kiss his arse.
Joey
> only gave Byrne the extra issues when Byrne went public about the axing.
> For a title that so many people supposedly didn't care about the public
> response was sufficient for Joey to at least give Byrne the amount of time
> to wrap it up.
>
> Byne wasn't happy for the same reason a lot of other people weren't happy
at
> the time and still aren't - Joey's excuse doesn't hold water. If he'd
came
> out and said "I don't like the book, I don't think it's relevant and I
just
> wanna axe it." then I could have lived with it. But to come out and say
> it's being axed to streamline the titles and cut down on the sheer amount
of
> X-Titles in the market, and then create more titles to fill the void, well
> someone's not telling the truth there. The way it was handled was a joke.
Quesada said from the beginning that the mutants were too confusing, and
that he would be doing something about that. Marvel works on a three month
cycle (the writers are working on the book three months from now) but Byrne
was working like he did at DC: six months in advance. Byrne could have come
up with a contingency plan based on what he had but he didn't. Instead, he
complained ON LINE -- it wasn't in a recognized publication like Wizard --
and Quesada responded quite quickly by allowing Byrne to finish the story.
It's Byrne's excuse that, for me, doesn't hold water. Hidden Years was
making money, but so what? Quesada was right: the ONLY people reading The
Hidden Years from the beginning was the existing fan base, and judging by
the difference between Uncanny, adjectiveless, Wolverine and Hidden Years it
was clear that many of the fan base didn't care all that much for retro
tales.
And how many X-titles do we have anyway? In the pre-Quesada cutdown, we had
the core titles (Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, X-Men Unlimited), the second tier
teams (Generation X, X-Force), the solo books (Wolverine, Gambit, Bishop,
Cable, X-Man), the history book (X-Men Hidden Years) and the "will be
connected" book (Mutant X) -- all of which totalled to 12 X-titles, of which
8-10 were guaranteed to cross over their story at least twice per year. Now
we have three main team books (Uncanny X-Men, New X-Men, X-Treme X-Men), one
second-tier book (X-Force), two solo books (Cable, Wolverine), one showcase
book (X-Men Unlimited) and one out-of-continuity book (Exiles) -- totalling
8 (9 if you include Brotherhood or Muties, which are second-tier) that are
guaranteed NOT to crossover any time soon. That's a reduction of 1/3 of the
line, and greater ease to get the necessary new readers.
The mini-series? Before Quesada came in we had a large number of minis too.
> You'd pick Larsen's reworking over Byrne's creating?
I'm not picking anything. Read the post!
Larsen was creating a narrative to come in between two stories just as Byrne
was doing. Marvel wanted to cancel both, but they stuck beside Larsen
because he had a FINITE run on FF:WGCM, and they would be damned if they
cancelled the book so early in the run (and thus angering someone they
wanted to rebuild their relationship with). Proof comes from Quesada himself
who, when asked repeatedly why Marvel was still publishing a maxi which was
clearly costing them money, replied that they were sticking to their guns
and printing the whole thing for the sake of printing *the* *whole* *thing*.
Byrne had no end in sight, did he?
> Again, you'd pick Mackie over Byrne?
Again, you're not reading my post carefully are you? I'm not picking Mackie
over Byrne. Marvel gave a job to Mackie because he was still on contract.
More importantly, Mackie took the blame of the Spider-Clone mess, and helped
garner a boost in sales for Spider-Man despite the poor reviews.
Bynre could have been given any project he wanted at Marvel too, but instead
he made the "I'm never gonna work for you again" noises that some creators
do when they feel they didn't get to tell the story they wanted.
> They won't now, but what's the bet that down the track Joey taps one of
his
> pals to do something retro with the X-Men.
We'll see what happens if that EVER comes to pass. As it stands, I don't see
it happening for the simple reason that Marvel's putting on the "relevant
for audiences today... and tomorrow" face it needs to get noticed in today's
era of "hipness".
Besides, he can always tap Byrne again. It's not like Byrne hasn't gained a
reputation for retro anyway.
> I'd rather not look at Marvel. For the past few years it's been going
down
> the shit-chute rapidly. What they need are decent writers, artists and
> titles that sell. It should come as no surprise that The Avengers took
the
> comics world by storm with Busiek and Perez doing magic month in and month
> out. Marvel has a rendancy to hire the latest 'hot' artist or writer -
> pretty sad when you consider that once upon a time they were the ones
making
> the 'hot' people - now they follow trends and leap on bandwagons. Very
sad
> indeed.
John Byrne was hired because he was one of those "hot" creators. The point
of having a "hot" creator is that they'll bring in new readers, which the
books need to survive. And it's worked for Marvel: just because you don't
like any of the Spider-Man books, New X-Men, X-Force, Thunderbolts,
Avengers, Alias or Daredevil, doesn't mean that thousands of others aren't.
Marvel's #1 in the industry again FOR A REASON.
Scott McAllister
> It's Byrne's excuse that, for me, doesn't hold water. Hidden Years was
> making money, but so what? Quesada was right: the ONLY people reading The
> Hidden Years from the beginning was the existing fan base, and judging by
> the difference between Uncanny, adjectiveless, Wolverine and Hidden Years
it
> was clear that many of the fan base didn't care all that much for retro
> tales.
> Larsen was creating a narrative to come in between two stories just as
Byrne
> was doing. Marvel wanted to cancel both, but they stuck beside Larsen
> because he had a FINITE run on FF:WGCM, and they would be damned if they
> cancelled the book so early in the run (and thus angering someone they
> wanted to rebuild their relationship with). Proof comes from Quesada
himself
> who, when asked repeatedly why Marvel was still publishing a maxi which
was
> clearly costing them money, replied that they were sticking to their guns
> and printing the whole thing for the sake of printing *the* *whole*
*thing*.
> Byrne had no end in sight, did he?
You know, your post almost points at a solution to the problem. Byrne's
stuff made money, but nobody would jump on board. Well, what has Marvel
been doing with books like Deadpool lately? What is coming up with
Defenders? A miniseries within a series. Double-number it if you want.,
but it doesn't matter. Every four-or-so issues, a new mini starts up, and
readers have a chance to jump aboard. And it's only gonna last for so long,
because we know how it'll end up.
Scott
Shawn Hill
:> It was a good solid book, something that Marvel doesn't produce all that
:> often. It came out on time, was entertaining and had some of Byrne's best
:> artwork in years.
: On time? Great artwork? Then get Byrne on a book that would certainly boost
: his profile. Hidden Years was a poor seller that was irrelevant to the core
: books. And with Quesada under the mandate from the board to connect the
: comics to the movie better (which Harris failed to do), coming up with
: little nuances on characters now long established with their personalities
: and - for two of them - given much more establishment on film seemed a small
: effort that was, quite frankly, unneccessary. To be honest: none of the
: original five reflected any of these revelations Byrne was producing on
: Hidden Years.
I think they were actually more similar to the ones used in the movie than
the books in current continuity were at the time. Like the movie, the
relationships were clear, the powers defined the characters, and the
stories were easy to follow.
: Quesada said from the beginning that the mutants were too confusing, and
: that he would be doing something about that. Marvel works on a three month
But has he? Are the current titles, plus Origin, plus X-treme Savage
Land, any more clear? X-force seems almost disconnected from the rest of
the Marvel-verse, New X-men is in it's own little pocket, Uncanny is
unreadable, and the solo titles, for the most part, have been unexciting,
possibly out of continuity, and no more like the movie than Hidden Years.
And then you have the Ultimate line, which actually IS another continuity,
ie, still confusing to someone who sees those other X-titles.
Quesada's reasons for dumping THY, a book that was working on his own
terms and should have been worth preserving just for the John Byrne cache
(as CC apparently is, having been given his own toys to play with in two
titles), don't hold up. Rather, it seems he was just tired of dealing with
the demanding, difficult JB.
: It's Byrne's excuse that, for me, doesn't hold water. Hidden Years was
: making money, but so what? Quesada was right: the ONLY people reading The
: Hidden Years from the beginning was the existing fan base, and judging by
: the difference between Uncanny, adjectiveless, Wolverine and Hidden Years it
: was clear that many of the fan base didn't care all that much for retro
: tales.
But why not serve the ones who did, and serve out a contractural promise
(perhaps just perceived promise) to fulfill the concept: ie, to provide a
replacement for those 30+ reprint X-men issues that existed before
All-New, All-Different revitalized the title? Why not give JB his own toys
and sandbox, too?
: And how many X-titles do we have anyway? In the pre-Quesada cutdown, we had
: the core titles (Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, X-Men Unlimited), the second tier
: teams (Generation X, X-Force), the solo books (Wolverine, Gambit, Bishop,
: Cable, X-Man), the history book (X-Men Hidden Years) and the "will be
: connected" book (Mutant X) -- all of which totalled to 12 X-titles, of which
: 8-10 were guaranteed to cross over their story at least twice per year. Now
: we have three main team books (Uncanny X-Men, New X-Men, X-Treme X-Men), one
: second-tier book (X-Force), two solo books (Cable, Wolverine), one showcase
: book (X-Men Unlimited) and one out-of-continuity book (Exiles) -- totalling
: 8 (9 if you include Brotherhood or Muties, which are second-tier) that are
: guaranteed NOT to crossover any time soon. That's a reduction of 1/3 of the
: line, and greater ease to get the necessary new readers.
: The mini-series? Before Quesada came in we had a large number of minis too.
Many of which connected with the core concept better than the current
solos are doing. And Exiles is digging into the same sorts of historic
events that THY was actually working around, but not just re-enacting
them. Byrne was adding to the legend by revealing untold stories from
those times.
: Larsen was creating a narrative to come in between two stories just as Byrne
: was doing. Marvel wanted to cancel both, but they stuck beside Larsen
: because he had a FINITE run on FF:WGCM, and they would be damned if they
: cancelled the book so early in the run (and thus angering someone they
: wanted to rebuild their relationship with). Proof comes from Quesada himself
Exactly, a relationship they were willing to torch with Byrne, apparently.
My understanding of the concept was that THY were FINITE, too; meant to
fill a multi-issue gap rather than the space between two issues.
: who, when asked repeatedly why Marvel was still publishing a maxi which was
: clearly costing them money, replied that they were sticking to their guns
: and printing the whole thing for the sake of printing *the* *whole* *thing*.
: Byrne had no end in sight, did he?
Yes, I think he'd plotted a series of stories that would lead quite
clearly to Giant-Size X-men #1.
: Bynre could have been given any project he wanted at Marvel too, but instead
: he made the "I'm never gonna work for you again" noises that some creators
: do when they feel they didn't get to tell the story they wanted.
Because they pulled the rug out from under him, reversing a previous
decision that was in medias res.
: We'll see what happens if that EVER comes to pass. As it stands, I don't see
: it happening for the simple reason that Marvel's putting on the "relevant
: for audiences today... and tomorrow" face it needs to get noticed in today's
: era of "hipness".
It'll happen, eventually, I'm sure. Someone will sell a retro concept to
these bosses, just as JB did to the previous ones. Exiles is already
halfway there.
: Besides, he can always tap Byrne again. It's not like Byrne hasn't gained a
: reputation for retro anyway.
Unless you believe Byrne when he promised not to return, that is.
: John Byrne was hired because he was one of those "hot" creators. The point
: of having a "hot" creator is that they'll bring in new readers, which the
: books need to survive. And it's worked for Marvel: just because you don't
: like any of the Spider-Man books, New X-Men, X-Force, Thunderbolts,
: Avengers, Alias or Daredevil, doesn't mean that thousands of others aren't.
: Marvel's #1 in the industry again FOR A REASON.
I think Marvel's great now, and I think many of the books you mention
above have improved or were good from the start. But, there was really no
reason THY couldn't have played out its scenario, too, just like WGCM.
Shawn
Sanctify
>
> > Let's see - Storm appeared in issue 6. You're telling me that people
lost
> > interest by issue 6 after an 'extensive' six issue run in the Savage
Land?
> > Please...gimme a break. Too many issues?
>
> Issue 6 was still part of the Savage Land saga, as Iceman, Havok and Lorna
> were looking for the missing X-Men. The fact that issue 6 was the first
> issue to have the majority of the issue set OUTSIDE of the Savage Land
since
> issue 1, was hard on a lot of the readership who only checked out The
Hidden
> Years because it was an X-book. See the reviews and assorted posts from
here
> at the time the early issues were being released.
Well how little an attention span do people have these days? The issues had
part of the team located in the Savage Land but there were other things
happening in other places, which the book would cross back to. I for one
didn't get bored at all.
>
> > Chris Claremont wasn't the writer of THY, or are you refering to the
mess
> > that he was creating at the time on the standard X-Titles?
>
> Claremont was writing Uncanny and adjectiveless. The board, via Harris and
> Powers, wanted greater interconnection between the X-books for good
reason:
> crossovers boosted sales on the second tier books. It was their hope to
> connect Hidden Years with the rest, but that never happened.
You can't blame Byrne for that. He was asked to do the book, or vice-versa,
and the book was given to him. If Claremont wanted more input then I'm not
surpised that Byrne resisted.
>
> > > Amazing was not getting any great reviews
>
> > Well I put the majority of the mess that was Spidey down to Mackie - or
> are
> > you also willing to give JRJR the blame as well, seeing how he was the
> > artist for PP and that was just as crap as ASM.
>
> If I were to blame someone, Mackie would be target #1. I'm not. The
> statement says "not getting any great reviews" and that means that it
wasn't
> doing anything for Byrne's (somewhat tarnished) reputation.
I'll agree with that. I just get hacked off that when anyone discusses ASM
they instantly blame Byrne for it being one of the biggest piles of shit
that's come out in recent times. Byrne's art wasn't up to it's usual
standards, but it wasn't poor by any stretch of the imagination. For me the
failure of ASM and PP should be laid at the feet of Howard Mackie.
>
> > Yes. Reward medicoracy. Give a guy who is incapable of producing a
> monthly
> > book the top job. I wanna work at Marvel - or more importantly, I want
a
> > job at Marvel and not do anything - I'd own the place within a year.
>
> There are tens of thousands out there who will tell you that Kevin Smith
and
> David Mack's Daredevil, Jenkins & Lee's Inhumans, and Christopher Priest's
> Black Panther are anything BUT mediocre. Devin Greyson's Black Widow
wasn't
> that bad either, and Ennis' Punisher maxi-series garned excellent reviews.
Hey - I loved Kevin Smith and Quesada's DD run. Adored it - still do. Love
Priest's Panther - impressive stuff. No argument there.
>
> Marvel Knights was plagued by production problems on Daredevil, ranging
from
> the writer having to do editing/promotion for his films, the inker losing
> his father and re-evaluating his priorities, printing problems in
Montreal,
> and Quesada having to edit the other books ON TOP of his art duties. That
> said, Daredevil is on time now and has never dropped in quality... a
credit
> that the book certainly deserves in today's industry.
Yes. Now if Quesada was having that many problems and couldn't handle the
work load then he should have bailed long ago instead of letting people wait
over a year for 6 issues to come out - on a so called monthly book. Yes DD
is back on shedule and comes out on time each month now - and what factor
isn't there? Quesada's artwork. The man is incapable of producing a
monthly book. Once upon a time such tardiness would have resulted in him
getting removed from the book and not having much else being offered to him
in the forseeable future. Now they just let him get later and later and
give him the position of EIC. Amazing!
If the book deserves any credit for being out on time and high on quality
these days then it's down to the current creative team - and not much to do
with Quesada at all.
>
> > It was a good solid book, something that Marvel doesn't produce all that
> > often. It came out on time, was entertaining and had some of Byrne's
best
> > artwork in years.
>
> On time? Great artwork? Then get Byrne on a book that would certainly
boost
> his profile. Hidden Years was a poor seller that was irrelevant to the
core
> books. And with Quesada under the mandate from the board to connect the
> comics to the movie better (which Harris failed to do), coming up with
> little nuances on characters now long established with their personalities
> and - for two of them - given much more establishment on film seemed a
small
> effort that was, quite frankly, unneccessary. To be honest: none of the
> original five reflected any of these revelations Byrne was producing on
> Hidden Years.
Well perhaps if Quesada would offer the olive branch to Byrne then we might
see him on a Marvel project. I'd love to see Byrne pencilling Shooters
upcoming Avengers project for one - I have damn fond memories of what those
two did on the title back in the 70's and I'm sure that Byrne could see past
whatever problems he might have had with Shooter in the past. That'd boost
his profile no end, but what's the bet that Marvel will give those
pencilling duties to some hack who just happens to be in the top ten list in
last month's Wizard?
I don't recognise Wizard as anything but being a propaganda machine -
nothing more nothing less. Each time I see it and read it I see the same
faces talking the same shite. Try picking up something like CBG for a
better overview.
>
> It's Byrne's excuse that, for me, doesn't hold water. Hidden Years was
> making money, but so what? Quesada was right: the ONLY people reading The
> Hidden Years from the beginning was the existing fan base, and judging by
> the difference between Uncanny, adjectiveless, Wolverine and Hidden Years
it
> was clear that many of the fan base didn't care all that much for retro
> tales.
Well we shall agree to disagree. But I would like to know how you feel it
was clear that the fan base didn't care for the retro tales.
>
> And how many X-titles do we have anyway? In the pre-Quesada cutdown, we
had
> the core titles (Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, X-Men Unlimited), the second tier
> teams (Generation X, X-Force), the solo books (Wolverine, Gambit, Bishop,
> Cable, X-Man), the history book (X-Men Hidden Years) and the "will be
> connected" book (Mutant X) -- all of which totalled to 12 X-titles, of
which
> 8-10 were guaranteed to cross over their story at least twice per year.
Now
> we have three main team books (Uncanny X-Men, New X-Men, X-Treme X-Men),
one
> second-tier book (X-Force), two solo books (Cable, Wolverine), one
showcase
> book (X-Men Unlimited) and one out-of-continuity book (Exiles) --
totalling
> 8 (9 if you include Brotherhood or Muties, which are second-tier) that are
> guaranteed NOT to crossover any time soon. That's a reduction of 1/3 of
the
> line, and greater ease to get the necessary new readers.
>
> The mini-series? Before Quesada came in we had a large number of minis
too.
And we will again. Wait and see.
>
> > You'd pick Larsen's reworking over Byrne's creating?
>
> I'm not picking anything. Read the post!
>
> Larsen was creating a narrative to come in between two stories just as
Byrne
> was doing. Marvel wanted to cancel both, but they stuck beside Larsen
> because he had a FINITE run on FF:WGCM, and they would be damned if they
> cancelled the book so early in the run (and thus angering someone they
> wanted to rebuild their relationship with). Proof comes from Quesada
himself
> who, when asked repeatedly why Marvel was still publishing a maxi which
was
> clearly costing them money, replied that they were sticking to their guns
> and printing the whole thing for the sake of printing *the* *whole*
*thing*.
> Byrne had no end in sight, did he?
Again, you'd alientate Byrne but keep Larsen? Personally I'd have sat down
with both and done a better job at explaining the issues at hand and
hopefully kept them both in the good books. As it stanbds Larsen is going
back to SD and Byrne isn't touching Marvel with a pole. And that's pretty
damn tragic.
Byrne might not have had an end in sight, but I think that where he got
miffed was the way the axing was handled and the excuses given. And if I,
or you, were sacked in public in the middle of a major project we'd both be
fairly pissed off about it and grumbling.
>
> > Again, you'd pick Mackie over Byrne?
>
> Again, you're not reading my post carefully are you? I'm not picking
Mackie
> over Byrne. Marvel gave a job to Mackie because he was still on contract.
> More importantly, Mackie took the blame of the Spider-Clone mess, and
helped
> garner a boost in sales for Spider-Man despite the poor reviews.
Spiderman will always sell no matter what hack they put on - Mackie himself
has proven that.
>
> Bynre could have been given any project he wanted at Marvel too, but
instead
> he made the "I'm never gonna work for you again" noises that some creators
> do when they feel they didn't get to tell the story they wanted.
I'm dead sure that if they'd said to Byrne "We wanna cancel THY but we still
want you here - what book would you like to contribute to?" then he'd have
stayed on and all would have been well. But what they did was just cancel
the book and leave it at that.
>
> > They won't now, but what's the bet that down the track Joey taps one of
> his
> > pals to do something retro with the X-Men.
>
> We'll see what happens if that EVER comes to pass. As it stands, I don't
see
> it happening for the simple reason that Marvel's putting on the "relevant
> for audiences today... and tomorrow" face it needs to get noticed in
today's
> era of "hipness".
>
> Besides, he can always tap Byrne again. It's not like Byrne hasn't gained
a
> reputation for retro anyway.
Personally I think that if Quesada or Marvel approached Byrne about doing a
retro X-Men book he'd pass. I'm sure he'd do FF without hesitating, I'm
sure he'd do most any book if the terms were right, but I doubt we'll see
him touching the X Universe for a long time, if ever.
>
> > I'd rather not look at Marvel. For the past few years it's been going
> down
> > the shit-chute rapidly. What they need are decent writers, artists and
> > titles that sell. It should come as no surprise that The Avengers took
> the
> > comics world by storm with Busiek and Perez doing magic month in and
month
> > out. Marvel has a rendancy to hire the latest 'hot' artist or writer -
> > pretty sad when you consider that once upon a time they were the ones
> making
> > the 'hot' people - now they follow trends and leap on bandwagons. Very
> sad
> > indeed.
>
> John Byrne was hired because he was one of those "hot" creators. The point
> of having a "hot" creator is that they'll bring in new readers, which the
> books need to survive. And it's worked for Marvel: just because you don't
> like any of the Spider-Man books, New X-Men, X-Force, Thunderbolts,
> Avengers, Alias or Daredevil, doesn't mean that thousands of others
aren't.
> Marvel's #1 in the industry again FOR A REASON.
Yes, because they manipulate sales, ship excessive books and create hysteria
amongst fans with limited run and announcing that they won't be re-printing
selected stories. Doesn't take a genius to see why they're #1. They good
at getting the cash in.
And I love the Avengers, same as DD. I don't touch the X-Books all that
much because they don't move. Thor Godstorm is one of the best things I've
read in ages. Spiderman - well I'm starting to get back into that. So I'm
not anti-Marvel, I'm just annoyed with the Byrne bashing and people putting
Quesada on a pedestal.
Brian Fried
> Well how little an attention span do people have these days? The issues
had
> part of the team located in the Savage Land but there were other things
> happening in other places, which the book would cross back to. I for one
> didn't get bored at all.
That's not the point. New readers prefer first issues (hence the success of
relaunches). If they're moderately interested in the narrative, they'll pick
up the second issue. By the third and fourth issues, only those who want to
continue are buying the books. By the sixth issue of Hidden Years, though,
many readers of X-Men: The Hidden Years [particularly those here who went on
the book because it was an X-book] were dissatisfied. A review of "still in
the Savage Land, same stuff as usual" wasn't helping to keep their faith in
the book, either.
> You can't blame Byrne for that. He was asked to do the book, or
vice-versa,
> and the book was given to him. If Claremont wanted more input then I'm
not
> surpised that Byrne resisted.
True enough. But still the plan failed miserably.
> I'll agree with that. I just get hacked off that when anyone discusses
ASM
> they instantly blame Byrne for it being one of the biggest piles of shit
> that's come out in recent times. Byrne's art wasn't up to it's usual
> standards, but it wasn't poor by any stretch of the imagination. For me
the
> failure of ASM and PP should be laid at the feet of Howard Mackie.
You won't find a Spider-Man fan who would disagree. But Mackie *did* accept
blame for the Spider-Clone mess, and Marvel was enamoured with him for that.
It was only when the Spider-books took their second dive that they realized
they chose the wrong writer for the two books.
> Yes. Now if Quesada was having that many problems and couldn't handle the
> work load then he should have bailed long ago instead of letting people
wait
> over a year for 6 issues to come out - on a so called monthly book. Yes
DD
> is back on shedule and comes out on time each month now - and what factor
> isn't there? Quesada's artwork. The man is incapable of producing a
> monthly book. Once upon a time such tardiness would have resulted in him
> getting removed from the book and not having much else being offered to
him
> in the forseeable future. Now they just let him get later and later and
> give him the position of EIC. Amazing!
His slowness in art has nothing to do with his other achievement at Marvel
Knights. Marvel wanted to attract the top, and Quesada was signing them when
no one else could. Under the Knight banner, characters which had barely sold
(if at all) were now at the top, and Daredevil had jumped significantly up
the chart as well. That was a turnaround in reputation and sales levels that
no board of directors was willing to ignore.
And what have we had since? Quesada's poached the editor of Vertigo. He's
brought Straczynski and Morrison on to profile books, and convinced Kevin
Smith to come on again with a different character. He's even poached Mark
Waid from CrossGen! Shooter and Windsor-Smith are back, the fence has been
mended a bit with Steranko, and there's talk of mending the fence with Alan
Moore. The *only* sour point of this all seems to be John Byrne.
> If the book deserves any credit for being out on time and high on quality
> these days then it's down to the current creative team - and not much to
do
> with Quesada at all.
Yet, as editor, Quesada does deserve some credit for the late issues for
their quality. We couldn't complain that this wasn't worth the wait for.
> Well perhaps if Quesada would offer the olive branch to Byrne then we
might
> see him on a Marvel project. I'd love to see Byrne pencilling Shooters
> upcoming Avengers project for one - I have damn fond memories of what
those
> two did on the title back in the 70's and I'm sure that Byrne could see
past
> whatever problems he might have had with Shooter in the past. That'd
boost
> his profile no end, but what's the bet that Marvel will give those
> pencilling duties to some hack who just happens to be in the top ten list
in
> last month's Wizard?
I'd love to see Byrne on the project as well. However, Byrne's star has
seriously fallen thanks to Spider-Man Chapter One, Marvel The Lost
Generation, X-Men The Hidden Years, Amazing Spider-Man and Superman &
Batman: Generations II. The first was a bomb, the rest of them retro series
that didn't have great appeal saleswise. If Shooter doesn't have an artist
picked, and its up to the editors, I wouldn't be surprised if they went for
someone who sells a bit higher -- like, say, Jae Lee.
> I don't recognise Wizard as anything but being a propaganda machine -
> nothing more nothing less. Each time I see it and read it I see the same
> faces talking the same shite. Try picking up something like CBG for a
> better overview.
Wizard may be a big propaganda machine, but they're large enough in the
industry to have effects on sales for some titles. (Comics International is
my favourite, because it tries to bring all sides of the equation in.)
Having a statement in Wizard sways more people than CBG or CI or --
especially -- the 'net, that's all I'm saying.
> Well we shall agree to disagree. But I would like to know how you feel it
> was clear that the fan base didn't care for the retro tales.
The fan base of Hidden Years did. Comparison of its sales against every
other monthly X-book reveals that the fan base of the X-Men didn't care for
the retro tales much. If you consider that a portion of the audience buying
Hidden Years was doing it for completion reasons, and that some of the
copies stayed on comic store shelves, that's an awfully small audience for a
Marvel book.
> Again, you'd alientate Byrne but keep Larsen? Personally I'd have sat
down
> with both and done a better job at explaining the issues at hand and
> hopefully kept them both in the good books. As it stanbds Larsen is going
> back to SD and Byrne isn't touching Marvel with a pole. And that's pretty
> damn tragic.
Larsen isn't upset that FF:WGCM is finished. Reading his responses in Savage
Dragon, it seems clear that with the Defenders on top of those two books,
and his health problems, it was too much for him. He's cut both and reduced
himself down to Savage Dragon becuase he wants to put more effort into that.
Byrne, to me, jumped the gun a bit. Calling Quesada's move ridiculous and
unneccessary (I'm obviously paraphrasing but that's the basic feel), and
then saying he wasn't going to work at Marvel again, hurt the possibility of
getting another project. The fence can be mended, but I get the feeling the
emphasis is being put on Byrne saying "sorry" first.
(That said, Byrne needs to skip the Elseworlds and retro tales and move into
the present like he did with Amazing Spider-Man. Personally, I'd love it if
he said "sorry" to Marvel and asked about doing a new Alpha Flight.)
> Byrne might not have had an end in sight, but I think that where he got
> miffed was the way the axing was handled and the excuses given. And if I,
> or you, were sacked in public in the middle of a major project we'd both
be
> fairly pissed off about it and grumbling.
And yet he was a veteran then working for Marvel... how could he not have
known they cancel books with little notice? And the sales charts *were*
something to pay attention to, even if he didn't want to see that his book
was being passed by everything else at Marvel. The moment Quesada was made
EIC -- a man who openly admitted he found the X-books too confusing and
wanted to something exciting creatively -- the writing was on the wall.
Excuses, shmuces... Byrne was hoping his reputation would protect him (and
in many ways it did) but by saying he could keep doing this for a long time
made the book an easy target.
Personally, I think Byrne should have gone to Quesada and tell him that the
book has to end at #27, which would perfectly close the hidden period and
he'd do something new and exciting afterwards. Instead he went public with
his complaints.
> Spiderman will always sell no matter what hack they put on - Mackie
himself
> has proven that.
Mackie's also proven that a horrid writer will cause readership to decline
in large numbers. Amazing flattened out in the 20s of the sales chart after
a spectacular debut and there were loads of complaints.
> I'm dead sure that if they'd said to Byrne "We wanna cancel THY but we
still
> want you here - what book would you like to contribute to?" then he'd have
> stayed on and all would have been well. But what they did was just cancel
> the book and leave it at that.
To play Devil's Advocate, Byrne didn't give them much of a chance. He seemed
adamant about ending his relationship with Marvel when Hidden Years reached
its unfortunate end. None of the other creators complained, and those that
wanted to continue with Marvel did soon after (ie. Mackie and Brotherhood).
> Personally I think that if Quesada or Marvel approached Byrne about doing
a
> retro X-Men book he'd pass. I'm sure he'd do FF without hesitating, I'm
> sure he'd do most any book if the terms were right, but I doubt we'll see
> him touching the X Universe for a long time, if ever.
Are there any retro X-books even planned? The only books I see planned are
Muties (to replace Brotherhood as a book running outside of the X-Men) and
the Icons mini-series intended to teach the new reader about the character
and their personality. Fantastic Four I doubt he'd do as well, because he's
done it. Though to be honest, Byrne did say he was finished with the X-Men
years before taking X-Men The Hidden Years, so you can never know.
> Yes, because they manipulate sales, ship excessive books and create
hysteria
> amongst fans with limited run and announcing that they won't be
re-printing
> selected stories. Doesn't take a genius to see why they're #1. They good
> at getting the cash in.
Marvel's #1 because they tell stories that people want to read.
The "sales manipulation" is actually helping the company by creating buzz.
Quite frankly, I can still buy copies of The Hidden Years for a quarter each
from some suppliers, and that's not good.
> And I love the Avengers, same as DD. I don't touch the X-Books all that
> much because they don't move.
For you, that is. Each person's tastes are different. Personally, I dislike
some of the X-books now and some I enjoy.
> Thor Godstorm is one of the best things I've read in ages.
It's a three issue retro tale that really got published because it's Kurt
Busiek, whose name sells thanks to good NEW stories on Avengers. Personally,
I can only stand x amount of Lee-Kirby retros before I get turned off.
> Spiderman - well I'm starting to get back into that. So I'm
> not anti-Marvel, I'm just annoyed with the Byrne bashing and people
putting
> Quesada on a pedestal.
I'm not putting Quesada on a pedestal -- far from it. Marvel still has some
serious problems, like their subscription policy (which is really in need of
work). I'm also not 'bashing' Byrne: I think he's a creator who's still got
some good tales in him who's got stuck in a rut he needs to get out of.
BUT, that said, Quesada and Jemas have been good for Marvel. The company is
generating interest inside and outside of the industry, it's fixed its trade
paperback policy, the Spider-books are all enjoyable, the X-Men are no
longer a black hole in your wallet with constant crossovers, and the back
issue sales (because I'm also a retailer) have picked up dramatically. When
Marvel is about to become a major force in the movies -- Blade II,
Spider-Man and MIB-2 this year, Daredevil, Hulk and X-Men II on their way --
they need this product interconnection because it's the key to their
survival just as Star Wars was three decades ago.
Brian Fried
"Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9uk82d$v55$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> But has he? Are the current titles, plus Origin, plus X-treme Savage
> Land, any more clear? X-force seems almost disconnected from the rest of
> the Marvel-verse, New X-men is in it's own little pocket, Uncanny is
> unreadable, and the solo titles, for the most part, have been unexciting,
> possibly out of continuity, and no more like the movie than Hidden Years.
"Disconnected"? Why? Because they no longer connect with each other on a
bi-monthly basis?
The problem with the X-books was that if you bought one book, you had to buy
them all. If you didn't, you missed important parts of the big crossover
events like "Onslaught", "Zero Tolerance" and so on.
Now you can pick up each book and evaluate them *ON THEIR OWN MERITS*.
Uncanny are the mutants who can't go out in public without attracting
attention. New X-Men are the X-Men at the mansion, running the school.
X-Treme X-Men are on a secret mission to find the missing diaries of
Destiny. Wolverine is his adventures outside of the X-Men, and Cable is the
mutant soldier getting involved in wars outside of the old Magneto-Xavier
one. X-Force are the celebrity mutants who die for good ratings, while
Brotherhood (and now Muties) are those on the fringe of mutantdom. Exiles is
the X-Men version of What If..?
New X-Men is the one closest to the movie: a school for mutants, under
attack from lunatics and evil mutants. But it has a distinctive voice in the
X-line, so that if you like one of the other ones better you can switch to
that book.
> And then you have the Ultimate line, which actually IS another continuity,
> ie, still confusing to someone who sees those other X-titles.
Ultimates are a separate division at Marvel. Marketing them inside the other
lines was a mistake that's hopefully been corrected.
> Quesada's reasons for dumping THY, a book that was working on his own
> terms and should have been worth preserving just for the John Byrne cache
> (as CC apparently is, having been given his own toys to play with in two
> titles), don't hold up. Rather, it seems he was just tired of dealing with
> the demanding, difficult JB.
Claremont has one book: X-Treme X-Men. The Savage Land mini-series seems to
me to be what Chris was doing in between the first issues of X-Treme and the
later ones as he waited for Morrison and Casey to choose their line-ups.
(There is a dramatic shift in quality of the later issues of X-Treme which
indicates that the time lapse also gave Claremont some time to get feedback,
which he needed.)
Two points exist about Claremont, which I believe you're missing. One is
that he was on staff already as an editor and under contract for many months
more. Byrne was a freelancer. Two is that he already knew he needed a change
in situation -- the interconnection of so many books made writing Uncanny
and adjectiveless too difficult -- and X-Treme was the solution to make his
writing more effective. Byrne, in contrast, felt there was nothing wrong
with The Hidden Years and that he could go well past 27 issues.
Byrne could have kept with Marvel but he burned his bridges awfully quickly
when his book got canned. Notice that of all the creators at the time, only
Byrne cried out at the outrage. Others admitted some disappointment, but
quickly found regular work elsewhere, and kept a connection to Marvel open.
> But why not serve the ones who did, and serve out a contractural promise
> (perhaps just perceived promise) to fulfill the concept: ie, to provide a
> replacement for those 30+ reprint X-men issues that existed before
> All-New, All-Different revitalized the title? Why not give JB his own toys
> and sandbox, too?
It was 27 issues (67-93) and JB should have reminded Quesada when he was
given the few additional issues that he already had an end in sight. That
was an error on everyone's part not to have set the deadline at 27 (though,
apparently, issue 22's big events were originally planned for 25, which
leaves little time for Beast to leave and both Havok and Lorna to become
full-fledged X-Men).
> Many of which connected with the core concept better than the current
> solos are doing. And Exiles is digging into the same sorts of historic
> events that THY was actually working around, but not just re-enacting
> them. Byrne was adding to the legend by revealing untold stories from
> those times.
That's the big point, though: under Harras and Arad, the minis were just
extensions of the present story. Jemas commented almost immediately how
stupid it was to have Cyclops found in a mini when it could have happened in
the main books. (Had Harras and Arad remained in power, I bet that the final
defeat of Apocalypse would have happened in the main books after the mini
because, as Mark Powers noted, they're the only books of any importance
anyway.)
Today's minis are intended as character close-ups. They're not essential.
They're to explain the character better to new readers through the trade
paperbacks that will eventually be made of them.
There are two exceptions: Origin and Savage Land. Savage Land reads more of
an afterthought and, thankfully, its discardable from the main series.
Origin is both an icon mini-series and a mini-series telling an important,
in-continuity tale.
As for Exiles, unlike Hidden Years the ramifications are non-consequential.
Hidden Years couldn't, say, damage Angel's wings because it would have to be
immediately healed. Beast get married? Cyclops and Jean consumate their
relationship? In Exiles you can do this. The point of Exiles is to break
continuity and follow a different path: Xavier evil, Hulk vs. Alpha Flight,
etc. That's a much different avenue, and the result is a book with far more
freedom that can actually feel new.
> Exactly, a relationship they were willing to torch with Byrne, apparently.
> My understanding of the concept was that THY were FINITE, too; meant to
> fill a multi-issue gap rather than the space between two issues.
Byrne soon came out and said that they could go past 27 issues and
eventually reach issue 100. They should have kept a finite cap on HY and let
Byrne run it out, but - again - there was another deadline and the immediate
reaction to deal with.
> It'll happen, eventually, I'm sure. Someone will sell a retro concept to
> these bosses, just as JB did to the previous ones. Exiles is already
> halfway there.
Exiles isn't halfway there. And Exiles does fill that necessary gap of a
What If..? that Marvel seems to like.
Right now, there are no retro series at Marvel. Origin is a retcon, but new
ground. If a retro tale comes along, and it will happen -- that much I agree
with -- it won't be to the same bosses JB sold his to, because all those
bosses have been replaced.
> Unless you believe Byrne when he promised not to return, that is.
Byrne also promised not to return to DC, didn't he? Lots of creators have
said they wouldn't work with a company again and changed their mind: the
fact that Shooter is doing something, Smith is back, Larsen did FF:WGCM, and
more shows that it happens.
> I think Marvel's great now, and I think many of the books you mention
> above have improved or were good from the start. But, there was really no
> reason THY couldn't have played out its scenario, too, just like WGCM.
I agree. I understand why Quesada did what he did -- breaking with the past
to get noticed -- but X:THY could have been kept around if the situation had
been different. Then again, HY should have been finite from the beginning,
with the old numbering on the cover, not an *in*finite series that could end
at 27 and with the issue numbers hidden in the cover.
Brian Fried
"Scott McAllister" <mis...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Fs5P7.15681$6a.2...@read1.cgocable.net...
> You know, your post almost points at a solution to the problem.
Byrne's
> stuff made money, but nobody would jump on board. Well, what has Marvel
> been doing with books like Deadpool lately? What is coming up with
> Defenders? A miniseries within a series. Double-number it if you want.,
> but it doesn't matter. Every four-or-so issues, a new mini starts up, and
> readers have a chance to jump aboard. And it's only gonna last for so
long,
> because we know how it'll end up.
Defenders is a bit different - that book IS the worst thing Marvel's
produced in a long time (Mackie stuff included!).
But you're right: this is what Marvel is doing. They refuse to lose any
momentum, choosing to keep the interest in a title with noticable story
title changes. The other advantage to this system is that, by writing in set
story arcs, they have pre-constructed trade paperback content. When
Deadpool's #1s have attracted enough readers to become a "buzz" book, new
readers will be able to see what the buzz was about in the trades as well as
learning all the key story elements of the characters as they are. Amazing
Spider-Man, by Straczynski does the same thing: first arc has him question
his identity and get a new job, second arc will have him deal with his
identities and who knows them, etc.
CleV
>That's not the point. New readers prefer first issues (hence the success of
>relaunches). If they're moderately interested in the narrative, they'll pick
>up the second issue. By the third and fourth issues, only those who want to
>continue are buying the books.
Is that necessarily true? Even as a child I think I would have
preferred to buy something with a proven track record, rather than
something new but untested. Proof: nary an issue #1 in my collection
until the 90's.
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:9uk82d$v55$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> But has he? Are the current titles, plus Origin, plus X-treme Savage
:> Land, any more clear? X-force seems almost disconnected from the rest of
:> the Marvel-verse, New X-men is in it's own little pocket, Uncanny is
:> unreadable, and the solo titles, for the most part, have been unexciting,
:> possibly out of continuity, and no more like the movie than Hidden Years.
: "Disconnected"? Why? Because they no longer connect with each other on a
: bi-monthly basis?
No, more because X-force is so different in tone and style that it seems
to happen almost in a vacuum. Though, to be fair, the Wolvie appearance
and the brief showing of some of the previous team did attempt to address
that.
: The problem with the X-books was that if you bought one book, you had to buy
: them all. If you didn't, you missed important parts of the big crossover
: events like "Onslaught", "Zero Tolerance" and so on.
And that was a problem because.....they were so great you needed the
whole? I always buy things on an issue by issue basis, then and now.
: Now you can pick up each book and evaluate them *ON THEIR OWN MERITS*.
: Uncanny are the mutants who can't go out in public without attracting
: attention. New X-Men are the X-Men at the mansion, running the school.
: X-Treme X-Men are on a secret mission to find the missing diaries of
: Destiny. Wolverine is his adventures outside of the X-Men, and Cable is the
: mutant soldier getting involved in wars outside of the old Magneto-Xavier
: one. X-Force are the celebrity mutants who die for good ratings, while
: Brotherhood (and now Muties) are those on the fringe of mutantdom. Exiles is
: the X-Men version of What If..?
The distinctions between the previous set could be run down just as
easily. (the one w/the students; the one w/the dropouts; the one in an
alternate world; the one Alan Davis is doing)...my point is that, though
the individual books have changed (and mostly improved), the line is no
more streamlined than it was, and even less so from some angles.
:> And then you have the Ultimate line, which actually IS another continuity,
:> ie, still confusing to someone who sees those other X-titles.
: Ultimates are a separate division at Marvel. Marketing them inside the other
: lines was a mistake that's hopefully been corrected.
Marketing aside, they appear on the same shelf as the other X-titles at
my comic store. They both (all three? all six?) say X-men.
: Two points exist about Claremont, which I believe you're missing. One is
: that he was on staff already as an editor and under contract for many months
: more. Byrne was a freelancer. Two is that he already knew he needed a change
And which creator has more cache or of a following in the industry? I'm
not saying Claremont didn't deserve his treatment...I'm saying that JB
deserved at least as much consideration.
: in situation -- the interconnection of so many books made writing Uncanny
: and adjectiveless too difficult -- and X-Treme was the solution to make his
: writing more effective. Byrne, in contrast, felt there was nothing wrong
: with The Hidden Years and that he could go well past 27 issues.
Did he? Was that his plan? Because it wasn't in the promo materials I
read.
: Byrne could have kept with Marvel but he burned his bridges awfully quickly
: when his book got canned. Notice that of all the creators at the time, only
: Byrne cried out at the outrage. Others admitted some disappointment, but
: quickly found regular work elsewhere, and kept a connection to Marvel open.
Were the others writing and drawing their own story in a specific little
subset of continuity they'd requested as part of their original, accepted
proposal?
: It was 27 issues (67-93) and JB should have reminded Quesada when he was
: given the few additional issues that he already had an end in sight. That
: was an error on everyone's part not to have set the deadline at 27 (though,
: apparently, issue 22's big events were originally planned for 25, which
: leaves little time for Beast to leave and both Havok and Lorna to become
: full-fledged X-Men).
Setting it at 27, ie exactly what was "missing," would have been a good
negotiating point at least, if they even tried negotiation. Rather they
said: next month is it, pal, ciao!
And then, due to fan outrage, gave him three more months.
:> Many of which connected with the core concept better than the current
:> solos are doing. And Exiles is digging into the same sorts of historic
:> events that THY was actually working around, but not just re-enacting
:> them. Byrne was adding to the legend by revealing untold stories from
:> those times.
: Today's minis are intended as character close-ups. They're not essential.
: They're to explain the character better to new readers through the trade
: paperbacks that will eventually be made of them.
Some people/on-line critics certainly seem to wish there was something
essential about them. What you're saying is that the previous regime
tried to make them seem central, when they really weren't, and this group
admits they're superflous from the start. I don't think they admit any
such thing.
: There are two exceptions: Origin and Savage Land. Savage Land reads more of
: an afterthought and, thankfully, its discardable from the main series.
: Origin is both an icon mini-series and a mini-series telling an important,
: in-continuity tale.
IE, THINGS HAVEN'T REALLY CHANGED!!!!!
: As for Exiles, unlike Hidden Years the ramifications are non-consequential.
: Hidden Years couldn't, say, damage Angel's wings because it would have to be
: immediately healed. Beast get married? Cyclops and Jean consumate their
: relationship? In Exiles you can do this. The point of Exiles is to break
: continuity and follow a different path: Xavier evil, Hulk vs. Alpha Flight,
: etc. That's a much different avenue, and the result is a book with far more
: freedom that can actually feel new.
Except, as some people are prone to argue, limitations actually are good
for art because they increase the challenge. What you're saying here is
"Exiles doesn't matter, so they can do whatever they want." True. But
interesting?
Byrne had to construct stories that added to legend without contradicting
it; ie, he didn't have free reign to retcon, and promised not to from the
start. People's enjoyment level varied, but I was happily reading along
as he filled in the cracks and brought in some forgotten elements that
made sense in context. He made the rules, and he was following them.
:> It'll happen, eventually, I'm sure. Someone will sell a retro concept to
:> these bosses, just as JB did to the previous ones. Exiles is already
:> halfway there.
: Exiles isn't halfway there. And Exiles does fill that necessary gap of a
: What If..? that Marvel seems to like.
And them liking it makes it necessary?
: Right now, there are no retro series at Marvel. Origin is a retcon, but new
: ground. If a retro tale comes along, and it will happen -- that much I agree
: with -- it won't be to the same bosses JB sold his to, because all those
: bosses have been replaced.
But, as you said, it will happen, so why not come to some agreement on
this one (at least let Byrne get back to Giant-Size X-men #1, somehow,
someway, even if it curtails his mad plan to prolong the interim) that
had already begun, rather than truncating it immediately? Why let go a
heroic contributor to the X-men's legend when he was already playing
along?
:> Unless you believe Byrne when he promised not to return, that is.
: Byrne also promised not to return to DC, didn't he? Lots of creators have
: said they wouldn't work with a company again and changed their mind: the
: fact that Shooter is doing something, Smith is back, Larsen did FF:WGCM, and
: more shows that it happens.
And it may again, too, but why muck it up so badly in the first place? To
me, it read like a clear message from Quesada to Byrne: you're not worth
it, big boy.
: I agree. I understand why Quesada did what he did -- breaking with the past
: to get noticed -- but X:THY could have been kept around if the situation had
: been different. Then again, HY should have been finite from the beginning,
: with the old numbering on the cover, not an *in*finite series that could end
: at 27 and with the issue numbers hidden in the cover.
Didn't follow that sentence totally, but I think we agree here.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: And what have we had since? Quesada's poached the editor of Vertigo. He's
: brought Straczynski and Morrison on to profile books, and convinced Kevin
: Smith to come on again with a different character. He's even poached Mark
: Waid from CrossGen! Shooter and Windsor-Smith are back, the fence has been
: mended a bit with Steranko, and there's talk of mending the fence with Alan
: Moore. The *only* sour point of this all seems to be John Byrne.
I still think that's a pretty big flub. And good luck with the Alan Moore
thing, really. :)
:> his profile no end, but what's the bet that Marvel will give those
:> pencilling duties to some hack who just happens to be in the top ten list
: in
:> last month's Wizard?
: I'd love to see Byrne on the project as well. However, Byrne's star has
: seriously fallen thanks to Spider-Man Chapter One, Marvel The Lost
: Generation, X-Men The Hidden Years, Amazing Spider-Man and Superman &
: Batman: Generations II. The first was a bomb, the rest of them retro series
: that didn't have great appeal saleswise. If Shooter doesn't have an artist
But some of them did okay, and at least THY and GenI and II have quite
vocal fans. I even thought some of Lost Gen worked rather well (parts of
it reminded me of Byrne's FF run), though, one does wonder, what's up
with this retro kick and when is he going to realize that trying some new
material might work again? He got really bummed over the whole Dark Horse
thing, I guess.
: picked, and its up to the editors, I wouldn't be surprised if they went for
: someone who sells a bit higher -- like, say, Jae Lee.
: Byrne, to me, jumped the gun a bit. Calling Quesada's move ridiculous and
: unneccessary (I'm obviously paraphrasing but that's the basic feel), and
: then saying he wasn't going to work at Marvel again, hurt the possibility of
: getting another project. The fence can be mended, but I get the feeling the
: emphasis is being put on Byrne saying "sorry" first.
What Byrne was saying that he didn't WANT another project from people he
couldn't trust.
: (That said, Byrne needs to skip the Elseworlds and retro tales and move into
: the present like he did with Amazing Spider-Man. Personally, I'd love it if
: he said "sorry" to Marvel and asked about doing a new Alpha Flight.)
I think we'll have a longgggggg wait for that to happen. He's the one who
expects the apology....he's going to need to be courted.
:> Byrne might not have had an end in sight, but I think that where he got
:> miffed was the way the axing was handled and the excuses given. And if I,
:> or you, were sacked in public in the middle of a major project we'd both
: be
:> fairly pissed off about it and grumbling.
: And yet he was a veteran then working for Marvel... how could he not have
: known they cancel books with little notice? And the sales charts *were*
: something to pay attention to, even if he didn't want to see that his book
: was being passed by everything else at Marvel. The moment Quesada was made
EVERYTHING else? Hardly. What he saw (he said as much) was a book that
was selling well enough (for a company fearing bankruptcy) to justify
its continuation. He saw THY as earning its keep.
: EIC -- a man who openly admitted he found the X-books too confusing and
: wanted to something exciting creatively -- the writing was on the wall.
: Excuses, shmuces... Byrne was hoping his reputation would protect him (and
: in many ways it did) but by saying he could keep doing this for a long time
: made the book an easy target.
Probably not the most politic of moves.
: Personally, I think Byrne should have gone to Quesada and tell him that the
: book has to end at #27, which would perfectly close the hidden period and
: he'd do something new and exciting afterwards. Instead he went public with
: his complaints.
Anger.
: Marvel's #1 because they tell stories that people want to read.
: The "sales manipulation" is actually helping the company by creating buzz.
: Quite frankly, I can still buy copies of The Hidden Years for a quarter each
: from some suppliers, and that's not good.
It ended poorly; but, then, it was cancelled badly.
: BUT, that said, Quesada and Jemas have been good for Marvel. The company is
: generating interest inside and outside of the industry, it's fixed its trade
: paperback policy, the Spider-books are all enjoyable, the X-Men are no
: longer a black hole in your wallet with constant crossovers, and the back
No, now they're a black hole because some of them are actually good!
: issue sales (because I'm also a retailer) have picked up dramatically. When
: Marvel is about to become a major force in the movies -- Blade II,
: Spider-Man and MIB-2 this year, Daredevil, Hulk and X-Men II on their way --
: they need this product interconnection because it's the key to their
: survival just as Star Wars was three decades ago.
And yet they pay lip service to tie-ins in the main continuity, do actual
word/for/word adaptations of the films, and market more than one
continuity featuring ersatz versions of the same characters. Why is any
of that easier to understand than "here's what happened to the characters
you're still reading, some years ago?"
Shawn
PAL
>
> "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:9uk82d$v55$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> with The Hidden Years and that he could go well past 27 issues.
From the very beginning, JB stated that this 'series' was ongoing. Not
limited to just 27-issues.
> Byrne could have kept with Marvel but he burned his bridges awfully
quickly
> when his book got canned. Notice that of all the creators at the time,
only
> Byrne cried out at the outrage. Others admitted some disappointment, but
> quickly found regular work elsewhere, and kept a connection to Marvel
open.
Apparently some talents don't mind getting screwed over.
> > But why not serve the ones who did, and serve out a contractural promise
> > (perhaps just perceived promise) to fulfill the concept: ie, to provide
a
> > replacement for those 30+ reprint X-men issues that existed before
> > All-New, All-Different revitalized the title? Why not give JB his own
toys
> > and sandbox, too?
>
> It was 27 issues (67-93) and JB should have reminded Quesada when he was
> given the few additional issues that he already had an end in sight. That
> was an error on everyone's part not to have set the deadline at 27
(though,
> apparently, issue 22's big events were originally planned for 25, which
> leaves little time for Beast to leave and both Havok and Lorna to become
> full-fledged X-Men).
For the record, JB had already completed up to issue #22. he was already
getting paid for the issues, so they published them. JB was able to do some
tweaking and end the storyline, more or less, at that issue. A lot of
sub-plots were lost, and that's a shame, IMO.
> > Many of which connected with the core concept better than the current
> > solos are doing. And Exiles is digging into the same sorts of historic
> > events that THY was actually working around, but not just re-enacting
> > them. Byrne was adding to the legend by revealing untold stories from
> > those times.
>
> That's the big point, though: under Harras and Arad, the minis were just
> extensions of the present story. Jemas commented almost immediately how
> stupid it was to have Cyclops found in a mini when it could have happened
in
> the main books. (Had Harras and Arad remained in power, I bet that the
final
> defeat of Apocalypse would have happened in the main books after the mini
> because, as Mark Powers noted, they're the only books of any importance
> anyway.)
And since Hidden Years was not a mini-series?
See above...
> > It'll happen, eventually, I'm sure. Someone will sell a retro concept to
> > these bosses, just as JB did to the previous ones. Exiles is already
> > halfway there.
>
> Exiles isn't halfway there. And Exiles does fill that necessary gap of a
> What If..? that Marvel seems to like.
>
> Right now, there are no retro series at Marvel. Origin is a retcon, but
new
> ground. If a retro tale comes along, and it will happen -- that much I
agree
> with -- it won't be to the same bosses JB sold his to, because all those
> bosses have been replaced.
>
> > Unless you believe Byrne when he promised not to return, that is.
>
> Byrne also promised not to return to DC, didn't he? Lots of creators have
> said they wouldn't work with a company again and changed their mind: the
> fact that Shooter is doing something, Smith is back, Larsen did FF:WGCM,
and
> more shows that it happens.
I really don't recall JB having such a falling out with DC. Can anyone
expound on this? Speculation is unnecessary, of course.
> > I think Marvel's great now, and I think many of the books you mention
> > above have improved or were good from the start. But, there was really
no
> > reason THY couldn't have played out its scenario, too, just like WGCM.
>
> I agree. I understand why Quesada did what he did -- breaking with the
past
> to get noticed -- but X:THY could have been kept around if the situation
had
> been different. Then again, HY should have been finite from the beginning,
> with the old numbering on the cover, not an *in*finite series that could
end
> at 27 and with the issue numbers hidden in the cover.
I disagree. The series could have continued for years, with no conflicts
with current continuity.
~PAL
Erlik K
doesn't necessarily constitute getting screwed over.
They're Marvel's characters, and the writers of these books really shouldn't
take it personally when a book is cancelled after a change in management.
Sanctify
> That's not the point. New readers prefer first issues (hence the success
of
> relaunches). If they're moderately interested in the narrative, they'll
pick
> up the second issue. By the third and fourth issues, only those who want
to
> continue are buying the books. By the sixth issue of Hidden Years, though,
> many readers of X-Men: The Hidden Years [particularly those here who went
on
> the book because it was an X-book] were dissatisfied. A review of "still
in
> the Savage Land, same stuff as usual" wasn't helping to keep their faith
in
> the book, either.
You make it sound as if the entire book was set in the Savage Land. It
wasn't. There were enough sub-plots outside of the Savage Land to alieviate
any concerns and also interest any reader with an attention span longer that
doesn't need Ritalin.
>
> You won't find a Spider-Man fan who would disagree. But Mackie *did*
accept
> blame for the Spider-Clone mess, and Marvel was enamoured with him for
that.
> It was only when the Spider-books took their second dive that they
realized
> they chose the wrong writer for the two books.
They still kept him there though.
To be quite frank, and I've been thinking about this over the weekend, I've
not seen one Howard Mackie book or run on a title that I've enjoyed. For
the most part he seems intent on pumping out the worst in hack material.
But I'm guessing he works cheaply enough and just sits there and shuts up so
they keep him. I'd like to see how much work Mackie would get at other
publishers if he attempted to farm himself out.
Now Byrne could and can get work whenever he feels like it.
> His slowness in art has nothing to do with his other achievement at Marvel
> Knights. Marvel wanted to attract the top, and Quesada was signing them
when
> no one else could. Under the Knight banner, characters which had barely
sold
> (if at all) were now at the top, and Daredevil had jumped significantly up
> the chart as well. That was a turnaround in reputation and sales levels
that
> no board of directors was willing to ignore.
>
> And what have we had since? Quesada's poached the editor of Vertigo. He's
> brought Straczynski and Morrison on to profile books, and convinced Kevin
> Smith to come on again with a different character. He's even poached Mark
> Waid from CrossGen! Shooter and Windsor-Smith are back, the fence has been
> mended a bit with Steranko, and there's talk of mending the fence with
Alan
> Moore. The *only* sour point of this all seems to be John Byrne.
I'm not arguing the point that sales on Marvel Knights have increased while
Quesada's been there. My main point is that he seems incapable of producing
a monthly book and seems intent on hiring pals, some of which are just as
useless as he is at keeping to deadlines. Sure his art is great. The run
on DD that he did with Kevin Smith remains my favorite run after the Miller
stuff, indeed I started buying the book again - and I've not bought it on a
regular basis since Miller left. However I got totally hacked off that it
couldn't come out on time - and that seems to be Quesada's fault entirely.
As for the *only* sour point being Byrne - well I don't know where you sit
but that's a fairly major point IMHO. Byrne is a giant in the comics
industry. You might wish to sit there and bag him til the cows come home
but he does command respect for his abilities and his past - well respect
from everyone but Quesada who's shown him nothing but disdain.
>
> Yet, as editor, Quesada does deserve some credit for the late issues for
> their quality. We couldn't complain that this wasn't worth the wait for.
I'm sure that Joey doesn't check the quality of each and every book
published. That's why he has editors assigned to every book. Quesada's
role is that of a manager - he's called in if problems arise. If the books
are coming out on time and are selling then I doubt he'd give a toss.
Look at X-Men 400. If Quesada is just as responsible for letting that pus
out as he is the MK range then he needs to look a bit more carefully at it -
that ain't quality control in action there.
?
>
> I'd love to see Byrne on the project as well. However, Byrne's star has
> seriously fallen thanks to Spider-Man Chapter One, Marvel The Lost
> Generation, X-Men The Hidden Years, Amazing Spider-Man and Superman &
> Batman: Generations II. The first was a bomb, the rest of them retro
series
> that didn't have great appeal saleswise. If Shooter doesn't have an artist
> picked, and its up to the editors, I wouldn't be surprised if they went
for
> someone who sells a bit higher -- like, say, Jae Lee.
Jae Lee. Exactly my point. Jae Lee is good, but with the right motivation
he can't touch Byrne.
And I'll take you to task on your selections there. CO was a bomb - that
much we all know. However Generations I & II was far from being a bomb.
Same with THY and TLG. If anything those titles enhanced his repuation.
>
> Wizard may be a big propaganda machine, but they're large enough in the
> industry to have effects on sales for some titles. (Comics International
is
> my favourite, because it tries to bring all sides of the equation in.)
> Having a statement in Wizard sways more people than CBG or CI or --
> especially -- the 'net, that's all I'm saying.
So when Wizard decide that they don't like Byrne, or PAD for example, they
can influence the public's perception and thus hinder their careers? Sad
really, I remember a certain bunch of people who ran around in the 30's and
40's that did the same thing - drove people out, influenced the general
population, spread dissent due to their own personal preferences and stunted
their careers but making it very hard for them to work.
>
> Byrne, to me, jumped the gun a bit. Calling Quesada's move ridiculous and
> unneccessary (I'm obviously paraphrasing but that's the basic feel), and
> then saying he wasn't going to work at Marvel again, hurt the possibility
of
> getting another project. The fence can be mended, but I get the feeling
the
> emphasis is being put on Byrne saying "sorry" first.
I doubt you'll find that happening. I think that Quesada needs to say sorry
to Byrne first before anything happens. Byrne was the one that got shafted
here, not Quesada. Quesada did the shafting.
>
> (That said, Byrne needs to skip the Elseworlds and retro tales and move
into
> the present like he did with Amazing Spider-Man. Personally, I'd love it
if
> he said "sorry" to Marvel and asked about doing a new Alpha Flight.)
You don't want him to do retro but you want him to return to Alpha Flight?
Weird. If Byrne were to return to anything at Marvel, for maximum impact,
they they'd do no better than to give him FF.
>
> Personally, I think Byrne should have gone to Quesada and tell him that
the
> book has to end at #27, which would perfectly close the hidden period and
> he'd do something new and exciting afterwards. Instead he went public with
> his complaints.
Becuase he got a call saying so sad, too bad, books cancelled. Byrne then
said but I'm in the middle of a story line here. Again, so sad, too bad.
The only reason Quesada gave him the extra time was because the book and
been pencilled up to issue 22 anyways.
>
> To play Devil's Advocate, Byrne didn't give them much of a chance. He
seemed
> adamant about ending his relationship with Marvel when Hidden Years
reached
> its unfortunate end. None of the other creators complained, and those that
> wanted to continue with Marvel did soon after (ie. Mackie and
Brotherhood).
I'm sure Mackie is happy to have work. You can't compare Mackie with Byrne.
> > Thor Godstorm is one of the best things I've read in ages.
>
> It's a three issue retro tale that really got published because it's Kurt
> Busiek, whose name sells thanks to good NEW stories on Avengers.
Personally,
> I can only stand x amount of Lee-Kirby retros before I get turned off.
I found it to be refreshing and a damn good tale with some of the best
artwork to grace a Marvel book in ages. I didn't find it retro at all, and
certainly I didn't find it a Lee-Kirby rip off along the lines of Larsen's
efforts. It was a tale of Thor - the guy has been around for centuries - if
you wanna tell a story of Thor then some of it will be in the past.
> BUT, that said, Quesada and Jemas have been good for Marvel. The company
is
> generating interest inside and outside of the industry, it's fixed its
trade
> paperback policy, the Spider-books are all enjoyable, the X-Men are no
> longer a black hole in your wallet with constant crossovers, and the back
> issue sales (because I'm also a retailer) have picked up dramatically.
When
> Marvel is about to become a major force in the movies -- Blade II,
> Spider-Man and MIB-2 this year, Daredevil, Hulk and X-Men II on their
way --
> they need this product interconnection because it's the key to their
> survival just as Star Wars was three decades ago.
Movie projects that Quesada and Jemas had pretty much bugger all to do
with - they were in the works, especially the sequals, before those two hit
Marvel. So I'd not be giving them any credit for them at all.
What's the bet we see another pile of shit that they'll then pass off as
movie adaptions?
To quote P Townshend - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Shawn Hill
: Having a book cancelled, for whatever reason, by the publisher of said books
: doesn't necessarily constitute getting screwed over.
: They're Marvel's characters, and the writers of these books really shouldn't
: take it personally when a book is cancelled after a change in management.
If it hadn't been selling, I don't think Byrne would have been as pissed.
As it was clearly not a straight financial decision, he had grounds.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> Byrne also promised not to return to DC, didn't he? Lots of creators have
:> said they wouldn't work with a company again and changed their mind: the
:> fact that Shooter is doing something, Smith is back, Larsen did FF:WGCM,
: and
:> more shows that it happens.
: I really don't recall JB having such a falling out with DC. Can anyone
: expound on this? Speculation is unnecessary, of course.
Did he get burned at some point during the Superman/Action
revitalization?
: I disagree. The series could have continued for years, with no conflicts
: with current continuity.
I would have wanted it at some point to head for closure....but at a
point of Byrne's choosing.
Shawn
Sanctify
> PAL <palsu...@mypants.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> Byrne also promised not to return to DC, didn't he? Lots of creators
have
> :> said they wouldn't work with a company again and changed their mind:
the
> :> fact that Shooter is doing something, Smith is back, Larsen did
FF:WGCM,
> : and
> :> more shows that it happens.
>
> : I really don't recall JB having such a falling out with DC. Can anyone
> : expound on this? Speculation is unnecessary, of course.
>
> Did he get burned at some point during the Superman/Action
> revitalization?
I don't think so. His parting from that title was with a bloody good story
arc that was the basis for a lot of the future for other writers - something
that was acknowledged when DC had Supes leave Earth after the Invasion
mini-series. Certainly the last page of his last Superman story gave every
indication that he was leaving the title on fairly good terms, coupled with
the fact that he's returned from time to time to add some pencils or inks.
>
> : I disagree. The series could have continued for years, with no conflicts
> : with current continuity.
>
> I would have wanted it at some point to head for closure....but at a
> point of Byrne's choosing.
Which is also my point exactly.
Aaron
Probably. But if the whole book hadn't been an exercise in treading water
(from concept on through to execution), it probably wouldn't have gotten
shit-canned either.
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
:>
:> If it hadn't been selling, I don't think Byrne would have been as pissed.
:> As it was clearly not a straight financial decision, he had grounds.
:>
: Probably. But if the whole book hadn't been an exercise in treading water
: (from concept on through to execution), it probably wouldn't have gotten
: shit-canned either.
What comic book isn't about treading water? They all have a status quo
to maintain, characters to challenge but not utterly destroy, compelling
themes that repeat, over and over, in different guises. THY stated its
aims openly from the start, and Byrne was adding new shades to some
characters we've known a very long time. His angles on Storm and Angel in
their early careers were intriguing to me, as was his look at an immature
Bobby and an unredeemed Magneto. I liked seeing the FF from that era
again, as well. I like books that ADD to continuity without
contradicting, that's a personal preference I'll openly cop to.
Plus, the art was just beautiful, as (almost) always with Byrne.
So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
Shawn
Steven Dumont
Shawn Hill wrote:
>
> What comic book isn't about treading water? They all have a status quo
> to maintain, characters to challenge but not utterly destroy, compelling
> themes that repeat, over and over, in different guises.
Lots of comics fall into the category that you describe but it doesn't
mean they all do. Some of my favourite books are the ones that don't
fit into the category. Of course if you intend to have a book around
for a long time and you intend to use it as a franchise to continually
gather in the cash then the safest way to keep that franchise going is
to maintain the status quo. Grant seems to be trying to do this a bit
with New X-Men and people are bitching about it. That's the trade off.
Steve
Aaron
> Aaron <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote:
>
> : "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> :>
> :> If it hadn't been selling, I don't think Byrne would have been as
pissed.
> :> As it was clearly not a straight financial decision, he had grounds.
> :>
>
> : Probably. But if the whole book hadn't been an exercise in treading
water
> : (from concept on through to execution), it probably wouldn't have gotten
> : shit-canned either.
>
> What comic book isn't about treading water? They all have a status quo
> to maintain, characters to challenge but not utterly destroy, compelling
> themes that repeat, over and over, in different guises.
The problem with looking at it like this is that he the book has absolutely
no room to grow. It has its set beginning and end. We know nothing
important happened in that period. We know the characters didn't change.
Nothing revolutionary happened in their plotlines. And if it did, then we'd
have heard about it sometime beyond 1975. And if Byrne was planning on
doing anything like this, the book's core fanbase would be the same people
decrying silly retcons.
An ongoing series set in the 'present' is open-ended. Whether it grows or
not is one thing, but it at least has the potential to grow. There can be
revolutionary events. Like GS X-Men #1. Or the evolution of the New
Mutants into X-Force and then from one X-Force to another. There's always
that possibility. With THY, we know nothing is going to really change
anything, because we know that all the characters have to be in place (that
is, exactly the the same place they started) by the final issue for it to
lead into GS #1.
>
> Plus, the art was just beautiful, as (almost) always with Byrne.
>
I found it to be serviceable. It was nice, but a cleaner inking job would
have done it better both in its own right as well as placing it in its time
period. But I suppose Byrne can't always be inked by Terry Austin.
> So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
I don't have any problem with them producing it. But I also have no problem
with them cancelling it for whatever reason. I like a nostalgia trip.
However, when the story is paced so damn slow and has absolutely nothing
happening for 5 issues at a time -- unless you count that Avia stuff as
'something' -- I see no point in taking the trip. Working the nostalgia
into something worthwhile, with some discernable point or inspiration or
sense of heading somewhere (no, make that anywhere), would have fared
better.
It was what it was for better or worse. A pretty decent diversion. But it
did have its flaws (again, from concept through to execution) and was taking
up publishing resources that could be going into to something more
profitable and more serviceable to readers who haven't made the X-Men their
lives for 20+ years. That is, after all, what they and most
forward-thinking comics publishers are aiming for. That they gave Claremont
his own book is a nod to the long-time, nostalgia-seeking fanboy. They
didn't need 2 of them. And I think they made the right choice in the final
analysis.
Sanctify
"Aaron" <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote in message
news:9v4b7h$mle$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:9v2mk8$a78$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> > Aaron <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote:
>
> The problem with looking at it like this is that he the book has
absolutely
> no room to grow. It has its set beginning and end. We know nothing
> important happened in that period. We know the characters didn't change.
> Nothing revolutionary happened in their plotlines. And if it did, then
we'd
> have heard about it sometime beyond 1975. And if Byrne was planning on
> doing anything like this, the book's core fanbase would be the same people
> decrying silly retcons.
No - we don't know what happened in that time period outside of a few stray
stories. We know that Hank left, that the team changed costumes and that
somehow Magneto trounced not only the X-men but also the Avengers. That
might seem to be bugger all to you in your eternal Byrne bashing, but it
does set up a run of some damn interesting stories.
Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty much
anything could have happened in the meantime.
>
> >
> > Plus, the art was just beautiful, as (almost) always with Byrne.
> >
>
> I found it to be serviceable. It was nice, but a cleaner inking job would
> have done it better both in its own right as well as placing it in its
time
> period. But I suppose Byrne can't always be inked by Terry Austin.
I thought it was some of Byrne's best art in a long while. And for the
record the last time I saw Austin ink Byrne (the Amazon one shot) it pretty
much sucked. Time and artists move on and what was once a great team might
not always remain a great team. I'd say that the same applies with Miller
and Janson. Tom Palmer's inks for THY were damn solid.
>
> > So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
>
> I don't have any problem with them producing it. But I also have no
problem
> with them cancelling it for whatever reason. I like a nostalgia trip.
> However, when the story is paced so damn slow and has absolutely nothing
> happening for 5 issues at a time -- unless you count that Avia stuff as
> 'something' -- I see no point in taking the trip. Working the nostalgia
> into something worthwhile, with some discernable point or inspiration or
> sense of heading somewhere (no, make that anywhere), would have fared
> better.
Well let's see you pitch something to Marvel and do better. I await your
first issue of ANY title.
Shawn Hill
:> What comic book isn't about treading water? They all have a status quo
:> to maintain, characters to challenge but not utterly destroy, compelling
:> themes that repeat, over and over, in different guises.
: The problem with looking at it like this is that he the book has absolutely
: no room to grow. It has its set beginning and end. We know nothing
: important happened in that period. We know the characters didn't change.
: Nothing revolutionary happened in their plotlines. And if it did, then we'd
: have heard about it sometime beyond 1975. And if Byrne was planning on
: doing anything like this, the book's core fanbase would be the same people
: decrying silly retcons.
The problem with THY was that perception, when it wasn't a "problem" at
all. It wasn't supposed to grow. It was supposed to fill in backstory,
show a few new twists, basically enhancing but not contradicting old,
loved tales. It admitted that from the start. That's what it was about.
: An ongoing series set in the 'present' is open-ended. Whether it grows or
: not is one thing, but it at least has the potential to grow. There can be
: revolutionary events. Like GS X-Men #1. Or the evolution of the New
: Mutants into X-Force and then from one X-Force to another. There's always
: that possibility. With THY, we know nothing is going to really change
: anything, because we know that all the characters have to be in place (that
: is, exactly the the same place they started) by the final issue for it to
: lead into GS #1.
No, not where they started, just where they ended up at that point. There
are infinite ways to get there, and JB was telling the one he thought
made sense.
: I found it to be serviceable. It was nice, but a cleaner inking job would
: have done it better both in its own right as well as placing it in its time
: period. But I suppose Byrne can't always be inked by Terry Austin.
Not even Terry Austin looks like Terry Austin anymore.
:> So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
: I don't have any problem with them producing it. But I also have no problem
: with them cancelling it for whatever reason. I like a nostalgia trip.
Glad to hear it.
: However, when the story is paced so damn slow and has absolutely nothing
: happening for 5 issues at a time -- unless you count that Avia stuff as
: 'something' -- I see no point in taking the trip. Working the nostalgia
I did.
: into something worthwhile, with some discernable point or inspiration or
: sense of heading somewhere (no, make that anywhere), would have fared
: better.
YMMV. I've already listed the parts of the story that were working for
me.
: It was what it was for better or worse. A pretty decent diversion. But it
: did have its flaws (again, from concept through to execution) and was taking
: up publishing resources that could be going into to something more
: profitable and more serviceable to readers who haven't made the X-Men their
: lives for 20+ years. That is, after all, what they and most
What resources? The workers at the factory? The fact that it paid for
itself respectably? It took up JB's time, which was his own choice. What
Quesada et al said, by virtue of their actions, was that it wasn't worth
the hastle of editing it.
: forward-thinking comics publishers are aiming for. That they gave Claremont
At this point, they should aim for books that sell. To ALL audiences.
That doesn't mean choosing one (potential new readers) over another
(long-time addicts). Why can't they serve both markets?
As, in fact, they already do, with other titles that weren't cancelled
and new ones that appeal to the same old-timers? Like Defenders, World's
Greatest, etc.
: his own book is a nod to the long-time, nostalgia-seeking fanboy. They
: didn't need 2 of them. And I think they made the right choice in the final
: analysis.
I don't think it had to be a choice. I would have purchased both books,
as I am not doing X-treme Savage Land.
Shawn
Aaron
>
> "Aaron" <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote in message
> news:9v4b7h$mle$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9v2mk8$a78$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> > > Aaron <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem with looking at it like this is that he the book has
> absolutely
> > no room to grow. It has its set beginning and end. We know nothing
> > important happened in that period. We know the characters didn't
change.
> > Nothing revolutionary happened in their plotlines. And if it did, then
> we'd
> > have heard about it sometime beyond 1975. And if Byrne was planning on
> > doing anything like this, the book's core fanbase would be the same
people
> > decrying silly retcons.
>
> No - we don't know what happened in that time period outside of a few
stray
> stories. We know that Hank left,
Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. 30
years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell us
how?
> that the team changed costumes
That must be one of those extremely important character developments that
warranted a whole retro monthly title. I can see it on the cover of the
issue. "BECAUSE YOU DEMANDED IT! A 25 YEAR OLD STORY CHRONICALLING HOW THE
X-MEN CHANGED THEIR UNIFORMS!" Sorry. Again, I don't see the pressing need
to see how this came about. And again, all the book has to offer is some
extraneous, superfluous changes that have absolutely no bearing on the
characters or how we come to see them.
> and that
> somehow Magneto trounced not only the X-men but also the Avengers.
Errrr.... Didn't the trouncing of the Avengers happen in their own book?
>That
> might seem to be bugger all to you in your eternal Byrne bashing, but it
> does set up a run of some damn interesting stories.
>
> Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty much
> anything could have happened in the meantime.
No, not anything. None of the characters could have died. Or gotten
married. Or even leave the team (except Beast, which we already knew many
many years ago). Or have really anything of importance happen to them as
characters because the characters going into the series have to be the same
coming out to get to GS#1
> >
> > >
> > > Plus, the art was just beautiful, as (almost) always with Byrne.
> > >
> >
> > I found it to be serviceable. It was nice, but a cleaner inking job
would
> > have done it better both in its own right as well as placing it in its
> time
> > period. But I suppose Byrne can't always be inked by Terry Austin.
>
> I thought it was some of Byrne's best art in a long while.
True. But he hasn't been putting out his best art for quite a long time
now.
>And for the
> record the last time I saw Austin ink Byrne (the Amazon one shot) it
pretty
> much sucked. Time and artists move on and what was once a great team
might
> not always remain a great team. I'd say that the same applies with Miller
> and Janson. Tom Palmer's inks for THY were damn solid.
>
Certainly they were. But they didn't really serve Byrne's art of the retro
feel of the book. Not as out of place as some other inkers might have been
on the same project, but not really evoking the retro thing. I mean, that
was the point of the book, right.... to tell stories about that time period
in the writing and artistic style of that time....
>
> > > So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
> >
> > I don't have any problem with them producing it. But I also have no
> problem
> > with them cancelling it for whatever reason. I like a nostalgia trip.
> > However, when the story is paced so damn slow and has absolutely nothing
> > happening for 5 issues at a time -- unless you count that Avia stuff as
> > 'something' -- I see no point in taking the trip. Working the nostalgia
> > into something worthwhile, with some discernable point or inspiration or
> > sense of heading somewhere (no, make that anywhere), would have fared
> > better.
>
> Well let's see you pitch something to Marvel and do better. I await your
> first issue of ANY title.
Ahem... yeah.... good one. Almost as good as a "whatever."
Aaron
> Aaron <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote:
>
> :> What comic book isn't about treading water? They all have a status quo
> :> to maintain, characters to challenge but not utterly destroy,
compelling
> :> themes that repeat, over and over, in different guises.
>
> : The problem with looking at it like this is that he the book has
absolutely
> : no room to grow. It has its set beginning and end. We know nothing
> : important happened in that period. We know the characters didn't
change.
> : Nothing revolutionary happened in their plotlines. And if it did, then
we'd
> : have heard about it sometime beyond 1975. And if Byrne was planning on
> : doing anything like this, the book's core fanbase would be the same
people
> : decrying silly retcons.
>
> The problem with THY was that perception, when it wasn't a "problem" at
> all. It wasn't supposed to grow. It was supposed to fill in backstory,
> show a few new twists, basically enhancing but not contradicting old,
> loved tales. It admitted that from the start. That's what it was about.
>
Which basically translates into "waste of time" and while it's the sort of
thing that makes the fanboy in me drool, still.... what's the point?
> : An ongoing series set in the 'present' is open-ended. Whether it grows
or
> : not is one thing, but it at least has the potential to grow. There can
be
> : revolutionary events. Like GS X-Men #1. Or the evolution of the New
> : Mutants into X-Force and then from one X-Force to another. There's
always
> : that possibility. With THY, we know nothing is going to really change
> : anything, because we know that all the characters have to be in place
(that
> : is, exactly the the same place they started) by the final issue for it
to
> : lead into GS #1.
>
> No, not where they started, just where they ended up at that point. There
> are infinite ways to get there, and JB was telling the one he thought
> made sense.
>
That's fine. It made perfect sense. It just wasn't that interesting. Nor
was it important to the title of the characters themselves. And that makes
it an attempt to use the cache of Byrne and the X and do some stalling
because they want to sell more X-books, but nobody has a very good idea for
a new one.
> : I found it to be serviceable. It was nice, but a cleaner inking job
would
> : have done it better both in its own right as well as placing it in its
time
> : period. But I suppose Byrne can't always be inked by Terry Austin.
>
> Not even Terry Austin looks like Terry Austin anymore.
>
Exactly. Nor does Byrne look like Byrne. Better on this book than much of
his recent past, but still, nothing to get excited about.
> :> So it was a nostalgia trip. For its fans, they wanted it.
>
> : I don't have any problem with them producing it. But I also have no
problem
> : with them cancelling it for whatever reason. I like a nostalgia trip.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> : However, when the story is paced so damn slow and has absolutely nothing
> : happening for 5 issues at a time -- unless you count that Avia stuff as
> : 'something' -- I see no point in taking the trip. Working the nostalgia
>
> I did.
>
> : into something worthwhile, with some discernable point or inspiration or
> : sense of heading somewhere (no, make that anywhere), would have fared
> : better.
>
> YMMV. I've already listed the parts of the story that were working for
> me.
>
I guess I just don't care about the actual issue to issue plots or action
when I'm reading comics. Sure, if it's something interesting, I pay
attention. But I'd rather see something happening to the CHARACTERS and see
where they're going. I knew where they were going. They've already been
there and beyond. The plot and the hero v. villain scenario issue to issue
are secondary. So, seeing as nothing can really change the characters --
and since we weren't seein any especially new or interesting insight into
them as they were back then -- that makes the book pointless for me.
> : It was what it was for better or worse. A pretty decent diversion. But
it
> : did have its flaws (again, from concept through to execution) and was
taking
> : up publishing resources that could be going into to something more
> : profitable and more serviceable to readers who haven't made the X-Men
their
> : lives for 20+ years. That is, after all, what they and most
>
> What resources? The workers at the factory? The fact that it paid for
> itself respectably? It took up JB's time, which was his own choice. What
> Quesada et al said, by virtue of their actions, was that it wasn't worth
> the hastle of editing it.
>
Yes, the workers at the factory. The paper. The editors. The promotion.
The money spent coloring it. All of the above. Money and effort that could
have spent somewhere else besides a middling project that, while profitable,
was not as profitable as something elsse might be if those resources were
being poured into it.
> : forward-thinking comics publishers are aiming for. That they gave
Claremont
>
> At this point, they should aim for books that sell. To ALL audiences.
> That doesn't mean choosing one (potential new readers) over another
> (long-time addicts). Why can't they serve both markets?
>
Right. But the old readers are going to buy the books regardless, in most
cases. New readers..... are they going to buy the nostalgia trip into
retcons and water treading? By canning that book and putting the resources
into something else, they'll (ostensibly) be putting out a book to appeal to
both the new and old readers. This is strictly an old readers book. And
there's not as much pay-off in that sort of thing as there used to be.
> As, in fact, they already do, with other titles that weren't cancelled
> and new ones that appeal to the same old-timers? Like Defenders, World's
> Greatest, etc.
>
Yet Defenders is picking up characters that aren't appearing so much in
other books in a line of books based on a single concept. And because the
stories take place now, there's a sense that the characters can develop and
interact in new ways. Things can happen to them. They can do something
besides go into the title and come out exactly the same way; or come out of
it as the characters we saw them as 25 years in the past.
> : his own book is a nod to the long-time, nostalgia-seeking fanboy. They
> : didn't need 2 of them. And I think they made the right choice in the
final
> : analysis.
>
> I don't think it had to be a choice. I would have purchased both books,
> as I am not doing X-treme Savage Land.
Ah, but you see, back to my point about using resources more effectively and
efficiently.... since they are doing the nod to the old-timers
(X-treme/Claremont), they've replaced one nostalgia trip with a much more
profitable one. And one where the characters can grow and develop. Have
those cosmic or earth-shattering fights with villains without fucking up
what came out for the last 25 years, because it's forward thinking and
doesn't have to step lightly around things that can't happen because....
well, because they never happened.
Sanctify
> > No - we don't know what happened in that time period outside of a few
> stray
> > stories. We know that Hank left,
>
> Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED.
30
> years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell us
> how?
Perhaps we're not as old as you are.
>
> > that the team changed costumes
>
> That must be one of those extremely important character developments that
> warranted a whole retro monthly title. I can see it on the cover of the
> issue. "BECAUSE YOU DEMANDED IT! A 25 YEAR OLD STORY CHRONICALLING HOW
THE
> X-MEN CHANGED THEIR UNIFORMS!" Sorry. Again, I don't see the pressing
need
> to see how this came about. And again, all the book has to offer is some
> extraneous, superfluous changes that have absolutely no bearing on the
> characters or how we come to see them.
Obviously you had issues with the entire concept, either that or you have
issues with John Byrne.
>
> > and that
> > somehow Magneto trounced not only the X-men but also the Avengers.
>
> Errrr.... Didn't the trouncing of the Avengers happen in their own book?
Yep, but how did the X-Men go down?
>
> >That
> > might seem to be bugger all to you in your eternal Byrne bashing, but it
> > does set up a run of some damn interesting stories.
> >
> > Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty much
> > anything could have happened in the meantime.
>
> No, not anything. None of the characters could have died. Or gotten
> married. Or even leave the team (except Beast, which we already knew many
> many years ago). Or have really anything of importance happen to them as
> characters because the characters going into the series have to be the
same
> coming out to get to GS#1
So nothing happened. Lovely. They just sat there like stunned mullets for
that length of time and did bugger all. And out of nowhere this creature
appeared and BANG we're at GS#1.
Just because you don't like the concept it doesn't automatically mean that
everyone else will hate it just as much.
> > I thought it was some of Byrne's best art in a long while.
>
> True. But he hasn't been putting out his best art for quite a long time
> now.
Neither has Frank Miller and I enjoy Sin City and I loved DK2. If Byrne had
gone back to his old style of art you'd be bashing him for going retro -
obviously he can't win with you.
So your point is?
>
> >And for the
> > record the last time I saw Austin ink Byrne (the Amazon one shot) it
> pretty
> > much sucked. Time and artists move on and what was once a great team
> might
> > not always remain a great team. I'd say that the same applies with
Miller
> > and Janson. Tom Palmer's inks for THY were damn solid.
> >
>
> Certainly they were. But they didn't really serve Byrne's art of the
retro
> feel of the book. Not as out of place as some other inkers might have
been
> on the same project, but not really evoking the retro thing. I mean, that
> was the point of the book, right.... to tell stories about that time
period
> in the writing and artistic style of that time....
Give it up! In case you've forgotten Palmer inked Neal Adams on the run of
X-Men prior to it being cancelled - hence he was the perfect choice to ink
Byrne on this project. Considering some of the absolutel botch jobs that
some inkers have done to Byrne in the past I found Palmer's work to be a
breath of fresh air - at last an inker who actually can ink.
> >
> > Well let's see you pitch something to Marvel and do better. I await
your
> > first issue of ANY title.
>
>
> Ahem... yeah.... good one. Almost as good as a "whatever."
Well - put your money where your mouth is. You seem to know exactly what
the general comic buying public want - so what's your proposal?
Shawn Hill
: Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. 30
: years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell us
: how?
It might be interesting to see more of what he did then and why.
:> Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty much
:> anything could have happened in the meantime.
: No, not anything. None of the characters could have died. Or gotten
: married. Or even leave the team (except Beast, which we already knew many
: many years ago). Or have really anything of importance happen to them as
Sure they could have. As long as it was undone by the time of Krakoa, why
not?
: characters because the characters going into the series have to be the same
: coming out to get to GS#1
I'm pretty sure Superman has to be the same at issue #100 that he was at
issue #1, too, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the ride.
: Certainly they were. But they didn't really serve Byrne's art of the retro
: feel of the book. Not as out of place as some other inkers might have been
: on the same project, but not really evoking the retro thing. I mean, that
: was the point of the book, right.... to tell stories about that time period
: in the writing and artistic style of that time....
A lot of people at the time compared the look to Neal Adams' X-men issues
(which we were reprinted in the first year or so of THY in a Visionairies
TPB); I agreed.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> The problem with THY was that perception, when it wasn't a "problem" at
:> all. It wasn't supposed to grow. It was supposed to fill in backstory,
:> show a few new twists, basically enhancing but not contradicting old,
:> loved tales. It admitted that from the start. That's what it was about.
:>
: Which basically translates into "waste of time" and while it's the sort of
: thing that makes the fanboy in me drool, still.... what's the point?
The point is to satisfy that panboy you're so quick to dismiss.
:> No, not where they started, just where they ended up at that point. There
:> are infinite ways to get there, and JB was telling the one he thought
:> made sense.
: That's fine. It made perfect sense. It just wasn't that interesting. Nor
: was it important to the title of the characters themselves. And that makes
: it an attempt to use the cache of Byrne and the X and do some stalling
: because they want to sell more X-books, but nobody has a very good idea for
: a new one.
I find that view (I'm supposing this is the crux of your support for
ending THY) highly cynical. Byrne is closely attached to that retro
period (maybe because it was Kirby and Thomas and Adams, maybe because he
was a reader before becoming a creator, whatever), and had an inspiration
about how to use that interest. Now, true, there weren't a lot of great
Xbooks when THY began, and the core titles are much improved now (mostly;
Uncanny's worse, New is great, X-force is better than before, Xtreme is
preferable to Mutant X); but it didn't mess with them then, and it
wouldn't mess with the ones we have now. It was designed to be
self-contained.
: Exactly. Nor does Byrne look like Byrne. Better on this book than much of
: his recent past, but still, nothing to get excited about.
Compared to a lot of the crap that's still out there? The mostly horrible
Uncanny art? The widely varying quality of the X-minis? Byrne isn't down
there with some group of hack or untried fill-ins like those we've seen
on Avengers lately, and he's above the fill-ins we've seen on New (though
those were better than the Avengers ones). He's up on the level of Alan
Davis and George Perez, yes, still. THY was invariably readable, clean,
with moments of fascinating fantasy (the balloon escape from the Savage
Land, the alien hijinks with the Skrulls and the FF, etc.).
: I guess I just don't care about the actual issue to issue plots or action
: when I'm reading comics. Sure, if it's something interesting, I pay
I'm not sure what subgroup that puts you in, but it's not the main one of
comic fans.
: attention. But I'd rather see something happening to the CHARACTERS and see
: where they're going. I knew where they were going. They've already been
: there and beyond. The plot and the hero v. villain scenario issue to issue
: are secondary. So, seeing as nothing can really change the characters --
: and since we weren't seein any especially new or interesting insight into
: them as they were back then -- that makes the book pointless for me.
As I've said, that's exactly what we were seeing, and exactly what we
were getting ... knowing where the were before they left, and also where
they come back, tells you nothing about where they've been. You're
presupposing a familiarity and reliability where Byrne was specifically
trying to surprise and embellish.
:> What resources? The workers at the factory? The fact that it paid for
:> itself respectably? It took up JB's time, which was his own choice. What
:> Quesada et al said, by virtue of their actions, was that it wasn't worth
:> the hastle of editing it.
: Yes, the workers at the factory. The paper. The editors. The promotion.
: The money spent coloring it. All of the above. Money and effort that could
: have spent somewhere else besides a middling project that, while profitable,
: was not as profitable as something elsse might be if those resources were
: being poured into it.
And is the X-line any better for its axing? I don't think so.
:> At this point, they should aim for books that sell. To ALL audiences.
:> That doesn't mean choosing one (potential new readers) over another
:> (long-time addicts). Why can't they serve both markets?
: Right. But the old readers are going to buy the books regardless, in most
: cases. New readers..... are they going to buy the nostalgia trip into
I'm not going to buy ones I don't care about, old or not. Uncanny was my
first, and for a long time the only, X-men comic. I can't stomach it now,
and haven't bought it since the new regime arrived. All flash and no
substance. "New" (formerly just "the") was a book I disapproved of from
the start, a pointless second title that quickly descended from earth
shattering mega-marketed events (Magneto/Jim Lee) to tedious
continuity-bashing boredom. Now it's my favorite X-book in years. I do
try to pay attention rather than mindlessly plow along in a rut.
: retcons and water treading? By canning that book and putting the resources
: into something else, they'll (ostensibly) be putting out a book to appeal to
: both the new and old readers. This is strictly an old readers book. And
: there's not as much pay-off in that sort of thing as there used to be.
So all-new is always better, even when it sucks?
: Yet Defenders is picking up characters that aren't appearing so much in
: other books in a line of books based on a single concept. And because the
: stories take place now, there's a sense that the characters can develop and
: interact in new ways. Things can happen to them. They can do something
: besides go into the title and come out exactly the same way; or come out of
: it as the characters we saw them as 25 years in the past.
What if you (gasp!) didn't see them then? Won't that make it new to you?
: Ah, but you see, back to my point about using resources more effectively and
: efficiently.... since they are doing the nod to the old-timers
: (X-treme/Claremont), they've replaced one nostalgia trip with a much more
: profitable one. And one where the characters can grow and develop. Have
: those cosmic or earth-shattering fights with villains without fucking up
: what came out for the last 25 years, because it's forward thinking and
: doesn't have to step lightly around things that can't happen because....
: well, because they never happened.
Well, you're not going to get me to condemn X-treme, because I'm enjoying
it. I think Quesada was right-on in giving CC his characters of choice
(Storm and Rogue) and letting him play.
THY, however, wasn't fucking up anything.
Shawn
Aaron
> news:9v6ej1$30g$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > No - we don't know what happened in that time period outside of a few
> > stray
> > > stories. We know that Hank left,
> >
> > Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED.
> 30
> > years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell
us
> > how?
>
> Perhaps we're not as old as you are.
25. been with it 13 years. and you?
> >
> > > that the team changed costumes
> >
> > That must be one of those extremely important character developments
that
> > warranted a whole retro monthly title. I can see it on the cover of the
> > issue. "BECAUSE YOU DEMANDED IT! A 25 YEAR OLD STORY CHRONICALLING HOW
> THE
> > X-MEN CHANGED THEIR UNIFORMS!" Sorry. Again, I don't see the pressing
> need
> > to see how this came about. And again, all the book has to offer is
some
> > extraneous, superfluous changes that have absolutely no bearing on the
> > characters or how we come to see them.
>
> Obviously you had issues with the entire concept, either that or you have
> issues with John Byrne.
Not really, on either. Byrne is his own worst enemy these days, creatively
and as a public figure in the field. I am a reader, though. With a certain
reaction to what I read.
> >
> > > and that
> > > somehow Magneto trounced not only the X-men but also the Avengers.
> >
> > Errrr.... Didn't the trouncing of the Avengers happen in their own book?
>
> Yep, but how did the X-Men go down?
I don't know. I got along okay without knowing. BTW, where's the reference
from? About the X-Men going down at the hands of Magneto in that gap?
> >
> > >That
> > > might seem to be bugger all to you in your eternal Byrne bashing, but
it
> > > does set up a run of some damn interesting stories.
> > >
> > > Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty
much
> > > anything could have happened in the meantime.
> >
> > No, not anything. None of the characters could have died. Or gotten
> > married. Or even leave the team (except Beast, which we already knew
many
> > many years ago). Or have really anything of importance happen to them
as
> > characters because the characters going into the series have to be the
> same
> > coming out to get to GS#1
>
> So nothing happened. Lovely. They just sat there like stunned mullets
for
> that length of time and did bugger all.
Apparently so. And even with a series to fill up the missing years, it is
still apparently so. Piddled around with some useless villains. Got a
costume change. Went sight-seeing in the Savage Land... a few times. Hung
out with the FF. You're right, very very interesting and crucial stuff.
> And out of nowhere this creature
> appeared and BANG we're at GS#1.
>
I do believe their involvement with the creature was told in flashback in
GS#1, wasn't it? Or at least in the Classic reprint?
> Just because you don't like the concept it doesn't automatically mean that
> everyone else will hate it just as much.
>
I don't hate it. I just think it's a waste of my time, Marvel's time, my
money, Marvel's money, etc.
> > > I thought it was some of Byrne's best art in a long while.
> >
> > True. But he hasn't been putting out his best art for quite a long time
> > now.
>
> Neither has Frank Miller and I enjoy Sin City and I loved DK2. If Byrne
had
> gone back to his old style of art you'd be bashing him for going retro -
> obviously he can't win with you.
>
No, I probably wouldn't. When people do what they're good at, that's fine
with me. When they do double duty and plot, write, and draw monthly comics
themselves (as Byrne does so often lately), when 1) aren't very good at one
of them (writing -- or plotting, at the very least) and 2) what they're good
at (the art) suffers from the time spent in the other areas, that's when
I'll complain.
>
> >
> > >And for the
> > > record the last time I saw Austin ink Byrne (the Amazon one shot) it
> > pretty
> > > much sucked. Time and artists move on and what was once a great team
> > might
> > > not always remain a great team. I'd say that the same applies with
> Miller
> > > and Janson. Tom Palmer's inks for THY were damn solid.
> > >
> >
> > Certainly they were. But they didn't really serve Byrne's art of the
> retro
> > feel of the book. Not as out of place as some other inkers might have
> been
> > on the same project, but not really evoking the retro thing. I mean,
that
> > was the point of the book, right.... to tell stories about that time
> period
> > in the writing and artistic style of that time....
>
> Give it up! In case you've forgotten Palmer inked Neal Adams on the run
of
> X-Men prior to it being cancelled - hence he was the perfect choice to ink
> Byrne on this project. Considering some of the absolutel botch jobs that
> some inkers have done to Byrne in the past I found Palmer's work to be a
> breath of fresh air - at last an inker who actually can ink.
The inker really isn't my main problem with the book. In fact, it doesn't
even register as more than a blip on my criticisms of the book, so okay,
I'll give this one up.
> > >
> > > Well let's see you pitch something to Marvel and do better. I await
> your
> > > first issue of ANY title.
> >
> >
> > Ahem... yeah.... good one. Almost as good as a "whatever."
>
> Well - put your money where your mouth is. You seem to know exactly what
> the general comic buying public want - so what's your proposal?
>
>
That's my point. I know what the comic buying public wants because I'm the
comic buying public. It isn't my place to pitch ideas or to write for
Marvel. It's my place to buy and read the comics. And to react to what
they foist upon me. For you to challenge me to do better is ridiculous.
What you're saying is that no one has the right to compain about what
they're buying or reading unless they write a successful and well-received
comic themselves? Hear that everyone? Stop your complaining until you're a
comic book writer/artist. Nonsense.
Aaron
> Aaron <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote:
>
> : Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED.
30
> : years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell
us
> : how?
>
> It might be interesting to see more of what he did then and why.
>
Yes, it very well might be. But we ended up with 22 issues, and to me, it
wasn't.
> :> Yes, the series had to start and end at a certain point, but pretty
much
> :> anything could have happened in the meantime.
>
> : No, not anything. None of the characters could have died. Or gotten
> : married. Or even leave the team (except Beast, which we already knew
many
> : many years ago). Or have really anything of importance happen to them
as
>
> Sure they could have. As long as it was undone by the time of Krakoa, why
> not?
>
Because none of the character development that would have taken place in the
series would have been referenced or even slightly gleened from the actions
of the 25 years that followed before these stories were written. Anything
that happens in this gap-filling series can't affect the characters, because
they've never been affected by it before. Angel's mother dies. And we see
Warren a bit upset about it for awhile. But we knew this, didn't we? It's
nice to see the story. But really, is it screaming to be told? It's not
been a major part (or even a minor part) of his character in the 25 years
following that story, so it any telling of it in the Hidden Years can't
really be that important because it hasn't been important to anything since.
If some future writer wanted to pick up on this, fine. But it would seem
odd that 25-30 years worth of issues passed without it being a major deal.
> : characters because the characters going into the series have to be the
same
> : coming out to get to GS#1
>
> I'm pretty sure Superman has to be the same at issue #100 that he was at
> issue #1, too, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the ride.
>
Not necessarily. DC's characters are all archetypes and icons. They can't
change in any major way, because their whole characterisation is their
one-note icon portrayal. The X-Men of 1963 are not the X-Men of 1975. Nor
are those the X-Men of 2001. Many of the characters are the same, and
there's always an ebb and flow of shaking up and reverting to a certain
status quo, but the characters have changed, evolved. Major events have
changed them -- Jean, for example. Some of them pretty ill-conceived
events, but she's changed, nonetheless. Can you imagine the current Jean as
Marvel Girl (silly codenmae aside)? Gambit's transformation for shadowy
figure, to outcast of the team, to light-hearted but haunted adventurer.
Wolverine, from half-cocked psycho to level-headed heart of the team.
Kitty, from annoying rookie to annoying know-it-all. They have changed.
How can a character in the Hidden Years grow in any way when you know the
reset button is waiting at the end of the series to get personalities into
place for the starting point of the actual, already-printed story.
Aaron
> : That's fine. It made perfect sense. It just wasn't that interesting.
Nor
> : was it important to the title of the characters themselves. And that
makes
> : it an attempt to use the cache of Byrne and the X and do some stalling
> : because they want to sell more X-books, but nobody has a very good idea
for
> : a new one.
>
> I find that view (I'm supposing this is the crux of your support for
> ending THY) highly cynical.
Not to dismiss the rest of your post, but I'm tired of talking about this
and pretty much said all I have to say in the last couple of posts I just
sent. But I did want to address this point. Yes, it is cynical. But
that's what the X-books editorial office has done to me in the last 10 years
when I'm viewing their product. But it *isn't* the crux of my viewpoint.
It's just a side comment. My criticisms are based solely on the merits of
the book itself.
Shawn Hill
:> Sure they could have. As long as it was undone by the time of Krakoa, why
:> not?
: Because none of the character development that would have taken place in the
: series would have been referenced or even slightly gleened from the actions
: of the 25 years that followed before these stories were written. Anything
: that happens in this gap-filling series can't affect the characters, because
: they've never been affected by it before. Angel's mother dies. And we see
: Warren a bit upset about it for awhile. But we knew this, didn't we? It's
: nice to see the story. But really, is it screaming to be told? It's not
: been a major part (or even a minor part) of his character in the 25 years
: following that story, so it any telling of it in the Hidden Years can't
: really be that important because it hasn't been important to anything since.
: If some future writer wanted to pick up on this, fine. But it would seem
: odd that 25-30 years worth of issues passed without it being a major deal.
But we all know comics work and are influenced outside of continuity all
the time. The DK Returns and Watchmen had no direct continuity connection
to the DC or Marvelverses, but they affected everything around them in
the core books for years. A large part of what JB is about when he tells
a story set in the past is returning to an "essential" conception of the
character. Angel may be nothing like the one we saw in THY anymore; but
maybe that old one is better, and might remind someone writing him now of
what's good about him.
:> I'm pretty sure Superman has to be the same at issue #100 that he was at
:> issue #1, too, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the ride.
: Not necessarily. DC's characters are all archetypes and icons. They can't
: change in any major way, because their whole characterisation is their
: one-note icon portrayal. The X-Men of 1963 are not the X-Men of 1975. Nor
: are those the X-Men of 2001. Many of the characters are the same, and
: there's always an ebb and flow of shaking up and reverting to a certain
: status quo, but the characters have changed, evolved. Major events have
: changed them -- Jean, for example. Some of them pretty ill-conceived
: events, but she's changed, nonetheless. Can you imagine the current Jean as
: Marvel Girl (silly codenmae aside)? Gambit's transformation for shadowy
Yes, I think the whole point these days is to capture that essential
quality she once had, to detach her a bit from all the Cable and Askani
and Maddy Pryor confusion that's built up, and return to the simpler but
emotionally deep and loyal redhead. Children of the Atom and THY both
informed the version in New X-men, who is troubled by Scott's recent
experiences and mooning over Wolverine again.
: figure, to outcast of the team, to light-hearted but haunted adventurer.
Which is what he was at the start, when Storm met him.
: Wolverine, from half-cocked psycho to level-headed heart of the team.
Which is what he was as long ago as midway through CC's 1st run.
: Kitty, from annoying rookie to annoying know-it-all. They have changed.
Kitty grew up, it's true. We saw that future in Days of Future Past. But
where is she now?
: How can a character in the Hidden Years grow in any way when you know the
: reset button is waiting at the end of the series to get personalities into
: place for the starting point of the actual, already-printed story.
Because they certainly seemed more mature post-1975 than they did in the
60s, and JB was showing how it happened.
Shawn
Brian Fried
> What Byrne was saying that he didn't WANT another project from people he
> couldn't trust.
And as some other creators said at the time: working for Marvel means the
rug can be pulled out from under you at any moment.
Sure Byrne trusted Marvel -- but there was a new regime coming in and he
knew nothing about them. Keeping a book which, quite frankly, had a very
small audience shows trust in Byrne and an unwillingness to acknowledge the
company could be doing better.
> EVERYTHING else? Hardly. What he saw (he said as much) was a book that
> was selling well enough (for a company fearing bankruptcy) to justify
> its continuation. He saw THY as earning its keep.
Read Quesada's statements very clearly. To him it didn't matter that these
books were earning a profit; it was whether or not these books deserved to
stick around, and it was hard to justify the existence of many of them. "The
alternate reality version of a time-travelling character who has his own
solo book..." isn't open to new readers. "The next generation of X-Men but
not training to be X-Men because that's another group of mutants who are at
a different school..."? You get the idea.
Sure, Hidden Years was turning a profit. (Of all the $2.50 books, only it
and Bishop survived while the rest died quickly.) But it wasn't a great
profit, and there were very few Marvel books THAT low on the monthly sales
chart.
> : Quite frankly, I can still buy copies of The Hidden Years for a quarter
each
> : from some suppliers, and that's not good.
>
> It ended poorly; but, then, it was cancelled badly.
I agree with that statement, but it wasn't the main point. The previous
poster complained about Marvel's no extra printing policy. I noted that the
policy was effective in making Marvel books sell out. The fact that I can
pick up copies of X-Men: The Hidden Years #8 or 14 for a quarter for my
shelf does nothing to assure me that it will actually sell.
> No, now they're a black hole because some of them are actually good!
Amen. For the first time in a long time, you want to buy more than one
X-book!
> And yet they pay lip service to tie-ins in the main continuity, do actual
> word/for/word adaptations of the films, and market more than one
> continuity featuring ersatz versions of the same characters. Why is any
> of that easier to understand than "here's what happened to the characters
> you're still reading, some years ago?"
There are a number of problems when adapting a theoretically-infinite
ongoing text like comics into movies and TV. Hence why certain aspects are
ignored or changed, and hence we have differences.
I expect, though, that Marvel will reinforce the connections more in the
future. Spider-Man has a problem with Harry being dead -- though the trade
paperback will no doubt be re-released to emphasize that major point. Yet
the overall mood and story will be connectable.
We've already seen the X-Men change uniforms in the core books.
The actual adaptations are what Marvel has chosen to do for whatever reason.
Guess what? Adaptations of film into comic are poor sellers anyway. But the
failure of the X-Men books showed them some major failings which they hope
to address with Spider-Man -- like VISIBILITY of extra books.
The Ultimates may cause some confusion, especially since most retailers do
little to separate the Ultimates from the rest of the Marvel line. The nice
thing is, though, that Ultimate Spider-Man is closer to the movie than the
main books, and if someone asks a question about it most retailers know
enough to explain the difference between Ultimate and Amazing.
Why is that better than past tales? Simple: the idea is to get audiences
interested in these characters on film enough for them to seek out another
exciting adventure. Retro-active tales, especially with a team where only
two of the members are on film as the first class, without the star of the
film (read: Wolverine) and with obvious differences between it and every
other X-book (two of which, incidentally, actually carried a starburst to
connect them to the film) made it less attractive to new consumers.
Paul O'Brien
veryouwantmeto.be> writes
>
>I don't know. I got along okay without knowing. BTW, where's the reference
>from? About the X-Men going down at the hands of Magneto in that gap?
He beats them up immediately before an Avengers storyline, and if I'm
not mistaken it was all shown in flashback in the Avengers at the
time.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Sanctify
>
> "Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
> news:3c16...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> >
> > "Aaron" <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote in message
> > news:9v6ej1$30g$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > No - we don't know what happened in that time period outside of a
few
> > > stray
> > > > stories. We know that Hank left,
> > >
> > > Yeah, and? He left. We saw him somewhere else AT THE TIME IT
HAPPENED.
> > 30
> > > years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to tell
> us
> > > how?
> >
> > Perhaps we're not as old as you are.
>
> 25. been with it 13 years. and you?
34 - been with it since 1978.
> > Obviously you had issues with the entire concept, either that or you
have
> > issues with John Byrne.
>
> Not really, on either. Byrne is his own worst enemy these days,
creatively
> and as a public figure in the field. I am a reader, though. With a
certain
> reaction to what I read.
I don't subscribe to that theory at all. Byrne gets tapped to do CO - he
does what he was asked to do and lo and behold Marvel then heap all the
blame onto him. He had the project in on time and at any stage Marvel could
have pulled it or ordered changes - they didn't. I like the way they
distanced themselves from the lot once the public screamed about it.
And nope, I'll not defend CO - it was crap - but I will say that Marvel
deserve to take some of the blame for it - it wasn't just Byrne's fault, no
more than Byrne is to blame for the mess that Mackie did to Spidey
afterwards.
LG wasn't bad at all. THY was pretty damn good. Generations, both I & II
are excellent reads.
If Byrne has one main fault it's wearing his heart on his sleeve. That and
actually telling the truth, something which is frowned upon in the comics
industry where lies and backstabbing are the norm. That's been the problem
with Byrne from day one - back when he became a major player.
I recall quite clearly the pushes to get Byrne back on X-Men in the mid 80's
only to have Byrne say that he wouldn't work with Claremont again due to
differences. Not what Marvel wanted people to hear as they were doing a lot
of the pushing and inviting Byrne to do various pin-ups and the like. So if
honesty is part of being your own worst enemy then so be it.
> > > Errrr.... Didn't the trouncing of the Avengers happen in their own
book?
> >
> > Yep, but how did the X-Men go down?
>
> I don't know. I got along okay without knowing. BTW, where's the
reference
> from? About the X-Men going down at the hands of Magneto in that gap?
Well I'd like to know. One minute they were there, the next they just
popped up in a few books as guest stars. And I'm sure I'm not the only
person that'd like to know what went on. Sure it's only Byrne's perception
as to what went on, but Byrne's vision is better than most people out there.
> > So nothing happened. Lovely. They just sat there like stunned mullets
> for
> > that length of time and did bugger all.
>
> Apparently so. And even with a series to fill up the missing years, it is
> still apparently so. Piddled around with some useless villains. Got a
> costume change. Went sight-seeing in the Savage Land... a few times.
Hung
> out with the FF. You're right, very very interesting and crucial stuff.
Therew would have been much more, but we'll never see it sadly enough.
>
> > And out of nowhere this creature
> > appeared and BANG we're at GS#1.
> >
>
> I do believe their involvement with the creature was told in flashback in
> GS#1, wasn't it? Or at least in the Classic reprint?
Partly. Only so much you can tell in a few panels as part of a flashback.
>
> > Just because you don't like the concept it doesn't automatically mean
that
> > everyone else will hate it just as much.
> >
>
>
> I don't hate it. I just think it's a waste of my time, Marvel's time, my
> money, Marvel's money, etc.
Then don't buy it. I personally think that a lot of the shit that Marvel
are pumping out now is an utter waste of money - Uncanny 400 anyone? So I
don't buy it. I don't begrudge anyone else buying it though.
>
> > > > I thought it was some of Byrne's best art in a long while.
> > >
> > > True. But he hasn't been putting out his best art for quite a long
time
> > > now.
> >
> > Neither has Frank Miller and I enjoy Sin City and I loved DK2. If Byrne
> had
> > gone back to his old style of art you'd be bashing him for going retro -
> > obviously he can't win with you.
> >
>
> No, I probably wouldn't. When people do what they're good at, that's fine
> with me. When they do double duty and plot, write, and draw monthly
comics
> themselves (as Byrne does so often lately), when 1) aren't very good at
one
> of them (writing -- or plotting, at the very least) and 2) what they're
good
> at (the art) suffers from the time spent in the other areas, that's when
> I'll complain.
Ahhhhh c'mon now - you're saying that Byrne isn't any good at
writing/plotting and pencilling comics? Byrne is one of the few people that
can write and draw comics well. Not many have that skill, although lots
would like to believe they do - such as McFarlane.
> > Give it up! In case you've forgotten Palmer inked Neal Adams on the run
> of
> > X-Men prior to it being cancelled - hence he was the perfect choice to
ink
> > Byrne on this project. Considering some of the absolutel botch jobs
that
> > some inkers have done to Byrne in the past I found Palmer's work to be a
> > breath of fresh air - at last an inker who actually can ink.
>
> The inker really isn't my main problem with the book. In fact, it doesn't
> even register as more than a blip on my criticisms of the book, so okay,
> I'll give this one up.
Good move. Palmer's inks did Byrne's pencils a fair degree of justice.
Made me think what would happen if he had an inker of Pamer's ilk on other
projects instead of the hacks that he's been paired with of late.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Well let's see you pitch something to Marvel and do better. I await
> > your
> > > > first issue of ANY title.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ahem... yeah.... good one. Almost as good as a "whatever."
> >
> > Well - put your money where your mouth is. You seem to know exactly
what
> > the general comic buying public want - so what's your proposal?
> >
> >
>
> That's my point. I know what the comic buying public wants because I'm
the
> comic buying public. It isn't my place to pitch ideas or to write for
> Marvel. It's my place to buy and read the comics. And to react to what
> they foist upon me. For you to challenge me to do better is ridiculous.
> What you're saying is that no one has the right to compain about what
> they're buying or reading unless they write a successful and well-received
> comic themselves? Hear that everyone? Stop your complaining until you're
a
> comic book writer/artist. Nonsense.
I am one of the comic buying public. I have no idea what the comic buying
public want becuase I am merely one person in a larger community. For you
to say that you know what they want is a joke - you can't know. You know
what YOU want, same as I know what I want. But you have NO IDEA what the
comic buying public at large want.
Your ego is amazing my friend.
Sanctify
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xvBAEkAR...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In article <9v73vk$qg6$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Aaron <whoever@where
> veryouwantmeto.be> writes
> >
> >I don't know. I got along okay without knowing. BTW, where's the
reference
> >from? About the X-Men going down at the hands of Magneto in that gap?
>
> He beats them up immediately before an Avengers storyline, and if I'm
> not mistaken it was all shown in flashback in the Avengers at the
> time.
Again there's only so much you can show in a few panels as part of a
flashback. We're used to seeing some damned epic battles between Magento
and the X-Men and to show them geting beaten so easily and so rapidly does
neither character justice.
Shawn Hill
: Sure Byrne trusted Marvel -- but there was a new regime coming in and he
: knew nothing about them. Keeping a book which, quite frankly, had a very
: small audience shows trust in Byrne and an unwillingness to acknowledge the
: company could be doing better.
Maybe one is more important than the other?
: Read Quesada's statements very clearly. To him it didn't matter that these
: books were earning a profit; it was whether or not these books deserved to
: stick around, and it was hard to justify the existence of many of them. "The
: alternate reality version of a time-travelling character who has his own
: solo book..." isn't open to new readers. "The next generation of X-Men but
: not training to be X-Men because that's another group of mutants who are at
: a different school..."? You get the idea.
Yes, and my point is, his success in clarifying that muddle is
questionable.
:> It ended poorly; but, then, it was cancelled badly.
: I agree with that statement, but it wasn't the main point. The previous
: poster complained about Marvel's no extra printing policy. I noted that the
: policy was effective in making Marvel books sell out. The fact that I can
: pick up copies of X-Men: The Hidden Years #8 or 14 for a quarter for my
: shelf does nothing to assure me that it will actually sell.
Well, now it's not even a lame duck, but a cancelled title.
:> And yet they pay lip service to tie-ins in the main continuity, do actual
:> word/for/word adaptations of the films, and market more than one
:> continuity featuring ersatz versions of the same characters. Why is any
:> of that easier to understand than "here's what happened to the characters
:> you're still reading, some years ago?"
: There are a number of problems when adapting a theoretically-infinite
: ongoing text like comics into movies and TV. Hence why certain aspects are
: ignored or changed, and hence we have differences.
Aside from the fact that no one making the comics seemed convinced that
the film would do well; when it did, there was lots of scrambling to try
and catch up.
: We've already seen the X-Men change uniforms in the core books.
Cosmetic, when we're more concerned with the stories.
: The Ultimates may cause some confusion, especially since most retailers do
: little to separate the Ultimates from the rest of the Marvel line. The nice
: thing is, though, that Ultimate Spider-Man is closer to the movie than the
: main books, and if someone asks a question about it most retailers know
: enough to explain the difference between Ultimate and Amazing.
How do you know how closely the movie will match up to the current Spidey
story?
The retailers also new enough to explain the concept of THY.
: Why is that better than past tales? Simple: the idea is to get audiences
: interested in these characters on film enough for them to seek out another
: exciting adventure. Retro-active tales, especially with a team where only
: two of the members are on film as the first class, without the star of the
: film (read: Wolverine) and with obvious differences between it and every
: other X-book (two of which, incidentally, actually carried a starburst to
: connect them to the film) made it less attractive to new consumers.
And yet X-treme (two characters from the film, one noticably older),
X-force (all new characters), Uncany and New (a mix of old and new)
somehow satisfy that connection instantly? Didn't buy it then, still
don't buy it.
Axing THY wasn't about paring down the line, or reducing confusion. It
was a bout getting rid of Byrne, because Quesada knew he woulnd't be a
team player in the new regime.
Shawn
Aaron
> Ahhhhh c'mon now - you're saying that Byrne isn't any good at
> writing/plotting and pencilling comics? Byrne is one of the few people
that
> can write and draw comics well. Not many have that skill, although lots
> would like to believe they do - such as McFarlane.
>
Byrne can write and draw comics on time very well. I've never read any
story by him that was truly great or even that interesting. I liked his
Alpha Flight run, but even that dragged on on and nearly nothing happened.
His Hulk relaunch? How many months in a row did he keep writing the same
issue over and over? 4? 5? 6?
>
> Good move. Palmer's inks did Byrne's pencils a fair degree of justice.
> Made me think what would happen if he had an inker of Pamer's ilk on other
> projects instead of the hacks that he's been paired with of late.
>
I thought you owanted me to give this up. If you keep talking about it, you
know I'll just have to respond. This minor issue is settled and not worth
talking about. "Give it up!"
> I am one of the comic buying public. I have no idea what the comic buying
> public want becuase I am merely one person in a larger community. For you
> to say that you know what they want is a joke - you can't know. You know
> what YOU want, same as I know what I want. But you have NO IDEA what the
> comic buying public at large want.
>
> Your ego is amazing my friend.
>
>
It is indeed. However, I know what the comic book buying public wants
because I am a part of it. When I said that I knew what it wanted, I was
speaking from a point of view as a consumer v. creator. I'm the consumer, I
know what I want. I did not mean to speak for the public at large. So I
know what *I* want and I know *my* part in the equation. And my part is to
read and react. Not to produce, so that's what I'm doing. For you to say
that someone shouldn't criticise the merits of a comic unless they get
something better published by a comic company is ludicrous. Should I also
tell you that you have no right to praise and appreciate the Hidden Years
because you're not out there creating some sub-par comic book? After all,
I'd like to see you get some meritless piece of shit published by Marvel
before you go around praising Hidden Years, because only then would you be
qualified. Make sense? Thought not.
Brian Fried
> The problem with THY was that perception, when it wasn't a "problem" at
> all. It wasn't supposed to grow. It was supposed to fill in backstory,
> show a few new twists, basically enhancing but not contradicting old,
> loved tales. It admitted that from the start. That's what it was about.
Then do it as mini-series, not an ongoing. A mini-series has a set ending
that you know is coming, the ongoing has no ending in sight.
> What resources? The workers at the factory? The fact that it paid for
> itself respectably? It took up JB's time, which was his own choice. What
> Quesada et al said, by virtue of their actions, was that it wasn't worth
> the hastle of editing it.
What Quesada et al said was that they could be producing books of a higher
profile with more interest and better sales if they broke out of the rut the
company had been in for a decade. He was right. The X-office had gotten so
much into the event hypercycle that they scheduled "Children Of The Atom",
"The Return of Gambit", "The Hunt for Xavier" and "The Magneto War" back to
back knowing that nothing of importance would happen in any of them except
changes in the team roster.
It was a compound effect. Marvel introduces x titles, and only the one with
an "X" in it survives. The consumer has y dollars, but with more and more
X-spinoffs they had to either (a) devote themselves to the entire
interconnected and always crossing over mess at the expense of other books
or (b) drop the x-titles altogether.
The new regime understood that both (a) and (b) were hurting them in the
long run, because eventually all of the (a)s would become (b)s or there
would be no one reading the other books if they even considered the
x-titles. So they disconnected them all, cut those they felt diluted the
line, and brought a couple of high profile people onto the books that
remained. As a result, it's boosted interest in Marvel's x-line, and
residiually the rest of Marvel's products -- products the consumer now has
the $ to buy.
> At this point, they should aim for books that sell. To ALL audiences.
> That doesn't mean choosing one (potential new readers) over another
> (long-time addicts). Why can't they serve both markets?
>
> As, in fact, they already do, with other titles that weren't cancelled
> and new ones that appeal to the same old-timers? Like Defenders, World's
> Greatest, etc.
It's a good question which has already been answered by Marvel.
Consider this fact: less than a tenth of a percent of Americans shop at
comic stores and that number is shrinking. According to a UK-based study,
the average consumer of American comics is in their thirties (and rising),
meaning that the number of new readers is still shrinking.
You're dealing with a shrinking market that is absolutely dependent on
attracting new readers to survive. Movies and television and video games all
attract the new reader, but you have to have a product good enough to keep
the new reader coming back or else they're just occassional consumers --
consumers who can't keep the industry afloat at the moment.
And Marvel declared bankruptcy in 1996.
Fear of financial ruin left Marvel fearing change lest it reduce sales and
turn a profitable book unprofitable. The number of titles started in the
nineties which went past twenty issues is countable on one hand. The
Spider-clone had damaged the value of Spider-Man tremendously. But the
X-office didn't worry because their formula kept creating profitable books.
Arad and Harras failed to profit from the X-Men movie and needed replacing.
Enter Jemas and Quesada (respectively). Jemas and Quesada reduce the
emphasis on continuity and increase the emphasis on doing something new with
the characters. Taking chances is what marked Marvel Knights as a success
when Marvel Tech, M-2, Marvel Edge and more failed.
The new regime doesn't want to lose their old audience. They want to see
what will happen if they change the formula. Will it bring in new readers?
X-Force is your answer. X-Force is nothing like it was before the latest
revamp. Many X-Force readers have left. Yet the book is selling 10,000 more
copies than it did before. 10,000 copies! That's a success for the
management. More importantly, to the board of shareholders that means
increased profit all around (which is Quesada and Jemas' prime mandate,
after all, Marvel being a private company).
Brotherhood is another answer. It lost half its readership in six months --
clearly a failure. Marvel immediately pulled the plug (since the company
works three months in advance, this cancels the book at #9) and replaced it
with something else by a different creative team that will fill the same
general spot.
New X-Men falls somewhere in the middle. This is a different interpretation
of these classic X-Men characters, but the title has an excitement to
generate that the previous series couldn't. Instead of stories like "The
Twelve", where any excitement was lost by poor writing the next issue if it
was generated at all, we're getting stories like "E for Extinction" where
the scope is pushed up and up to try and convince us that the threat is real
and the X-Men will need to struggle to win. It's getting new readers, losing
old ones, and keeping old ones too.
This is the system used by Avengers (though a bit more traditional
superheroing).
Amazing Spider-Man and Peter Parker have gone a different route, emphasizing
different aspects of Spider-Man in a way that's gotten great reviews for
both. Amazing is action-packed with new villains and new questions, Peter
Parker focuses on the man behind the mask.
The failures at Marvel? World's Greatest Comics Magazine was costing them to
print by the end, but they stuck by to the end because they'd made a
commitment.
The other was Defenders. Look at where IT is in the solicitations this
month: gone. It's been replaced with The Order, which transforms the
Defenders into something different than it was before and hints of something
that you won't expect.
Don't get me wrong: there IS a place for nostalgia in the industry. GI Joe's
smash return demonstrates this perfectly. *But* GI Joe is also working on
the premise that some people aren't familiar with the Joes, and is
introducing new Joes while changing older ones. There's a sense of stories
needing to be told which we've been missed, but you know that they'll come
out in between new adventures against Cobra -- thus being new and old at the
same time.
> I don't think it had to be a choice. I would have purchased both books,
> as I am not doing X-treme Savage Land.
X-treme Savage Land is a mini-series whose existence raises questions all
around. I think the original poster was suggesting that either Byrne or
Claremont would have been enough to keep nostalgic X-fans happy while still
bringing new blood in on the core books and giving them a new set of
options. He believes Claremont was the right way to go.
Personally, from what I've read, it wasn't much of a choice. Chris was on
contract (and still is, IIRC) and more importantly he knew going out of the
other books that he needed a different situation to work effectively. (Like
his Fantastic Four run, to me he's proving that starting up takes more time
but more and more gears are firing together as the issues go on.)
It shouldn't have been a choice between the two -- yet Byrne could certainly
have done a lot outside of the X-office because of his Fantastic Four
reputation. It was a screw-up, but one I think only time will be able to
reduce the egos enough to correct.
Brian Fried
> > 30 years ago. Does it merit a monthly publication 30 years later to
tell us how?
>
> Perhaps we're not as old as you are.
If anything, younger audiences have less need for that story to be told.
Read the early Claremont issues in Uncanny (as reprinted in Essential X-Men)
and all you need to know is that Hank was an X-Man to left to join the
Avengers. Compare the earlier Uncanny with the later Uncanny and you know he
wasn't blue all the time, so he must have grown his fur somewhere... and
that information is accessible.
Eventually, a character could ask Beast why he left the X-Men when he did,
and the recap -- just a handful of pages -- could be connected to something
in the present. But until then it's realtively unimportant.
> > That must be one of those extremely important character developments
that
> > warranted a whole retro monthly title. I can see it on the cover of the
> > issue. "BECAUSE YOU DEMANDED IT! A 25 YEAR OLD STORY CHRONICALLING
> > HOW THE X-MEN CHANGED THEIR UNIFORMS!" Sorry. Again, I don't see the
pressing
> > need to see how this came about. And again, all the book has to offer
is some
> > extraneous, superfluous changes that have absolutely no bearing on the
> > characters or how we come to see them.
>
> Obviously you had issues with the entire concept, either that or you have
> issues with John Byrne.
Obviously you have issues with those who didn't see the importance of
minutae. Characters change costumes all the time -- why not just accept that
the change happened off-panel? Or why not do a six-issue limited series that
gives an importance to the costume change exclusively like Daredevil Yellow
does? At least with Daredevil Yellow we get nostalgia, recap and a
re-introduction to the obscure history of a character who doesn't lose his
effectiveness in his solo title if you don't read this mini.
> So nothing happened. Lovely. They just sat there like stunned mullets
for
> that length of time and did bugger all. And out of nowhere this creature
> appeared and BANG we're at GS#1.
>
> Just because you don't like the concept it doesn't automatically mean that
> everyone else will hate it just as much.
It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question of relevance. If you
can accept that they did average superheroing not important enough to
warrant mention some twenty-odd years later, then there's no problem with
the hidden years remaining hidden. And with Marvel time as it is anyway, the
entire hidden period lasted a month or so -- which is condensible to average
superheroing anyway (which is what Byrne gave us).
> Neither has Frank Miller and I enjoy Sin City and I loved DK2. If Byrne
had
> gone back to his old style of art you'd be bashing him for going retro -
> obviously he can't win with you.
>
> So your point is?
I think you're confusing John Byrne, artist with John Byrne, writer.
Miller's art may no longer have the finesse it once did, but he's traded
that for interest in storytelling. Sin City is effective because it's good
writing with art that conveys what it needs. DK2 is enjoyable because it's
excellent characterization and excellent conceptualization... the art
doesn't have to accomplish everything. As an artist, Miller's star has
dropped but as a writer he's remained the same if not risen due to
consistency.
In the case of the Hidden Years, Byrne's art lacked the finesse it once did
(as has much of his work these days). That's a fact. I'd add that as a
writer, Byrne has also lost some finesse, going through the motions at times
when his attention is split (as it was between LG and HY). Byrne's star has
slipped for both.
Brian Fried
> : There are a number of problems when adapting a theoretically-infinite
> : ongoing text like comics into movies and TV. Hence why certain aspects
are
> : ignored or changed, and hence we have differences.
>
> Aside from the fact that no one making the comics seemed convinced that
> the film would do well; when it did, there was lots of scrambling to try
> and catch up.
That's not what happened at all.
For one thing, the company was being run by Avi Arad, president of Toy Biz.
Toy Biz was able to make money off of the movie -- though poor sales of the
WWF line lowered their overall total for that year. Therefore it's logical
to say that Marvel was able to make money off of the film with enough
planning.
Their problem was that Ultimate X-Men #1 wasn't ready. THAT was the
principle connection between movie and comic. When it didn't happen, they
scrambled to connect Uncanny and adjectiveless, neither of which had time to
connect themselves to the film. Marvel shouldn't have bothered because as
everyone knows, Joe Sixpack doesn't go to comic stores. That's where obscure
continuity is hotly debated by fat guys wearing superhero t-shirts and Spock
ears when they're not living in their parent's basement (a stereotype, true,
but one that's quite well known). So the idea that someone who likes the
X-Men in the movie would brave entering a comic store to buy one comic is
wishful thinking at best.
Marvel knew the film would succeed. They also knew that comic fans are the
ones you don't want going to the movie -- and Arad had some words about that
too.
> How do you know how closely the movie will match up to the current Spidey
> story?
Look at the characters cast for the film: Peter Parker/Spider-Man, May
Parker, Ben Parker, J. Jonah Jameson, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborne,
Norman Osborne, Otto Octavius, wrestler, announcer... now read ULTIMATE
SPIDER-MAN: POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY. Same characters.
> The retailers also new enough to explain the concept of THY.
You're joking, right?
I not only work in a comic store, I've done comic shows and retailer summits
and all that other stuff comic store customers can't go to. Trust me when I
say that most comic store employees cannot tell you the concept of most
books at the moment. The average description of the X-Men books was either
"an X-Men book", "another book about the X-Men" or "a star of the X-Men that
got his only book."
Ultimate Spider-Man has the benefit that there's Ultimate, Amazing, Peter
Parker and Tangled Web AND THAT'S IT. And Ultimate now appears separately in
Previews, which is what we order with. That's a big advantage, especially
with the *high* profile Ultimate *AND* Amazing have now, along with Marvel's
push to get Peter Parker noticed.
> And yet X-treme (two characters from the film, one noticably older),
> X-force (all new characters), Uncany and New (a mix of old and new)
> somehow satisfy that connection instantly? Didn't buy it then, still
> don't buy it.
The chance of connection is one month, period. By the end of the month,
another blockbuster has arrived and attention is on that (unless you get a
summer which bombs like this past one). The x-books now are only able to
connect to the animated series, which has a comic on its own now.
At least New X-Men and Uncanny LOOK like they have the movie characters in
them. Which, given the fact that the new reader has no familiarity with the
stories, is a GOOD thing.
> Axing THY wasn't about paring down the line, or reducing confusion. It
> was a bout getting rid of Byrne, because Quesada knew he woulnd't be a
> team player in the new regime.
And Doop waves bye-bye to you too.
Seriously: the slimmed down X-line is far more accessible to new readers
than the past. It's a move forward, not backwards. Accept it. Or Doop will
continue waving.
Brian Fried
> You make it sound as if the entire book was set in the Savage Land. It
> wasn't. There were enough sub-plots outside of the Savage Land to
alieviate
> any concerns and also interest any reader with an attention span longer
that
> doesn't need Ritalin.
Sub-plots? Iceman goes his own way, then chases after the X-Men in the
Savage Land. Havok and Lorna get sent by Xavier to... the Savage Land! The
Savage Land was the dominant (not only, just dominant) locale for issues 2
through 5. It continued to be a major locale for the next few issues.
Given the fact that anything of importance in the Savage Land is wiped out
days after the X-Men leave it (if that long), the audience -- which was
dominantly X-Men readers anyway -- saw little to keep their interest.
If they didn't have the dedication as you do, don't insult them. Quite
frankly, with a limited budget I find myself more and more looking for
titles that will make me WANT to find out what's next because there's a lot
to resolve. There wasn't with X-Men: The Hidden Years, unfortunately, until
much later on in the series.
> I'm not arguing the point that sales on Marvel Knights have increased
while
> Quesada's been there. My main point is that he seems incapable of
producing
> a monthly book and seems intent on hiring pals, some of which are just as
> useless as he is at keeping to deadlines. Sure his art is great. The run
> on DD that he did with Kevin Smith remains my favorite run after the
Miller
> stuff, indeed I started buying the book again - and I've not bought it on
a
> regular basis since Miller left. However I got totally hacked off that it
> couldn't come out on time - and that seems to be Quesada's fault entirely.
Go back and read Quesada's posts in the other Marvel group at the time
Daredevil was late. He was extremely apologetic and, to be fair, there were
some other factors involved (ie. Palmotti's leaving, Smith's other
obligations, printing problems galore). Some people took it, others didn't.
Personally, I think Quesada's a quite capable editor-in-chief who now knows
that you can't edit and work on a book at the same time. Note that Claremont
found that out at the same time, too. Marvel's experiment failed.
> As for the *only* sour point being Byrne - well I don't know where you sit
> but that's a fairly major point IMHO. Byrne is a giant in the comics
> industry. You might wish to sit there and bag him til the cows come home
> but he does command respect for his abilities and his past - well respect
> from everyone but Quesada who's shown him nothing but disdain.
Byrne's not a giant. Today, I'd say the only giants are Alan Moore, Neil
Gaiman and Frank Miller -- even their worst work is light-years above most
books and they are worth the hype.
Many writers and artists (and writer-artists or artist-writers) have a
reputation that is based on past glories and not the present. Chris
Claremont is one example of a writer who had everyone watching him in the
past but who's present work has been eclipsed by shifts in taste. Byrne is
another: his recent work has been quality reading, but it's nowhere as
trailblazing as it once was.
Today's top writers are those who mimic modern tastes in character dialogue,
narrative pacing, and action quotient. Hence Kevin Smith, Brian Michael
Bendis, Joss Whedon and Joe Michael Straczynski being the most desirable
guys to have at the moment.
> Look at X-Men 400. If Quesada is just as responsible for letting that pus
> out as he is the MK range then he needs to look a bit more carefully at
it -
> that ain't quality control in action there.
Marvel made the mistake of caring about a deadline with that one. Churchill
quit and there was no backup when there should have been. Instead of turning
to a reliable artist for extra cash, they went piecemeal to preserve the
deadline and it backfired tremendously. Marvel should be embarrassed by the
whole situation and take steps that it never happens again.
> Jae Lee. Exactly my point. Jae Lee is good, but with the right
motivation
> he can't touch Byrne.
Different styles. Personally, I think both can produce top-notch work.
> And I'll take you to task on your selections there. CO was a bomb - that
> much we all know. However Generations I & II was far from being a bomb.
> Same with THY and TLG. If anything those titles enhanced his repuation.
As what.. retro-man? Ever since his run on Superman, retelling the origin,
he's been pegged as a retro-specialist. The Lost Generation and Hidden Years
certainly enhanced that image. The fact that they didn't sell all that well
and weren't generating much discussion over the implications of every
character's actions made them average -- not spectacular -- books.
> So when Wizard decide that they don't like Byrne, or PAD for example, they
> can influence the public's perception and thus hinder their careers? Sad
> really, I remember a certain bunch of people who ran around in the 30's
and
> 40's that did the same thing - drove people out, influenced the general
> population, spread dissent due to their own personal preferences and
stunted
> their careers but making it very hard for them to work.
That's cruel.
I equate Wizard to Rolling Stone: a once-great magazine that is now
representative of the boardrooms' views about comics, not interested in
actually evaluating them on an individual basis. They represent the fanboys
(as opposed to the true believers), yet the fanboys are a strong enough
percentage in the market to have some -- small -- effect. Wizard can't get
people to buy Green Lantern, Thunderbolts or -shudder- their own comics, but
they can get people talking about other books like the X-Men.
> You don't want him to do retro but you want him to return to Alpha Flight?
> Weird. If Byrne were to return to anything at Marvel, for maximum impact,
> they they'd do no better than to give him FF.
Fantastic Four can be given to anyone. Alpha Flight, though, needs a
Canadian behind it and having the man that created the only Canadian
superhero team behind the book once more is a fairly strong selling point.
Look at the crappy second volume this past decade to see what I mean.
> I'm sure Mackie is happy to have work. You can't compare Mackie with
Byrne.
You can and you must. Both were writing comics at Marvel. That's a valid
point of comparison.
Sanctify
> >
> > Ahhhhh c'mon now - you're saying that Byrne isn't any good at
> > writing/plotting and pencilling comics? Byrne is one of the few people
> that
> > can write and draw comics well. Not many have that skill, although lots
> > would like to believe they do - such as McFarlane.
> >
>
> Byrne can write and draw comics on time very well. I've never read any
> story by him that was truly great or even that interesting. I liked his
> Alpha Flight run, but even that dragged on on and nearly nothing happened.
> His Hulk relaunch? How many months in a row did he keep writing the same
> issue over and over? 4? 5? 6?
He was well behind the eight ball with the Hulk relaunch - something that he
should never of attempted to do. After all the greif that the public had
already given him with CO and after all the attacks that PAD launched God
himself could not have done anything on that book to make fans happy.
You want Byrne at his best? Go no futher than his Superman run, his FF,
Next Men and the like. THY had a lot of potential, sadly that will never be
realised.
I have every right to praise and appreciate THY. What I DON'T do is
autmatically assume that because I enjoyed the run that I speak for the
comic buying public. I don't. I speak for myself and myself only. I am
not the comic bying public - neither are you. We are both individuals.
Make sense?
Thought not.
Aaron
>
> "Aaron" <who...@whereveryouwantmeto.be> wrote in message
> news:9v9o05$ls$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > Ahhhhh c'mon now - you're saying that Byrne isn't any good at
> > > writing/plotting and pencilling comics? Byrne is one of the few
people
> > that
> > > can write and draw comics well. Not many have that skill, although
lots
> > > would like to believe they do - such as McFarlane.
> > >
> >
> > Byrne can write and draw comics on time very well. I've never read any
> > story by him that was truly great or even that interesting. I liked his
> > Alpha Flight run, but even that dragged on on and nearly nothing
happened.
> > His Hulk relaunch? How many months in a row did he keep writing the
same
> > issue over and over? 4? 5? 6?
>
>
> Next Men and the like. THY had a lot of potential, sadly that will never
be
> realised.
>
Even better, if I want to see Byrne at his best, I'll look at stories where
a he was drawing another writer's plot/script.
>
> I have every right to praise and appreciate THY. What I DON'T do is
> autmatically assume that because I enjoyed the run that I speak for the
> comic buying public. I don't. I speak for myself and myself only. I am
> not the comic bying public - neither are you. We are both individuals.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Thought not.
>
No, it doesn't make sense. So you're not the comic book buying public? You
don't buy and read comic books? I think you're missing my point on purpose.
And YOU are the one that told me that my criticisms of Byrne and the book
aren't valid because I'm not pitching/writing better stories for Marvel.
Yet you can heap praise on him/it even though you aren't in the same
position you're requiring me to be in before I make critical comments.
Sanctify
"Brian Fried" <brian...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:GA8S7.23288$DO.30...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
> news:3c14...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > You make it sound as if the entire book was set in the Savage Land. It
> > wasn't. There were enough sub-plots outside of the Savage Land to
> alieviate
> > any concerns and also interest any reader with an attention span longer
> that
> > doesn't need Ritalin.
>
> Sub-plots? Iceman goes his own way, then chases after the X-Men in the
> Savage Land. Havok and Lorna get sent by Xavier to... the Savage Land! The
> Savage Land was the dominant (not only, just dominant) locale for issues 2
> through 5. It continued to be a major locale for the next few issues.
>
> Given the fact that anything of importance in the Savage Land is wiped out
> days after the X-Men leave it (if that long), the audience -- which was
> dominantly X-Men readers anyway -- saw little to keep their interest.
>
> If they didn't have the dedication as you do, don't insult them. Quite
> frankly, with a limited budget I find myself more and more looking for
> titles that will make me WANT to find out what's next because there's a
lot
> to resolve. There wasn't with X-Men: The Hidden Years, unfortunately,
until
> much later on in the series.
Well I don't give up on something that is gaining my interest. And there
was enough going on to keep me there and it did. I enjoyed almost the
entire run of THY barring portions of the last issue, which I suspect Byrne
just threw together and didn't care how bad it looked or read. Just because
the perdominant location for issues 2 through to 5 was the Savage Land is no
reason to leave a title.
I shudder to think of what you'd be saying if Claremont was pumping out the
stuff that he used to do in the main book. Issues that went all over the
place, sub-plots that hung about for years and the like.
>
> > I'm not arguing the point that sales on Marvel Knights have increased
> while
> > Quesada's been there. My main point is that he seems incapable of
> producing
> > a monthly book and seems intent on hiring pals, some of which are just
as
> > useless as he is at keeping to deadlines. Sure his art is great. The
run
> > on DD that he did with Kevin Smith remains my favorite run after the
> Miller
> > stuff, indeed I started buying the book again - and I've not bought it
on
> a
> > regular basis since Miller left. However I got totally hacked off that
it
> > couldn't come out on time - and that seems to be Quesada's fault
entirely.
>
> Go back and read Quesada's posts in the other Marvel group at the time
> Daredevil was late. He was extremely apologetic and, to be fair, there
were
> some other factors involved (ie. Palmotti's leaving, Smith's other
> obligations, printing problems galore). Some people took it, others
didn't.
It's one thing to blame others. Quesada has to take a lot of the blame
being that he was the editor (boss) and the penciller. I notice that Smith
has also come out and said that he stated his comments to deflect a lot of
the heat away from Quesada - admirable.
If he, or Jimmy, couldn't produce then Quesada should have thought of the
bigger picture and replaced themselves on the book.
>
> Personally, I think Quesada's a quite capable editor-in-chief who now
knows
> that you can't edit and work on a book at the same time. Note that
Claremont
> found that out at the same time, too. Marvel's experiment failed.
I have very little problems with Quesada as an EIC. I don't agree with his
axing of THY as I believe that he didn't tell the truth. I might not agree
with the way he carries on with idiots like McFarlane and the way he
dismisses talent such as Byrne, but hey - not many liked Shooter either and
under his rule Marvel were THE company.
>
> > As for the *only* sour point being Byrne - well I don't know where you
sit
> > but that's a fairly major point IMHO. Byrne is a giant in the comics
> > industry. You might wish to sit there and bag him til the cows come
home
> > but he does command respect for his abilities and his past - well
respect
> > from everyone but Quesada who's shown him nothing but disdain.
>
> Byrne's not a giant. Today, I'd say the only giants are Alan Moore, Neil
> Gaiman and Frank Miller -- even their worst work is light-years above most
> books and they are worth the hype.
Byrne might not be the giant he once was, but certainly he ranks up there.
What he'd be better off doing is just staying away from comics for a while
now and then coming back with a blaze of glory.
Byrne can produce quality work, no question about it, and pretty much
Byrne's work is far better than most of the hacks running about the place
now.
>
> Many writers and artists (and writer-artists or artist-writers) have a
> reputation that is based on past glories and not the present. Chris
> Claremont is one example of a writer who had everyone watching him in the
> past but who's present work has been eclipsed by shifts in taste. Byrne is
> another: his recent work has been quality reading, but it's nowhere as
> trailblazing as it once was.
Again, see above.
>
> Today's top writers are those who mimic modern tastes in character
dialogue,
> narrative pacing, and action quotient. Hence Kevin Smith, Brian Michael
> Bendis, Joss Whedon and Joe Michael Straczynski being the most desirable
> guys to have at the moment.
I can see that, but how many people slam Smith? Personally I now buy issues
that Smith has a part of because they are well written. JMS is slowly
getting me back to buying Spiderman, after the shit that was Mackie.
>
> > Look at X-Men 400. If Quesada is just as responsible for letting that
pus
> > out as he is the MK range then he needs to look a bit more carefully at
> it -
> > that ain't quality control in action there.
>
> Marvel made the mistake of caring about a deadline with that one.
Churchill
> quit and there was no backup when there should have been. Instead of
turning
> to a reliable artist for extra cash, they went piecemeal to preserve the
> deadline and it backfired tremendously. Marvel should be embarrassed by
the
> whole situation and take steps that it never happens again.
Oh please!!! Never happen again??? Now I'm betting you're not that naive -
of course it'll happen again. It's happened in the past and it will happen
again in the future, no matter how much Quesada apologies and rants about
it. Even JR Jr could have pumped out a better book on such a tight
deadline. If you're going to go for the multiple artist routine then get
some decent ones in to do a few pages each and make sure you have someone
damned good to do the first few pages. The first few pages of 400 looked
like the artist had two broken hands and a box of crayons.
>
> > Jae Lee. Exactly my point. Jae Lee is good, but with the right
> motivation
> > he can't touch Byrne.
>
> Different styles. Personally, I think both can produce top-notch work.
Yes, but Byrne produces on time.
>
> > And I'll take you to task on your selections there. CO was a bomb -
that
> > much we all know. However Generations I & II was far from being a bomb.
> > Same with THY and TLG. If anything those titles enhanced his repuation.
>
> As what.. retro-man? Ever since his run on Superman, retelling the origin,
> he's been pegged as a retro-specialist. The Lost Generation and Hidden
Years
> certainly enhanced that image. The fact that they didn't sell all that
well
> and weren't generating much discussion over the implications of every
> character's actions made them average -- not spectacular -- books.
>
> > So when Wizard decide that they don't like Byrne, or PAD for example,
they
> > can influence the public's perception and thus hinder their careers?
Sad
> > really, I remember a certain bunch of people who ran around in the 30's
> and
> > 40's that did the same thing - drove people out, influenced the general
> > population, spread dissent due to their own personal preferences and
> stunted
> > their careers but making it very hard for them to work.
>
> That's cruel.
But true.
>
> I equate Wizard to Rolling Stone: a once-great magazine that is now
> representative of the boardrooms' views about comics, not interested in
> actually evaluating them on an individual basis. They represent the
fanboys
> (as opposed to the true believers), yet the fanboys are a strong enough
> percentage in the market to have some -- small -- effect. Wizard can't get
> people to buy Green Lantern, Thunderbolts or -shudder- their own comics,
but
> they can get people talking about other books like the X-Men.
Wizard can get people to buy books solely by hyping them up (interviews, hot
lists and the like) which they do month after month. And the fanboys are
more than enough to push the sales up on a book, coupled with Wizard also
hyping the so called collectablity of certain issues which pulls in the
speculators.
Wizard has more of an effect that you might realise. It's all surface
glitter to me and more than a few others that I know - flash with little or
no substance. If you want information you're better off reading CBG.
>
> > You don't want him to do retro but you want him to return to Alpha
Flight?
> > Weird. If Byrne were to return to anything at Marvel, for maximum
impact,
> > they they'd do no better than to give him FF.
>
> Fantastic Four can be given to anyone. Alpha Flight, though, needs a
> Canadian behind it and having the man that created the only Canadian
> superhero team behind the book once more is a fairly strong selling point.
> Look at the crappy second volume this past decade to see what I mean.
FF can be given to anyone - such as Howard Mackie. Doesn't mean it'll be
any good. I'd rather see Byrne doing FF. Alpha Flight I never really cared
about anyway.
>
> > I'm sure Mackie is happy to have work. You can't compare Mackie with
> Byrne.
>
> You can and you must. Both were writing comics at Marvel. That's a valid
> point of comparison.
Ok - Byrne is damned good, Mackie is a useless hack. There's your
comparism.
It's like comparing Miller with Leifeld. Both wrote and drew comics at
Marvel.
Shawn Hill
: The new regime doesn't want to lose their old audience. They want to see
: what will happen if they change the formula. Will it bring in new readers?
: X-Force is your answer. X-Force is nothing like it was before the latest
: revamp. Many X-Force readers have left. Yet the book is selling 10,000 more
: copies than it did before. 10,000 copies! That's a success for the
: management. More importantly, to the board of shareholders that means
: increased profit all around (which is Quesada and Jemas' prime mandate,
: after all, Marvel being a private company).
Also, it's good.
: Brotherhood is another answer. It lost half its readership in six months --
: clearly a failure. Marvel immediately pulled the plug (since the company
: works three months in advance, this cancels the book at #9) and replaced it
: with something else by a different creative team that will fill the same
: general spot.
What? I had no interest, but I'd like to know what "spot" that was and
why it needs re-filling if it didn't work.
: New X-Men falls somewhere in the middle. This is a different interpretation
: of these classic X-Men characters, but the title has an excitement to
: generate that the previous series couldn't. Instead of stories like "The
: Twelve", where any excitement was lost by poor writing the next issue if it
: was generated at all, we're getting stories like "E for Extinction" where
: the scope is pushed up and up to try and convince us that the threat is real
: and the X-Men will need to struggle to win. It's getting new readers, losing
: old ones, and keeping old ones too.
Yep, it's kept me. But, then Grant Morrison often does that.
As does .... John Byrne. Not that I've forgiven him for Wonder Woman, but
even there I liked the JSA stuff.
: This is the system used by Avengers (though a bit more traditional
: superheroing).
Not exactly. I'd see Avengers more as an example of the "nostalgia trip"
working. Because it doesn't call itself a retro book, it can be as retro
as it wants, also because Busiek is so very good at it. To me it's
exactly like reading the Avengers of when I was 12, only less
unpredictability because a) I've already read a lot of the stories before
[wink!] and b) the fill-in issues are more planned than haphazard with a
steady creative team for what, almost 50 issues!!!??? The artistitic
changes have been pretty well-managed, with fill-ins and regulars cleary
identified (though apparently worth the risk of a less stellar choice now
after years of success).
Avengers is an example of superhero comics done right in classic style;
innovative not by design so much as by execution and Busiek's commitment
to character development. THY aspired to be the same, but openly
declaring it self a "times past" story apparently was its death knell.
: The failures at Marvel? World's Greatest Comics Magazine was costing them to
: print by the end, but they stuck by to the end because they'd made a
: commitment.
And because it was a mini-series, after all. Pretty damning to not even
finish one of those.
: The other was Defenders. Look at where IT is in the solicitations this
: month: gone. It's been replaced with The Order, which transforms the
: Defenders into something different than it was before and hints of something
: that you won't expect.
Which has me worried and hesitant, as I was enjoying it a bunch.
: introducing new Joes while changing older ones. There's a sense of stories
: needing to be told which we've been missed, but you know that they'll come
: out in between new adventures against Cobra -- thus being new and old at the
: same time.
I certainly see the validity of that approach. But I also fail to see the
problem of openly declaring yourself a "what happened then" story and
pursuing it that way.
: X-treme Savage Land is a mini-series whose existence raises questions all
: around. I think the original poster was suggesting that either Byrne or
: Claremont would have been enough to keep nostalgic X-fans happy while still
: bringing new blood in on the core books and giving them a new set of
: options. He believes Claremont was the right way to go.
X-treme has been a good book, even if CC now is not the same as CC then.
I don't see the need for X-Savage, however, mini or not, as it milks
that same audience and dilutes their interest just as much as the old
regime did. THY, by its very concept, could have offered an unconnected
alternative in just the way you suggest they were going for above.
: It shouldn't have been a choice between the two -- yet Byrne could certainly
: have done a lot outside of the X-office because of his Fantastic Four
: reputation. It was a screw-up, but one I think only time will be able to
: reduce the egos enough to correct.
And which could have been avoided.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> As for the *only* sour point being Byrne - well I don't know where you sit
:> but that's a fairly major point IMHO. Byrne is a giant in the comics
:> industry. You might wish to sit there and bag him til the cows come home
:> but he does command respect for his abilities and his past - well respect
:> from everyone but Quesada who's shown him nothing but disdain.
: Byrne's not a giant. Today, I'd say the only giants are Alan Moore, Neil
: Gaiman and Frank Miller -- even their worst work is light-years above most
: books and they are worth the hype.
I don't think Miller's better than Byrne. Just more violent.
: Many writers and artists (and writer-artists or artist-writers) have a
: reputation that is based on past glories and not the present. Chris
: Claremont is one example of a writer who had everyone watching him in the
: past but who's present work has been eclipsed by shifts in taste. Byrne is
Has the audience changed, or has he?
: another: his recent work has been quality reading, but it's nowhere as
: trailblazing as it once was.
Said about everyone who's ever lasted as long.
: Today's top writers are those who mimic modern tastes in character dialogue,
: narrative pacing, and action quotient. Hence Kevin Smith, Brian Michael
: Bendis, Joss Whedon and Joe Michael Straczynski being the most desirable
: guys to have at the moment.
Mimic, or express? I'm not only questioning your ideas, but your
expression of them. You seem alternately jaded and idealistic, in a weird
mix.
Strac himself is one of the most cliched writers out there. He can be
powerful, yes, but just as easily lapse into formula. Kevin Smith can be
all pop-culti-references with little story to speak of. Joss can preach
rather than show. Where's Busiek and Morrison and Milligan and Grant and
Jenkins or PAD on your list?
: Marvel made the mistake of caring about a deadline with that one. Churchill
: quit and there was no backup when there should have been. Instead of turning
: to a reliable artist for extra cash, they went piecemeal to preserve the
: deadline and it backfired tremendously. Marvel should be embarrassed by the
: whole situation and take steps that it never happens again.
How about writing a good story to go with the art?
: Different styles. Personally, I think both can produce top-notch work.
Me too! Jae Lee has grown so much since his start in one of Byrne's
occasionally brilliant books, Namor.
: As what.. retro-man? Ever since his run on Superman, retelling the origin,
: he's been pegged as a retro-specialist. The Lost Generation and Hidden Years
: certainly enhanced that image. The fact that they didn't sell all that well
: and weren't generating much discussion over the implications of every
: character's actions made them average -- not spectacular -- books.
Retelling origins...hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, in
the Ultimates.
:> You don't want him to do retro but you want him to return to Alpha Flight?
:> Weird. If Byrne were to return to anything at Marvel, for maximum impact,
:> they they'd do no better than to give him FF.
: Fantastic Four can be given to anyone. Alpha Flight, though, needs a
: Canadian behind it and having the man that created the only Canadian
: superhero team behind the book once more is a fairly strong selling point.
: Look at the crappy second volume this past decade to see what I mean.
Well, there they misfired by giving the art chores to someone not really
ready. A great artist could have made that book work, as the story had
the potential to be intriguing. I liked the X-crossover with
Seagle/Bachalo.
:> I'm sure Mackie is happy to have work. You can't compare Mackie with
: Byrne.
: You can and you must. Both were writing comics at Marvel. That's a valid
: point of comparison.
Unlike say Strac and Byrne? You indeed are very contradictory, sir.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
:>
:> Aside from the fact that no one making the comics seemed convinced that
:> the film would do well; when it did, there was lots of scrambling to try
:> and catch up.
: That's not what happened at all.
It still sounds close enough even from your more detailed explanation
below. :)
: For one thing, the company was being run by Avi Arad, president of Toy Biz.
: Toy Biz was able to make money off of the movie -- though poor sales of the
: WWF line lowered their overall total for that year. Therefore it's logical
: to say that Marvel was able to make money off of the film with enough
: planning.
: Their problem was that Ultimate X-Men #1 wasn't ready. THAT was the
: principle connection between movie and comic. When it didn't happen, they
: scrambled to connect Uncanny and adjectiveless, neither of which had time to
: connect themselves to the film. Marvel shouldn't have bothered because as
: everyone knows, Joe Sixpack doesn't go to comic stores. That's where obscure
I agree they shouldn't have bothered. The haphazard stuff looked
demeaning, like they were scrambling and taken aback by the success of
the film, with which they had little do and which they vainly hoped to
profit from.
:> How do you know how closely the movie will match up to the current Spidey
:> story?
: Look at the characters cast for the film: Peter Parker/Spider-Man, May
: Parker, Ben Parker, J. Jonah Jameson, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborne,
: Norman Osborne, Otto Octavius, wrestler, announcer... now read ULTIMATE
: SPIDER-MAN: POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY. Same characters.
Same characters as 30 years ago, too. Kinda like when you do a Superman
movie and include Clark and Lois and Lana. But who knows how well or
poorly the plot, pacing, style etc. will connect?
:> The retailers also new enough to explain the concept of THY.
: You're joking, right?
No, I've listened to a fair amount of explanations while shopping over
the years.
: I not only work in a comic store, I've done comic shows and retailer summits
: and all that other stuff comic store customers can't go to. Trust me when I
: say that most comic store employees cannot tell you the concept of most
: books at the moment. The average description of the X-Men books was either
: "an X-Men book", "another book about the X-Men" or "a star of the X-Men that
: got his only book."
These are the self-same geeks that describe the shape and size of Flash's
boots from 1942 you were alluding to above? How many different ways do
you need to have it to make your points?
: Ultimate Spider-Man has the benefit that there's Ultimate, Amazing, Peter
: Parker and Tangled Web AND THAT'S IT. And Ultimate now appears separately in
IE, four books featuring the same character. Nope, not confusing at all.
: Previews, which is what we order with. That's a big advantage, especially
: with the *high* profile Ultimate *AND* Amazing have now, along with Marvel's
: push to get Peter Parker noticed.
:> And yet X-treme (two characters from the film, one noticably older),
:> X-force (all new characters), Uncany and New (a mix of old and new)
:> somehow satisfy that connection instantly? Didn't buy it then, still
:> don't buy it.
: The chance of connection is one month, period. By the end of the month,
: another blockbuster has arrived and attention is on that (unless you get a
: summer which bombs like this past one). The x-books now are only able to
: connect to the animated series, which has a comic on its own now.
The chance to connect exists as long as the DVDs do, I think.
: At least New X-Men and Uncanny LOOK like they have the movie characters in
: them. Which, given the fact that the new reader has no familiarity with the
: stories, is a GOOD thing.
Hey, I love the costumes, no problem there.
:> Axing THY wasn't about paring down the line, or reducing confusion. It
:> was a bout getting rid of Byrne, because Quesada knew he woulnd't be a
:> team player in the new regime.
: And Doop waves bye-bye to you too.
: Seriously: the slimmed down X-line is far more accessible to new readers
: than the past. It's a move forward, not backwards. Accept it. Or Doop will
: continue waving.
I not only accept it, I applaud it. I have very spotty collections of New
and Uncanny since CC left in the early 90s (the horrible Nicieza/Lobdell
years). An issue here, an issue there. Age of Apocalypse, because it was
a concept that I felt would be a total story with some good twists
(I love alternate universe stuff in general). Then Bastion ended, and the
Seagle/Bachalo and Kelly/Pacheco runs piqued my interest. Then old fave
Alan Davis, doing as well as he could with the material (and more fun
with the Skrulls than ever). Then the Warren Ellis reboots (which got me
into X-man for the first time ever, if not the rest).
I was more than ready for someone to actually get it together and make
some good X-books again, without cloning the Authority and without Bob
Harras around to ruin everything. And I love X-force and New, no matter
how late they come out (and so far, no matter which artist is guesting).
But the handling of THY was a mistake, and it wasn't worth the price.
Axing THY was not integral to improving the other books. JB has talent,
and was a classic presence as worthy of respect as CC.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Miller's art may no longer have the finesse it once did, but he's traded
: that for interest in storytelling. Sin City is effective because it's good
: writing with art that conveys what it needs. DK2 is enjoyable because it's
: excellent characterization and excellent conceptualization... the art
: doesn't have to accomplish everything. As an artist, Miller's star has
: dropped but as a writer he's remained the same if not risen due to
: consistency.
When and where has Miller's star fallen as an artist? That Greco-Roman
series he did was highly praised, and, as far as I can tell, DK2 looks
very similar to Ronin of more than a decade ago.
: In the case of the Hidden Years, Byrne's art lacked the finesse it once did
: (as has much of his work these days). That's a fact. I'd add that as a
And yet it was consistently praised for Palmer's inks, which seem to have
many fans.
: writer, Byrne has also lost some finesse, going through the motions at times
: when his attention is split (as it was between LG and HY). Byrne's star has
: slipped for both.
He'd have to go a long way for it to fall, though. The art in THY was
better than a lot of what's out there, still.
Shawn
Brian Fried
> : Today's top writers are those who mimic modern tastes in character
dialogue,
> : narrative pacing, and action quotient. Hence Kevin Smith, Brian Michael
> : Bendis, Joss Whedon and Joe Michael Straczynski being the most desirable
> : guys to have at the moment.
>
> Mimic, or express? I'm not only questioning your ideas, but your
> expression of them. You seem alternately jaded and idealistic, in a weird
> mix.
Mimic. Smith, Straczynski and Whedon have recent experience in film and
television. Language is fluid, especially in an America that flocks more and
more to cable than network television. Lobdell's best work was when he
wasn't trying to write a comicbook with a known formula, it came when he was
trying to write a group of characters in a situation he could realistically
project onto a screen. Sadly, Claremont -- and, to lesser extent, Byrne --
has dialogue that while once acceptable to a general audience is no longer
quite so swallowable.
> Strac himself is one of the most cliched writers out there. He can be
> powerful, yes, but just as easily lapse into formula. Kevin Smith can be
> all pop-culti-references with little story to speak of. Joss can preach
> rather than show. Where's Busiek and Morrison and Milligan and Grant and
> Jenkins or PAD on your list?
Each writer has their faults. Straczyski sticks with optimistic
generalizations about humanity in general. Smith deals with interpersonal
relationships, sometimes at the cost of action. Whedon can leave too much
out of his exposition at times in the order of secrecy. Still, each is
presenting comic stories that are compelling enough to draw you into the
next issue -- which is the whole key to survival for any title no matter
what it is.
Busiek to me is an excellent comicbook writer who's present story is a bit
too slow but otherwise enjoyable. He's stradling the classic narrative with
the modern pacing and sensibilities.
Morrison is, to me at least, typical of the British comic writers now en
vogue in the industry: creating not no believable crises to put the
characters through, letting implausibilities slide, and doing his damnest to
shock without understanding repeated shock dulls the senses.
Milligan is quite good on X-Force, but his other work didn't do anything for
me.
Jenkins has hits and misses. Origin is bland (and very liberal in its
borrowing of classical narrative -- Secret Garden anyone?). Peter Parker
repeats story ideas too often, though each time it rewards the reader. When
he's doing something new, or something that will seriously challenge the
hero, he shines.
And Peter David... he can just be a bit too cute for me, that's all.
Otherwise, he's a top writer and it shows. Not many writers can balance so
much on their plate without being repetitive, but Supergirl, Captain Marvel
and Young Justice do just that. (Bendis is the only other one, though Alias
is running into a Powers clone too quickly.)
> How about writing a good story to go with the art?
The story wasn't all that bad -- though I suspect that if we had a better
artist (John Romita Jr., for example), Casey would find himself either
needing more dialogue or to increase the amount of story in this issue.
Batch artist stories NEVER work, and Marvel should know better.
> Retelling origins...hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, in
> the Ultimates.
Byrne has retold two origins: Superman and Spider-Man. The first was a
success, the other was a failure.
The main point I was emphasizing was that, like Alex Ross, John Byrne is not
interested in the present but the past (or future).
With the exception of the co-plotting ideas he contributed to Amazing
Spider-Man (when Mackie was writing), all of Byrne's projects at Marvel deal
with time periods long past.
> Well, there they misfired by giving the art chores to someone not really
> ready. A great artist could have made that book work, as the story had
> the potential to be intriguing. I liked the X-crossover with
> Seagle/Bachalo.
That's because you're not Canadian. Seagle really upset me as a writer (and
Bachalo more as the artist) for not doing his research. "Secretary of
Defense"? Ottawa in a plain? Murmur sounding like she's Gambit's sister? A
diner that takes 90 minutes to get less than halfway between two cities 90
minutes apart??
Alpha Flight wouldn't exist without Byrne. Marvel could do well by
suggesting to Byrne that his baby needs the tender care only its creator can
give.
> Unlike say Strac and Byrne? You indeed are very contradictory, sir.
Why? I can compare Straczynski and Byrne as writers. Straczynski is
interested in raising questions about the characters in the present, not
showing us these sides which are 30 years old and have never appeared again.
Each issue of a JMS title has a clear beginning and ending because each
issue is like a quest, whereas Byrne varies between the quest issues (Kraven
one, for example) and those that clearly require you to know something about
the character. Also, JMS characters tend to be archtypical: David the
wanderer, Loren the guide, Poet the reserved warrior you don't want to
anger, Peter the no-longer student, etc. whereas Byrne's characters are all
the one type: superhero.
Brian Fried
> Well I don't give up on something that is gaining my interest. And there
> was enough going on to keep me there and it did. I enjoyed almost the
> entire run of THY barring portions of the last issue, which I suspect
Byrne
> just threw together and didn't care how bad it looked or read. Just
because
> the perdominant location for issues 2 through to 5 was the Savage Land is
no
> reason to leave a title.
For you, but you're not the casual consumer. In today's market, where there
is always something new and better coming out, a story that takes too long
to get somewhere is not going to keep everyone's attention.
> I shudder to think of what you'd be saying if Claremont was pumping out
the
> stuff that he used to do in the main book. Issues that went all over the
> place, sub-plots that hung about for years and the like.
If Claremont was still pumping out bilge, readership would be at Brotherhood
levels. As it is, Claremont is clearly getting more and more into the swing
of things as each issue passes.
> If he, or Jimmy, couldn't produce then Quesada should have thought of the
> bigger picture and replaced themselves on the book.
Which is why we had the fill-in artist for issue 12. Note that David Mack
was the biggest slowdown in the process.
> Byrne might not be the giant he once was, but certainly he ranks up there.
> What he'd be better off doing is just staying away from comics for a while
> now and then coming back with a blaze of glory.
He has bills to pay. What Byrne needs to do is pick a project that is set in
the present (or near future) either as writer OR artist, stick with that
alone, and blow away everyone. Ignore the reputation and build another one:
that's what he needs.
> Byrne can produce quality work, no question about it, and pretty much
> Byrne's work is far better than most of the hacks running about the place
> now.
Name them. Quite frankly, there are a number of "hacks" (Bachalo I dislike,
Wood is another) but there are a number of artists who are as equally
competent as Byrne and/or getting to a point that they will soon match and
surpass him.
I think too many comic "fans" forget that the purpose of art is to
communicate the narrative, not be incredibly intricate. The UPA animators
slammed this home in the fifties, and comics need someone to slam it home
for the readers.
> Oh please!!! Never happen again??? Now I'm betting you're not that
naive -
> of course it'll happen again. It's happened in the past and it will
happen
> again in the future, no matter how much Quesada apologies and rants about
> it. Even JR Jr could have pumped out a better book on such a tight
> deadline. If you're going to go for the multiple artist routine then get
> some decent ones in to do a few pages each and make sure you have someone
> damned good to do the first few pages. The first few pages of 400 looked
> like the artist had two broken hands and a box of crayons.
The person to blame isn't Quesada, though: it is Mark Powers. As editor of
the X-line (and Uncanny is one of those), it's his job to assign talent when
a creator needs help and he blew it. I agree: the book looked like shit. I'm
not naive in saying Marvel wants it never to happen again, because I have a
strong feeling that Marvel knows quite well it has problems with its
X-artists and ability to reach deadlines. Expect the on call fill-in artist
to come back in full strength this year, and an increase in the time alloted
to each issue.
> Yes, but Byrne produces on time.
But not with top quality work. Byrne can knock out a page if needed too, and
Byrne pages don't rely as much on colouring as Lee's. FF1234 came out fairly
well until issue 4, and I think that Heroes (as well as Morrison's
dedication to New X-Men) may have had something to do with that.
> FF can be given to anyone - such as Howard Mackie. Doesn't mean it'll be
> any good. I'd rather see Byrne doing FF. Alpha Flight I never really
cared
> about anyway.
The last statement is important.
The FF are a family who adventures in fantastic places. There are a number
of writers I could think of who would do really well behind that book (other
than Mark Waid, who's coming on). Heck, Scott Lobdell -- laugh you might --
said that it was his dream book and he never really got a chance to show up
what he could do on that book. How about Abnet and Lanning (if they could do
it on top of Legion)? Ostrander? Robinson?
Mackie's failure at Brotherhood doesn't make him a good candidate for the
Fantastic Four or any other book.
> It's like comparing Miller with Leifeld. Both wrote and drew comics at
> Marvel.
Miller and Leifeld are comparable on a number of levels, so the comparison
is valid. Calling one a hack and the other a genius is lazy criticism at
best.
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:9vc3ra$tu8$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> : Today's top writers are those who mimic modern tastes in character
: dialogue,
:> : narrative pacing, and action quotient. Hence Kevin Smith, Brian Michael
:> : Bendis, Joss Whedon and Joe Michael Straczynski being the most desirable
:> : guys to have at the moment.
:>
:> Mimic, or express? I'm not only questioning your ideas, but your
:> expression of them. You seem alternately jaded and idealistic, in a weird
:> mix.
: Mimic. Smith, Straczynski and Whedon have recent experience in film and
: television. Language is fluid, especially in an America that flocks more and
: more to cable than network television. Lobdell's best work was when he
: wasn't trying to write a comicbook with a known formula, it came when he was
: trying to write a group of characters in a situation he could realistically
: project onto a screen. Sadly, Claremont -- and, to lesser extent, Byrne --
: has dialogue that while once acceptable to a general audience is no longer
: quite so swallowable.
But are Smith et al "mimicking" that speech, or is it congruent with
their own natural means of expression?
:> rather than show. Where's Busiek and Morrison and Milligan and Grant and
:> Jenkins or PAD on your list?
: Each writer has their faults. Straczyski sticks with optimistic
: generalizations about humanity in general. Smith deals with interpersonal
: relationships, sometimes at the cost of action. Whedon can leave too much
: out of his exposition at times in the order of secrecy. Still, each is
: presenting comic stories that are compelling enough to draw you into the
: next issue -- which is the whole key to survival for any title no matter
: what it is.
don't read Smith and Strac comics regularly, so I've never been drawn in.
Whedon's one book, Fray, does seem to reflect the excellent cliffhanger
ability that BtVS does so well. Morrison is equally good at this.
Byrne is certainly capable of it, as the excellent NextMen showed
throughout its truncated run.
: Busiek to me is an excellent comicbook writer who's present story is a bit
: too slow but otherwise enjoyable. He's stradling the classic narrative with
: the modern pacing and sensibilities.
I agree here.
: Morrison is, to me at least, typical of the British comic writers now en
: vogue in the industry: creating not no believable crises to put the
: characters through, letting implausibilities slide, and doing his damnest to
: shock without understanding repeated shock dulls the senses.
I think Morrison understands the characters (and their emotions) better
than almost anyone else.
: Milligan is quite good on X-Force, but his other work didn't do anything for
: me.
: Jenkins has hits and misses. Origin is bland (and very liberal in its
: borrowing of classical narrative -- Secret Garden anyone?). Peter Parker
: repeats story ideas too often, though each time it rewards the reader. When
: he's doing something new, or something that will seriously challenge the
: hero, he shines.
Definitely loved Inhumans, mostly bored by Sentry and Hulk.
: And Peter David... he can just be a bit too cute for me, that's all.
: Otherwise, he's a top writer and it shows. Not many writers can balance so
: much on their plate without being repetitive, but Supergirl, Captain Marvel
: and Young Justice do just that. (Bendis is the only other one, though Alias
: is running into a Powers clone too quickly.)
I agree, PAD juggles a lot, mostly well. I too find him excessively cute
at points.
I'd be interested in seeing an Orson Scott Card comic someday.
:> How about writing a good story to go with the art?
: The story wasn't all that bad -- though I suspect that if we had a better
: artist (John Romita Jr., for example), Casey would find himself either
: needing more dialogue or to increase the amount of story in this issue.
: Batch artist stories NEVER work, and Marvel should know better.
I've always been a fan of JRjr. I even like his initial X-men run now,
which seemed shocking to me at the time.
:> Retelling origins...hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, in
:> the Ultimates.
: Byrne has retold two origins: Superman and Spider-Man. The first was a
: success, the other was a failure.
: With the exception of the co-plotting ideas he contributed to Amazing
: Spider-Man (when Mackie was writing), all of Byrne's projects at Marvel deal
: with time periods long past.
It does seem to be a focus lately. Is he retreating into conservatism for
comfort?
: That's because you're not Canadian. Seagle really upset me as a writer (and
: Bachalo more as the artist) for not doing his research. "Secretary of
: Defense"? Ottawa in a plain? Murmur sounding like she's Gambit's sister? A
: diner that takes 90 minutes to get less than halfway between two cities 90
: minutes apart??
Point taken. I've never been to Canada, it's true.
: Alpha Flight wouldn't exist without Byrne. Marvel could do well by
: suggesting to Byrne that his baby needs the tender care only its creator can
: give.
I'd love to see him on that title, even if he did so gleefully enjoy
killing most of them before he left last time.
:> Unlike say Strac and Byrne? You indeed are very contradictory, sir.
: the character. Also, JMS characters tend to be archtypical: David the
: wanderer, Loren the guide, Poet the reserved warrior you don't want to
: anger, Peter the no-longer student, etc. whereas Byrne's characters are all
: the one type: superhero.
Untrue. There's also the villain. The craven villain. The inept villain.
The murderous villain. The misguided villain.
And the immature hero, the experienced hero, the nurturing heroine, the
sexed-up confused and violent heroine, the happy sprite, the angry
overweight girl, etc.
I'm not helping, am I?
Shawn
Brian Fried
> What? I had no interest, but I'd like to know what "spot" that was and
> why it needs re-filling if it didn't work.
Marvel's broken their print run into four-title batches: Spider-Man
(Spider-Girl, Amazing, Peter Parker, Tangled Web), Marvel Universe teams
(Avengers, Defenders, Thunderbolts, Fantastic Four), Avengers solo books
(Black Panther, Thor, Hulk, Iron Man), Marvel Knights (Captain America,
Daredevil, Punisher, Elektra), Marvel solo books (Deadpool, Captain Marvel,
Bloodstone, Nightside), X-Men teams (Uncanny, X-Treme, New X-Men, X-Force)
and X-Men 2 (Wolverine, Cable, Exiles, Brotherhood).
X-Men 2 was the toughest tier. There are already enough X-Men around the
world, and Morrison's suggestion of mutants becoming the dominant species
gave them the door out. Wolverine is the solo book kept because it's a top
10 book. Cable was kept around because he's (a) popular and (b) going to
spread a new philosophy outside of the X-Men. Exiles are the X-Men outside
of time who won't affect the X-world no matter what. Brotherhood were those
mutants outside of Cable or the X-Men's world.
Brotherhood is being relaced by Muties, which will be a series of one-issue
focuses on mutants living normal lives. Brotherhood was mutants not caring
about the X-Men's war -- and it was so badly written it failed.
> Which has me worried and hesitant, as I was enjoying it a bunch.
To be fair, CI called it the worst comic ever, and Marvel was a bit
embarassed by that. A change -- especially a Busiek-led one -- may boost the
profile of the book and make it far more profitable to print.
> I certainly see the validity of that approach. But I also fail to see the
> problem of openly declaring yourself a "what happened then" story and
> pursuing it that way.
A "what happened then" story that's open-ended has the difficulty of an
ever-present known ending. No matter what Byrne did in Hidden Years, it
would be undone the moment the characters got to Giant-Size X-Men #1. (Since
any new shades never presented themselves again for years.)
A title like GI Joe or Avengers, that can revisit the past any time they
need to without losing momentum, is much better off because it doesn't have
that worry. A mini-series that looks only to the past is much better off
because it has a set ending that communicates to the reader the narrative
will have to pace itself to get there fairly quickly.
Brian Fried
> I agree they shouldn't have bothered. The haphazard stuff looked
> demeaning, like they were scrambling and taken aback by the success of
> the film, with which they had little do and which they vainly hoped to
> profit from.
The fact that Marvel planned on being back in the black after X-Men
indicated that they knew quite well it was going to be a success. If
anything, the movie was LESS of a success than they planned, and it had
nothing to do with them -- the blame goes to Fox for thinking the could use
the exact same promotion they used the year earlier for Star Wars Episode I
(and don't get me started on that pile of dung...!)
Ultimate X-Men #1 was supposed to be the giveaway. Marvel's principle
failure here was not getting readers from the movie. SENDING readers to the
movie, though, is the worst thing any comic company can do because they go
in and come out of the theatre complaining about how bad it was.
A true Batman fan from the comics didn't like Burton's 1989 feature film.
Your average moviegoer has only a handful of references (the 60s TV series
being the biggest) to base their opinion on, and they're much more liberal
in accepting discrepencies between texts.
> Same characters as 30 years ago, too. Kinda like when you do a Superman
> movie and include Clark and Lois and Lana. But who knows how well or
> poorly the plot, pacing, style etc. will connect?
It can't connect exactly. Everyone involved knows that (except the actors
and the film crew -- not they have much of a say in the actual construction
of the narrative). What Marvel wants is for the movie to act as a sort of
primer: you see it, you know enough about the characters to know who they
are when you get to a comic. If there's a discrepency, then it comes from
the comic having been the source for the film. Peter Parker in Amazing and
Peter Parker is an older version than the film, and Ultimate covers the same
time period -- not that hard to go from movie to comic, which is Marvel's
ultimate goal.
> No, I've listened to a fair amount of explanations while shopping over
> the years.
Lucky you. Where I work, the owner can't tell that Legends of the Dark
Knight isn't connected to Detective, Batman or Gotham Knights and can't
connect Nightwing and Azrael to the Bat even though the symbol's clearly on
the cover. For every good explanation there's a bad one, I guess.
My problem with Hidden Years was probably close to Quesada's: the point of
the book sounded a bit... redundant.
> These are the self-same geeks that describe the shape and size of Flash's
> boots from 1942 you were alluding to above? How many different ways do
> you need to have it to make your points?
I thought I'd only used it once :(
The comic fan at the movie theatre can be the true believer or the fanboy.
The fanboy is the one which scares real people.
True believers are ordinary people who value comics but don't duplicate
them.
> : Ultimate Spider-Man has the benefit that there's Ultimate, Amazing,
Peter
> : Parker and Tangled Web AND THAT'S IT. And Ultimate now appears
separately in
>
> IE, four books featuring the same character. Nope, not confusing at all.
Ultimate Spider-Man is clearly not the other Spider-Man... the art
communicates THAT.
As for the other three, why would there be confusion? It's the same
character, no differences in their history, and Jenkins' tales fit perfectly
in between the JMS tales' gaps, while Tangled Web often has Spidey passing
in the background instead (see #4 and the present story for evidence).
Beast in X-Men was blue and furry but in Hidden Years he's not. Angel is
blue, then he's not. They act differently in each, have different
histories... clearly different characters except that unlike Ultimate, which
is supposed to be different, Hidden Years' characters are the same as the
other books.
> The chance to connect exists as long as the DVDs do, I think.
Only verrrry recently, and barely that. The ones able to do that are Star
Wars, The Mummy, Jurassic Park and American Pie, by connecting sequel to
prequel, but even they don't do very much to boosting sales across the
board.
The only DVD I have which actually pushes another product (other than the
soundtrack which is too expensive more often than not) was Dogma's special
edition. On it, Smith plugs his comic store because that's where you can buy
all these cool products like the Jay & Silent Bob action figures and Chasing
Dogma hardcover.
If Marvel was smart -- and I think Quesada and Jemas are smart enough --
they'll put a commercial on the Spider-Man video to get the comics or at
least visit the website where the dotcomics are.
> But the handling of THY was a mistake, and it wasn't worth the price.
> Axing THY was not integral to improving the other books. JB has talent,
> and was a classic presence as worthy of respect as CC.
It wasn't integral to improving them but at the same time, Marvel wanted to
show they were moving foward without staying where they were. I have no
problem with cancelling Hidden Years; my problem with the whole situation
comes down to John Byrne not being able to get first pick at another
assignment, one that would have improved his reputation and given him the
reward he was looking for.
Sanctify
>
> "Sanctify" <Sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote in message
> news:3c19...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > Well I don't give up on something that is gaining my interest. And
there
> > was enough going on to keep me there and it did. I enjoyed almost the
> > entire run of THY barring portions of the last issue, which I suspect
> Byrne
> > just threw together and didn't care how bad it looked or read. Just
> because
> > the perdominant location for issues 2 through to 5 was the Savage Land
is
> no
> > reason to leave a title.
>
> For you, but you're not the casual consumer. In today's market, where
there
> is always something new and better coming out, a story that takes too long
> to get somewhere is not going to keep everyone's attention.
But I am now the casual consumer. I don't buy 30 titles a month - hell I'm
lucky I actually buy 8-10. To me there's not a lot out there that grabs me,
and what usually does is either recommended to me or is something that
catches my eye. And then there's projects like THY, DK2 and the like. I
buy them because I know that they're going to be damn good reads by damned
good creators. Same as I usually buy anything by Simonson - although having
said that I can't get into the whole New Gods thing and I couldn't get into
it when Byrne was doing it, but then I couildn't get into it when Kirby
originally did it.
>
> > I shudder to think of what you'd be saying if Claremont was pumping out
> the
> > stuff that he used to do in the main book. Issues that went all over
the
> > place, sub-plots that hung about for years and the like.
>
> If Claremont was still pumping out bilge, readership would be at
Brotherhood
> levels. As it is, Claremont is clearly getting more and more into the
swing
> of things as each issue passes.
Well I read a few of the intial issues that Claremont did when he returned
to the X-Men. Didn't move me then and I doubt it'd move me now. As much as
you say that Byrne isn't what he used to be Claremont is nowhere near what
he used to be either - but you're more than willing to give him a chance and
forgive his flaws.
>
> > If he, or Jimmy, couldn't produce then Quesada should have thought of
the
> > bigger picture and replaced themselves on the book.
>
> Which is why we had the fill-in artist for issue 12. Note that David Mack
> was the biggest slowdown in the process.
David Mack wasn't around for the first story arc - which I might point out
took longer to get out than the second.
>
> > Byrne might not be the giant he once was, but certainly he ranks up
there.
> > What he'd be better off doing is just staying away from comics for a
while
> > now and then coming back with a blaze of glory.
>
> He has bills to pay. What Byrne needs to do is pick a project that is set
in
> the present (or near future) either as writer OR artist, stick with that
> alone, and blow away everyone. Ignore the reputation and build another
one:
> that's what he needs.
I doubt strongly that Byrne needs the money that badly. If he wanted to pay
the bills then he could - a couple of low key projects here and there, a
couple of graphic novels and the like and he'd be fine. Then come back and
see what happens. Go on a holiday, freshen up a tad.
>
> > Byrne can produce quality work, no question about it, and pretty much
> > Byrne's work is far better than most of the hacks running about the
place
> > now.
>
> Name them. Quite frankly, there are a number of "hacks" (Bachalo I
dislike,
> Wood is another) but there are a number of artists who are as equally
> competent as Byrne and/or getting to a point that they will soon match and
> surpass him.
Oh, ANYONE that did issue 400. Leifeld and almost anyone that came from his
studios. I abhore the shit that Mike Weiringo (sp?) pumps out. Even JR Jr
is nowhere near what he once was - the art that he did on Thor and PP was
horrid. It looked like pencil roughs.
And of course there are a number of artists that are as good, if not better
than Byrne. I'm not saying he's the best around, just that there's more
artists that are far, far worse than there are better.
Fine - sack Powers then or at least make it a very, very public punishment.
Issue 400 should have been a milestone - same as issues 100, 200 and 300.
Instead it was one of the biggest piles of crap I've ever seen in such an
issue. Going on the 'quality' of artwork on that book I'd not be hiring
anyone associated with it for a very, very long time.
If they wanted fill-in artists then I'm sure that they could have gotten a
number of people to do a few pages here and there - people such as Byrne if
they'd not pissed him off so completely, Paul Smith would have been another
one I'd have approached.
>
> > Yes, but Byrne produces on time.
>
> But not with top quality work. Byrne can knock out a page if needed too,
and
> Byrne pages don't rely as much on colouring as Lee's. FF1234 came out
fairly
> well until issue 4, and I think that Heroes (as well as Morrison's
> dedication to New X-Men) may have had something to do with that.
Lead in time perhaps? What happened to not announcing a book until X amount
of issues were done. Byrne apparantly had 5 issues under his belt before
issue 1 even hit the stands. And with a mini-series, shit I'd be saying -
it's only four issues. I want the entire series on my desk before we
release it. That way the creators can take as much time as they want, get
it looking how they want it to look. Of course if the artist takes a year
to do it then fine. It's his own throat he's cutting money wise.
>
> > FF can be given to anyone - such as Howard Mackie. Doesn't mean it'll
be
> > any good. I'd rather see Byrne doing FF. Alpha Flight I never really
> cared
> > about anyway.
>
> The last statement is important.
You didn't care about THY. I didn't overly care about Alpha Flight. It
didn't move me at all, no matter who was doing it. Even when Claremont and
Smith produced the excellent 2 issue mini, the art was good, the story was
good, but Alpha? I was more interested in the X-Men and the other
characters than Alpha.
>
> The FF are a family who adventures in fantastic places. There are a number
> of writers I could think of who would do really well behind that book
(other
> than Mark Waid, who's coming on). Heck, Scott Lobdell -- laugh you
might --
> said that it was his dream book and he never really got a chance to show
up
> what he could do on that book. How about Abnet and Lanning (if they could
do
> it on top of Legion)? Ostrander? Robinson?
Robinson I'd love to see on it. Same with Waid. Lobdell I could live with.
>
> Mackie's failure at Brotherhood doesn't make him a good candidate for the
> Fantastic Four or any other book.
I couldn't agree more. Mackies shite with Brotherhood just comes on top of
his crap that he wrote before it. But I bet Marvel hire him to ruin more
stuff though.
>
> > It's like comparing Miller with Leifeld. Both wrote and drew comics at
> > Marvel.
>
> Miller and Leifeld are comparable on a number of levels, so the comparison
> is valid. Calling one a hack and the other a genius is lazy criticism at
> best.
My point was that Byrne can both write and draw comics. Mackie can do
neither ;-)
Erlik K
>As it was clearly not a straight financial decision, he had grounds.
I don't really think that's the point. It was, and it wasn't a financial
decision.
What John Byrne was doing with The Hidden Years didn't fit with the profile of
what Quesada sees as his vision for Marvel, so the book gets cancelled to allow
them to spend their resources on projects that fit.
That sort of thing happens whenever there's a change in management of any large
company. It's never anything personal, it's more a matter of reallocating the
money to projects that will fit the new goals of the company.
Case in point, the company that I work for (a newspaper) was bought out by a
larger newspaper (faceless conglomerate). After they looked at everything that
the paper did and was involved in, a lot of stuff was done away with, people
were moved and whatnot. The department that I worked for was completely done
away with. We were profitable, but still we got the boot, because we didn't
fit in with the new company profile. Though we were profitable, they felt that
the same money would be better spent elsewhere promoting other products, and
better spent developing other things.
The thing is, nobody took it personally. Nobody went and cried foul, and as a
matter of fact, more than a couple of us just found jobs in other departments
and still work for the company.
This thing with Hidden Years is basically the same thing. Byrne has every
right to be disappointed that he didn't get to see the book through to the
conclusion that he'd envisioned, but his mistake was in making a big stink
about it. To some, that sort of thing would be seen as unprofessional.
Quesada didn't approve the Hidden Years to begin with, and as such, didn't owe
it any allegiance. John Byrne should understand that. And it'd have been in
his best interests to either look for another assignment within Marvel, or
pitch another series, rather than crying foul.
Steven Horton
> Mackie's failure at Brotherhood doesn't make him a good candidate for the
> Fantastic Four or any other book.
Whoa! So Howard Mackie is X? I mean, that's what I always figured, but was
this ever actually announced? Is this like one of the worst kept secrets
in comics and I'm the last to know? What gives?
-STev
Jeremy Henderson
<sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> rattled off:
No official announcement, and with the impending cancellation it
doesn't seem one is like to ever happen, but I think most people agree
this book stank of Mackieness.
Paul O'Brien
100...@expert.cc.purdue.edu>, Steven Horton
<sho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> writes
>
>Whoa! So Howard Mackie is X? I mean, that's what I always figured, but was
>this ever actually announced? Is this like one of the worst kept secrets
>in comics and I'm the last to know? What gives?
It's never been officially announced, no. Most rumours have it that
Mackie is responsible, either as sole writer or as one of the leading
contributors under a collective pseudonym.
Brian Fried
> It's never been officially announced, no. Most rumours have it that
> Mackie is responsible, either as sole writer or as one of the leading
> contributors under a collective pseudonym.
I thought I read in Comics International that Marvel, having realized it was
a failure and hoping to attract new readers too late in the game, had
admitted Mackie was the writer. Their mistake -- or maybe not ;)
PAL
Not in THIS reality!
~PAL
"Erlik K" <erl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011214221900...@mb-fz.aol.com...
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:9vc384$tec$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> I agree they shouldn't have bothered. The haphazard stuff looked
:> demeaning, like they were scrambling and taken aback by the success of
:> the film, with which they had little do and which they vainly hoped to
:> profit from.
: The fact that Marvel planned on being back in the black after X-Men
: indicated that they knew quite well it was going to be a success. If
Where did they "plan" this? Are they in the black? I'm talking about the
storylines/art in the X-titles, which didn't match the film, then tried
to match the film, and now sort of (in some cases) reflect the influence
of the film. Long after it's success was clear.
: anything, the movie was LESS of a success than they planned, and it had
: nothing to do with them -- the blame goes to Fox for thinking the could use
: the exact same promotion they used the year earlier for Star Wars Episode I
: (and don't get me started on that pile of dung...!)
From everything, everywhere, I've ever read about the movie, from any
source, its success widely exceeded all expectations. You and I live in
very different worlds.
: Ultimate X-Men #1 was supposed to be the giveaway. Marvel's principle
: failure here was not getting readers from the movie. SENDING readers to the
: movie, though, is the worst thing any comic company can do because they go
: in and come out of the theatre complaining about how bad it was.
Except they didn't. We fans liked the movie.
: A true Batman fan from the comics didn't like Burton's 1989 feature film.
: Your average moviegoer has only a handful of references (the 60s TV series
: being the biggest) to base their opinion on, and they're much more liberal
: in accepting discrepencies between texts.
I've read very positive things about the Burton films and about Keaton's
performance, right here on USENET. Of course no one liked the fourth one,
it was crap.
:> Same characters as 30 years ago, too. Kinda like when you do a Superman
:> movie and include Clark and Lois and Lana. But who knows how well or
:> poorly the plot, pacing, style etc. will connect?
: It can't connect exactly. Everyone involved knows that (except the actors
: and the film crew -- not they have much of a say in the actual construction
: of the narrative). What Marvel wants is for the movie to act as a sort of
: primer: you see it, you know enough about the characters to know who they
: are when you get to a comic. If there's a discrepency, then it comes from
: the comic having been the source for the film. Peter Parker in Amazing and
: Peter Parker is an older version than the film, and Ultimate covers the same
: time period -- not that hard to go from movie to comic, which is Marvel's
: ultimate goal.
We'll see when we see, I guess.
:> No, I've listened to a fair amount of explanations while shopping over
:> the years.
: Lucky you. Where I work, the owner can't tell that Legends of the Dark
: Knight isn't connected to Detective, Batman or Gotham Knights and can't
: connect Nightwing and Azrael to the Bat even though the symbol's clearly on
: the cover. For every good explanation there's a bad one, I guess.
There are certainly an infinity of perspectives.
: My problem with Hidden Years was probably close to Quesada's: the point of
: the book sounded a bit... redundant.
So tell John "wrap it up by issue 27," not "you're cancelled, buh-bye."
:> These are the self-same geeks that describe the shape and size of Flash's
:> boots from 1942 you were alluding to above? How many different ways do
:> you need to have it to make your points?
: I thought I'd only used it once :(
: The comic fan at the movie theatre can be the true believer or the fanboy.
: The fanboy is the one which scares real people.
: True believers are ordinary people who value comics but don't duplicate
: them.
What does duplicate mean? Photocopy? I think your opinions on fanboys are
skewed. There's not enough of them to really affect anything, and they're
all going to go to the film anyway.
: Ultimate Spider-Man is clearly not the other Spider-Man... the art
: communicates THAT.
The art that shows the same costume and similar characters? Just how is
someone not so familiar with comics supposed to be able to make all the
discerning gradations?
: As for the other three, why would there be confusion? It's the same
: character, no differences in their history, and Jenkins' tales fit perfectly
: in between the JMS tales' gaps, while Tangled Web often has Spidey passing
: in the background instead (see #4 and the present story for evidence).
So, they're not confusing if you're familiar with them, but you don't
need to be familiar with them to not be confused? What?
: Beast in X-Men was blue and furry but in Hidden Years he's not. Angel is
: blue, then he's not. They act differently in each, have different
: histories... clearly different characters except that unlike Ultimate, which
: is supposed to be different, Hidden Years' characters are the same as the
: other books.
Future Fanboy/geek/true believer: So, how come Beast isn't blue in this
one?
Comic shop retailer/geek/knowitall/boob: Because that's a story set in
the past, before he changed.
Surely as easy to say as explaining what each Spidey book is supposed to
be about.
:> The chance to connect exists as long as the DVDs do, I think.
: Only verrrry recently, and barely that. The ones able to do that are Star
: Wars, The Mummy, Jurassic Park and American Pie, by connecting sequel to
: prequel, but even they don't do very much to boosting sales across the
: board.
There are still VHS tapes, too.
: The only DVD I have which actually pushes another product (other than the
: soundtrack which is too expensive more often than not) was Dogma's special
: edition. On it, Smith plugs his comic store because that's where you can buy
: all these cool products like the Jay & Silent Bob action figures and Chasing
: Dogma hardcover.
: If Marvel was smart -- and I think Quesada and Jemas are smart enough --
: they'll put a commercial on the Spider-Man video to get the comics or at
: least visit the website where the dotcomics are.
Or people could just understand that superheroes come from comic books. I
don't think comics actually are forgotten artifacts, even now.
:> But the handling of THY was a mistake, and it wasn't worth the price.
:> Axing THY was not integral to improving the other books. JB has talent,
:> and was a classic presence as worthy of respect as CC.
: It wasn't integral to improving them but at the same time, Marvel wanted to
: show they were moving foward without staying where they were. I have no
: problem with cancelling Hidden Years; my problem with the whole situation
: comes down to John Byrne not being able to get first pick at another
: assignment, one that would have improved his reputation and given him the
: reward he was looking for.
And he didn't, did he? They used him to make their statement, and it was
a mistaken waste.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:>
:> Ahhhhh c'mon now - you're saying that Byrne isn't any good at
:> writing/plotting and pencilling comics? Byrne is one of the few people
: that
:> can write and draw comics well. Not many have that skill, although lots
:> would like to believe they do - such as McFarlane.
:>
: Byrne can write and draw comics on time very well. I've never read any
: story by him that was truly great or even that interesting. I liked his
: Alpha Flight run, but even that dragged on on and nearly nothing happened.
Except for several characters dying, having their hearts ripped out,
completely changing their powers or identities, or going more (or less)
insane. Yep, nothing I guess.
shawn
Shawn Hill
:>If it hadn't been selling, I don't think Byrne would have been as pissed.
: I don't really think that's the point. It was, and it wasn't a financial
: decision.
: What John Byrne was doing with The Hidden Years didn't fit with the profile of
: what Quesada sees as his vision for Marvel, so the book gets cancelled to allow
: them to spend their resources on projects that fit.
Doesn't save it from being a bad call.
: That sort of thing happens whenever there's a change in management of any large
: company. It's never anything personal, it's more a matter of reallocating the
: money to projects that will fit the new goals of the company.
It may not be "personal" (did anyone say it was?), but unceremoniously
dumping one of the major reasons your flagship title ever became a
success doesn't sound like good management.
: Case in point, the company that I work for (a newspaper) was bought out by a
: larger newspaper (faceless conglomerate). After they looked at everything that
: the paper did and was involved in, a lot of stuff was done away with, people
: were moved and whatnot. The department that I worked for was completely done
: away with. We were profitable, but still we got the boot, because we didn't
: fit in with the new company profile. Though we were profitable, they felt that
: the same money would be better spent elsewhere promoting other products, and
: better spent developing other things.
And is your paper, or the original paper, or anything really any better
now than it was then?
: The thing is, nobody took it personally. Nobody went and cried foul, and as a
: matter of fact, more than a couple of us just found jobs in other departments
: and still work for the company.
Are any of you the original founders or top-profile writers for your
paper? You know, ones whose respect and noteriety extended beyond the
bounds of your current desk job?
: This thing with Hidden Years is basically the same thing. Byrne has every
: right to be disappointed that he didn't get to see the book through to the
: conclusion that he'd envisioned, but his mistake was in making a big stink
: about it. To some, that sort of thing would be seen as unprofessional.
To some, the whole sequence of event seems less than professional.
: Quesada didn't approve the Hidden Years to begin with, and as such, didn't owe
: it any allegiance. John Byrne should understand that. And it'd have been in
: his best interests to either look for another assignment within Marvel, or
: pitch another series, rather than crying foul.
Yes, let's all be perfect corporate soldiers and kiss the a$$ of
whoever's newly in charge, that's always the best idea.
Shawn
Brian Fried
> Where did they "plan" this? Are they in the black? I'm talking about the
> storylines/art in the X-titles, which didn't match the film, then tried
> to match the film, and now sort of (in some cases) reflect the influence
> of the film. Long after it's success was clear.
-sigh- Uncanny X-Men and X-Men weren't SUPPOSED to connect. That was the
intention of Ultimate X-Men. When audiences went to the cineplex to see
X-Men: The Movie, they were supposed to get a free copy of Ultimate X-Men
#1, in which the X-Men of the movie kept going. Production problems --
mainly getting a creative team behind the book with sufficient work to make
it worth releasing -- caused Ultimate X-Men to be postponed. The prequels
were still being released, and Marvel chose to give away the Wolverine
prequel instead.
It wasn't until the month of the film's release that Harras and Arad
realized that neither Uncanny nor X-Men had a visual connection to the film
other than the name. The title logo was re-done and the starburst added in
as quickly as possible to make that connection visible to the casual
consumer. Unfortunately, with the film not leading people to brave going to
the comic store, the move was a waste of time.
It's only been recently -- when, incidentally, Marvel's *complete* failure
to cash in on the movie other than in toy sales resulted in new
management -- that the X-books have been made to come closer to the movie.
This is, no doubt, a directive from above since no revamp of the X-Men would
be truly effective if the casual consumer or consumer of other titles came
into X-Men expecting something closer to the movie and discovered something
much different.
> From everything, everywhere, I've ever read about the movie, from any
> source, its success widely exceeded all expectations. You and I live in
> very different worlds.
There's a Variety article in which it states that NONE of the films that
summer reached expected sales. X-Men was one of a number of films to have a
tremendous opening weekend -- far better than expected -- but then the box
office grew cold quite quickly. The film was helped tremendously by a
hastened direct-sales video release but Fox admits it could have done much
better.
The same can be said about 2001. Despite tremendous successes with films
like Moulin Rouge, Tomb Raider, etc. only two films -- Harry Potter and the
forthcoming Lord of the Rings -- look to have any tremendous success coming
to them. The best film coming into November 2001 was, incidentally, Rush
Hour at $300+ million... which is about what Titanic made in its first
month!
> : Ultimate X-Men #1 was supposed to be the giveaway. Marvel's principle
> : failure here was not getting readers from the movie. SENDING readers to
the
> : movie, though, is the worst thing any comic company can do because they
go
> : in and come out of the theatre complaining about how bad it was.
>
> Except they didn't. We fans liked the movie.
Whether we liked or disliked the movie is irrelevant. The point still
stands: as fans, we have a more intimate knowledge of the source text (in
this case, the X-Men history and all that it entails). The film cannot hope
to match our body of knowledge completely, and any digression will lead to
fans complaining as they leave the theatre. Even if it's a minor complaint
for a film you quite liked, as a fan you often don't realize that your words
may decide for another consumer -- one who has no knowledge of the X-Men at
all -- to choose another film instead.
And there were people who came out complaining about the film, at least when
I went to the theatre. Remember, this is Hollywood we're talking about --
bad word of mouth can sink a film completely.
> I've read very positive things about the Burton films and about Keaton's
> performance, right here on USENET. Of course no one liked the fourth one,
> it was crap.
Read Batman Unmasked. In 1989, Batman fans -- on Usenet, in comic shops,
etc. -- were vocally against the film. To say that there are positive
comments about Batman in 1999, 2000 or 2001 is irrelevant: by this point the
comparison is being made in hindsight against a product that fans disliked
even more.
To say the book is crap then isn't saying the same thing as the book is good
because the books which followed are much crappier.
> What does duplicate mean? Photocopy? I think your opinions on fanboys are
> skewed. There's not enough of them to really affect anything, and they're
> all going to go to the film anyway.
Duplicate in this matter means that they use the comic norms as the norms of
the world around them. Fanboys, Trekkers, etc. are scary to the public at
large because they perceive portions of reality differently than others.
As someone who's studied the problem of comics-based adaptations from an
academic perspective, believe me when I say that fanboys are taken somewhat
seriously by movie executives who are desperate to prevent any bad news
coming out because that's what the entertainment press loves.
> The art that shows the same costume and similar characters? Just how is
> someone not so familiar with comics supposed to be able to make all the
> discerning gradations?
Ultimate Spider-Man's Peter Parker looks like a kid. He's shown at high
school. Amazing Spider-Man's Peter Parker is an adult and shown as a teacher
in high school. It's an easy distinction to make if you compare the two.
> So, they're not confusing if you're familiar with them, but you don't
> need to be familiar with them to not be confused? What?
If you're not familiar with the Spider-Man books, starting one isn't hard
because it the books don't reference each other time and time again. If you
read them all, you can make up pretty much any order for them. And since all
three -- Amazing, Peter Parker, Tangled Web -- are the same Spider-Man, you
can approach any of them easily enough. Hence the total lack of confusion.
> Comic shop retailer/geek/knowitall/boob: Because that's a story set in
> the past, before he changed.
If you ask, that's the answer. If you come into a comic store with your
parent, and are told just to pick up a comic, and the characters don't look
like the cartoon or the toys, are you going to buy the comic? If you're a
teen or young adult, and you enter the store to get an X-Men comic and one
is much closer to the cartoon than this other one, are you going to get that
closer one or not?
The title "Hidden Years" implies it's set in the past. You still have to
explain WHY these tales are worth telling after thirty years (which is quite
possible) and why the customer should choose this over all of the other
X-books which are closer to what you're familiar with.
> Surely as easy to say as explaining what each Spidey book is supposed to
> be about.
Let's see: replacement tales for when the X-Men weren't selling but still in
print as a reprint tale VS Spider-Man's big adventures, Spider-Man's
personal life and people affected by Spider-Man. Tough choice, but I'd still
go for the second.
That's why I approve of Quesada's revamp. Now we have: the X-Men at home
(New X-Men), the X-Men who can't go out in public so much (Uncanny X-Men),
the X-Men looking for Destiny's lost diaries (X-Treme X-Men), the celebrity
mutants (X-Force), everyday mutants (Muties), the mutant freedom fighter
(Cable), Wolverine (Wolverine) and the Sliders/Quantum Leap version of the
X-Men (Exiles).
> Or people could just understand that superheroes come from comic books. I
> don't think comics actually are forgotten artifacts, even now.
Public perception of comics is principally as children's entertainment.
NBC's push to get teens watching television on Saturday morning is the most
prominent example to my mind of how deeply entrenched the American public is
into the Victorian-era's hierarchy of artistic consumption. Cartoons and
comics are for kids, teens have drive-in and B-movies, college students get
foreign art films/action movies/comedies, and adults consume dramas. Sad,
but more true than false.
Aaron
Yes, that seems like some interesting stuff. But I guess it suffered in the
execution. I read the whole run about 2 years ago again, and even reading
all of the issues back to back, I was struck by how dull and slowly it came
off. Big stuff, their leader dying and all, but it really wasn't that
gripping or entertaining in the final analysis. In my opinion, of course,
but that goes without saying. Or it should. Some people forget and flip
out if that isn't pointed out regularly All opinion.
Shawn Hill
: "Shawn Hill" <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: news:9vlatn$d8r$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
:> Where did they "plan" this? Are they in the black? I'm talking about the
:> storylines/art in the X-titles, which didn't match the film, then tried
:> to match the film, and now sort of (in some cases) reflect the influence
:> of the film. Long after it's success was clear.
: -sigh- Uncanny X-Men and X-Men weren't SUPPOSED to connect. That was the
: intention of Ultimate X-Men. When audiences went to the cineplex to see
: X-Men: The Movie, they were supposed to get a free copy of Ultimate X-Men
Yes, okay, I get what you're trying to say. Thing is, Uncanny and X-men
DID try to connect, after the fact, and very sloppily. I was reading
them...I picked up on it.
: #1, in which the X-Men of the movie kept going. Production problems --
: mainly getting a creative team behind the book with sufficient work to make
: it worth releasing -- caused Ultimate X-Men to be postponed. The prequels
: were still being released, and Marvel chose to give away the Wolverine
: prequel instead.
Which is where bad planning and scrambling come into the evaluation.
: It wasn't until the month of the film's release that Harras and Arad
: realized that neither Uncanny nor X-Men had a visual connection to the film
: other than the name. The title logo was re-done and the starburst added in
: as quickly as possible to make that connection visible to the casual
: consumer. Unfortunately, with the film not leading people to brave going to
: the comic store, the move was a waste of time.
Agreed. Completely.
: It's only been recently -- when, incidentally, Marvel's *complete* failure
: to cash in on the movie other than in toy sales resulted in new
: management -- that the X-books have been made to come closer to the movie.
IE, they learned from their mistakes and got a bit smarter about the
whole thing, with hindsight aplenty.
: This is, no doubt, a directive from above since no revamp of the X-Men would
: be truly effective if the casual consumer or consumer of other titles came
: into X-Men expecting something closer to the movie and discovered something
: much different.
Sure, given.
:> From everything, everywhere, I've ever read about the movie, from any
:> source, its success widely exceeded all expectations. You and I live in
:> very different worlds.
: There's a Variety article in which it states that NONE of the films that
: summer reached expected sales. X-Men was one of a number of films to have a
: tremendous opening weekend -- far better than expected -- but then the box
: office grew cold quite quickly. The film was helped tremendously by a
: hastened direct-sales video release but Fox admits it could have done much
: better.
It played in Boston for a llllooooonnnnngggggg time, as only the steady
moneymakers do.
: The same can be said about 2001. Despite tremendous successes with films
: like Moulin Rouge, Tomb Raider, etc. only two films -- Harry Potter and the
: forthcoming Lord of the Rings -- look to have any tremendous success coming
: to them. The best film coming into November 2001 was, incidentally, Rush
: Hour at $300+ million... which is about what Titanic made in its first
: month!
Titanic isn't the standard upon which all films are judged now, is it? I
mean, it's the very definition of exceptional. Not every film can be
Batman Returns or Star Wars Episode 1.
:> Except they didn't. We fans liked the movie.
: Whether we liked or disliked the movie is irrelevant. The point still
: stands: as fans, we have a more intimate knowledge of the source text (in
: this case, the X-Men history and all that it entails). The film cannot hope
: to match our body of knowledge completely, and any digression will lead to
: fans complaining as they leave the theatre. Even if it's a minor complaint
Except it didn't. Most people were surprised by how much they got right,
and how well the film worked. It was an artistic success, even for the
fans, as well as a commercial one.
: for a film you quite liked, as a fan you often don't realize that your words
: may decide for another consumer -- one who has no knowledge of the X-Men at
: all -- to choose another film instead.
Oh, c'mon. Nobody listens to these crazy fanboys, except casual consumers
who don't even know them but are willing to be scared away from a film
because it didn't please some geeky Simpsons comic store types? Point A
does not lead to Point B.
: And there were people who came out complaining about the film, at least when
: I went to the theatre. Remember, this is Hollywood we're talking about --
: bad word of mouth can sink a film completely.
EXCEPT IT DIDN'T HAVE BAD WORD OF MOUTHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! [echoing voice in
empty chamber. Big big chamber]
:> I've read very positive things about the Burton films and about Keaton's
:> performance, right here on USENET. Of course no one liked the fourth one,
:> it was crap.
: Read Batman Unmasked. In 1989, Batman fans -- on Usenet, in comic shops,
: etc. -- were vocally against the film. To say that there are positive
: comments about Batman in 1999, 2000 or 2001 is irrelevant: by this point the
: comparison is being made in hindsight against a product that fans disliked
: even more.
And that still constitutes one of the biggest selling films of the
century.
: To say the book is crap then isn't saying the same thing as the book is good
: because the books which followed are much crappier.
It also didn't matter; the film, like X-men, was a hit.
:> What does duplicate mean? Photocopy? I think your opinions on fanboys are
:> skewed. There's not enough of them to really affect anything, and they're
:> all going to go to the film anyway.
: Duplicate in this matter means that they use the comic norms as the norms of
: the world around them. Fanboys, Trekkers, etc. are scary to the public at
: large because they perceive portions of reality differently than others.
Does anyone really perceive reality in the same way?
: As someone who's studied the problem of comics-based adaptations from an
: academic perspective, believe me when I say that fanboys are taken somewhat
: seriously by movie executives who are desperate to prevent any bad news
: coming out because that's what the entertainment press loves.
So instead of trying to please them you try to keep them in the dark as
long as possible?
:> The art that shows the same costume and similar characters? Just how is
:> someone not so familiar with comics supposed to be able to make all the
:> discerning gradations?
: Ultimate Spider-Man's Peter Parker looks like a kid. He's shown at high
: school. Amazing Spider-Man's Peter Parker is an adult and shown as a teacher
: in high school. It's an easy distinction to make if you compare the two.
About as easy as distinguishing any other book featuring similar
characters at different ages/periods in their lives.
:> So, they're not confusing if you're familiar with them, but you don't
:> need to be familiar with them to not be confused? What?
: If you're not familiar with the Spider-Man books, starting one isn't hard
: because it the books don't reference each other time and time again. If you
: read them all, you can make up pretty much any order for them. And since all
: three -- Amazing, Peter Parker, Tangled Web -- are the same Spider-Man, you
: can approach any of them easily enough. Hence the total lack of confusion.
Did we notice THY crossing over anywhere with other currently pupblished
books beside it on the shelves?
: If you ask, that's the answer. If you come into a comic store with your
: parent, and are told just to pick up a comic, and the characters don't look
: like the cartoon or the toys, are you going to buy the comic? If you're a
: teen or young adult, and you enter the store to get an X-Men comic and one
: is much closer to the cartoon than this other one, are you going to get that
: closer one or not?
I'm going to get the one that looks like fun! With clean attractive art
and pretty people!
: The title "Hidden Years" implies it's set in the past. You still have to
: explain WHY these tales are worth telling after thirty years (which is quite
: possible) and why the customer should choose this over all of the other
: X-books which are closer to what you're familiar with.
Here's your answer: It's by John Byrne, doing the characters that made
him famous.
:> Surely as easy to say as explaining what each Spidey book is supposed to
:> be about.
: Let's see: replacement tales for when the X-Men weren't selling but still in
: print as a reprint tale VS Spider-Man's big adventures, Spider-Man's
: personal life and people affected by Spider-Man. Tough choice, but I'd still
: go for the second.
Let's see, boring guy in silly suit worried about his aunt with spider
powers, or exciting group of sexy multi-racial people with infinite
abilities, sci-fi settings, and lots of soapy potential. I know which one
I'd pick, too.
: That's why I approve of Quesada's revamp. Now we have: the X-Men at home
: (New X-Men), the X-Men who can't go out in public so much (Uncanny X-Men),
: the X-Men looking for Destiny's lost diaries (X-Treme X-Men), the celebrity
: mutants (X-Force), everyday mutants (Muties), the mutant freedom fighter
: (Cable), Wolverine (Wolverine) and the Sliders/Quantum Leap version of the
: X-Men (Exiles).
Of that list, I need about three. Whereas before the revamp, I needed
.... about 3.
:> Or people could just understand that superheroes come from comic books. I
:> don't think comics actually are forgotten artifacts, even now.
: Public perception of comics is principally as children's entertainment.
: NBC's push to get teens watching television on Saturday morning is the most
: prominent example to my mind of how deeply entrenched the American public is
: into the Victorian-era's hierarchy of artistic consumption. Cartoons and
: comics are for kids, teens have drive-in and B-movies, college students get
: foreign art films/action movies/comedies, and adults consume dramas. Sad,
: but more true than false.
Yes, but they haven't forgotten they exist altogether, which is more
where you were going. And the X-men movie had grown-up sexy actors,
while the Batman films actually had homoeroticism and S&M kink.
Shawn
Brian Fried
> It played in Boston for a llllooooonnnnngggggg time, as only the steady
> moneymakers do.
But how many screens are on the average cineplex these days? One of the
principal reasons for the failure of both 2000 and 2001's sumemr movie
seasons has been the greater number of screens in metropolitain areas.
Take this area, for example, where we have 7 theatres and 87 screens amongst
them, plus two independents of one screen each. Of those 87, Lord of the
Rings is playing on 20 of them because there's a high demand. Three months
from now, the film will still be playing -- probably on one or two screens
in the city -- because the film is a blockbuster and is only replaced by
blockbusters. Then it goes to repetoire theatres. It doesn't mean that it's
a steady moneymaker -- it means that there is still enough screen space to
keep the film going.
My local cineplexes have 24 and 16 screens each (respectively). How many
times do you think I've gone to a blockbuster and be the only one in the
theatre? More than I'd like to count, that's for sure!
> Titanic isn't the standard upon which all films are judged now, is it? I
> mean, it's the very definition of exceptional. Not every film can be
> Batman Returns or Star Wars Episode 1.
In Hollywood, you're only as good as the last thing that happened. Each
blockbuster pushes the bar higher. That's why the ticket prices are going up
right before Star Wars Episode 2 --- it's going to get the biggest box
office weekend yet (unless Spider-Man, opening that same weekend, beats it)
and that will be the new standard to beat.
> Except it didn't. Most people were surprised by how much they got right,
> and how well the film worked. It was an artistic success, even for the
> fans, as well as a commercial one.
Actually, Fox claimed (in Variety, IIRC) that they lost money on X-Men. It
cost $85 million to make and $122 million to promote -- and by September
they'd only recouped about $150 million. Video helped recoup the cost.
As for surprised they got it right: after Batman & Robin, Barb Wire, The
Crow II and other bad movies, who had high expectations?
> Oh, c'mon. Nobody listens to these crazy fanboys, except casual consumers
> who don't even know them but are willing to be scared away from a film
> because it didn't please some geeky Simpsons comic store types? Point A
> does not lead to Point B.
It does for some cases. The last Hollywood consumer survey report I read --
sometime last year, so I forget the reference -- stated that 1 in 5 audience
members isn't certain that they want to see film A. It's a drop from the 1
in 3 from the late 80s, but the 80s also had much cheaper ticket prices and
audiences are far less inclined to see another film if the one they intend
to go to is sold out nowadays.
> And that still constitutes one of the biggest selling films of the
> century.
Thanks to the high ticket price and tremendous ancillary merchandising of
WCI. Incidentally, far more people went to see Superman: The Movie than
Batman: The Movie, but Batman holds the record because ticket prices doubled
over the decade. And as much as a success the movie was at the box office,
WCI still lost their shirts thanks to bad deals (hence why Batman Returns
was given a much smaller budget... to recoup costs!).
> It also didn't matter; the film, like X-men, was a hit.
#1 doesn't constitute a hit when the sales are still going down. Quesada was
right to point that out. A hit today is something that sells out very
quickly and possibly sells out a second printing. GI Joe #1 is a hit, Fray
#1 is a hit.
> So instead of trying to please them you try to keep them in the dark as
> long as possible?
You make sure they're not the primary market, that's all. Fanatics can crash
a film if you're not careful.
Case in point: when I went to see Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone, I
thought it was a good movie. Leaving the theatre, I heard the people behind
me and in front of me saying it was a good movie but there were big mistakes
and parts left out. Thankfully, it was midnight by then and nobody was
buying tickets. Had someone who was a fan heard from another fan that there
were big errors, they may be disinclined to buy their tickets -- and that's
the biggest fear of any movie executive.