Byrne, HULK, Wizard and Mania
Chris Abel
appears that he's may end up retconning after all. And worst of all he's
taking cues from the old live-action TV show for his run on HULK.
Quoted from June 6,1998 Newsarama
http://www.mania.com/newsarama/newsarama060598.html:
"'...There's nothing to 'fix' on the HULK. PAD fixed the whole package way
back when, when we were all in diapers. All you'll be seeing here is a new
direction, a new take on things. Betty won't be arising from the grave
anytime soon. The Maestro won't blink out of existence as if he never were
here in the first place. And NO, you probably won't be hearing the words
'Hulk Smash.'"
Quoted from Wizard #85
"Byrne said the Hulk's personality will edge back toward the "Hulk Smash!"
version...'That's the direction Marvel wants it to go," he said. ' but it
definitely won't be there on day one'...fans dont' have to worry that Betty
Banner, wgo died in issue #466, will be revived. Unless of course Byrne
changes his mind.
'I guess Peter David said he thinks she's permanently dead,' Byrne said
wryly. 'But I think I could revive her in Two panels.'"
Not only are we gonna have the Banner and Hulk trapsing around the country
as a wanted drifter (are we gonna have a reporter hounding him the whole
way?), But Byrne apparently thinks that PAD's Hulk does need some Fixing
after all. I dread February, when he takes over.
--
Chris Abel
Owner
Genesis Comics
Check out our web page at: http://www.flash.net/~genecom
Dwight Williams
Or was there arm-twisting that we don't know about?
Either way, we don't know for sure...
I know I *don't* need to go back to "Hulk Smash" again...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society
Padguy
> 'I guess Peter David said he thinks she's permanently dead,' Byrne said
>wryly. 'But I think I could revive her in Two panels.'"
>
>
Actually, no, I said that she would have stayed dead for as long as I was
writing the book. That's one of the reasons I wrote #467 the way I did: To
indicate to the readers that I had no intention of it being a cheat and having
Betty be cheaply revived had I stayed aboard.
On the other hand, I did build in a "trap door" to bring Betty back if another
writer (a) chose to use it and (b) asked me what it was. It's right in the
storyline (and no, I won't tell you guys, so don't ask.) Basically, I could
have brought Betty back in one panel if I was so inclined.
Then again, I could also write the Demon as a rhymer (he said wryly).
PAD
Brian C. Saunders
Williams) wrote:
>> way?), But Byrne apparently thinks that PAD's Hulk does need some Fixing
>> after all. I dread February, when he takes over.
>
>Or was there arm-twisting that we don't know about?
>
>Either way, we don't know for sure...
>
>I know I *don't* need to go back to "Hulk Smash" again...
This is all internal Marvel politics. It's not about what the fans
want, it's about Marvel deciding what they want the fans to want. And
when that happens, you get Marvel-UK, Heroes World, and fifty X-titles
which are starting to drop like flies. Marvel has the right to
control what they publish, but they can't control the marketplace,
which has turned against them(Marvel Universe, gone in 7 issues).
I've decided to start looking forward to the end of Marvel Comics,
which will bring an end to my Hulk collection. So much for that.
Brian, who's standing back and watching the abyss open up in front of
Marvel.
Luke?
>On the other hand, I did build in a "trap door" to bring Betty back if another
>writer (a) chose to use it and (b) asked me what it was. It's right in the
>storyline (and no, I won't tell you guys, so don't ask.) Basically, I could
>have brought Betty back in one panel if I was so inclined.
I think I found it. In Incredile Hulk #647, Betty says: "Hey, did I
ever mention I'm actually a clone of the original Betty Banner, so
don't freak out if I die from some weird gamma poisoning caused
(maybe) by something involving somebody's blood, it's no big deal."
Was that it?
--
Luke Gattuso - Lousy email: dogw...@hotmail.com
Lousy web page: http://www.csun.edu/~lg42537/index.html
Victor Wong
Dwight Williams wrote in message <6q2km6$h...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>Chris Abel (gen...@flash.net) writes:
>> After reading Byrne's new direction for thr HULK in this month's Wizard,
it
>> appears that he's may end up retconning after all. And worst of all he's
>> taking cues from the old live-action TV show for his run on HULK.
>> Not only are we gonna have the Banner and Hulk trapsing around the
country
>> as a wanted drifter (are we gonna have a reporter hounding him the whole
>> way?), But Byrne apparently thinks that PAD's Hulk does need some Fixing
>> after all. I dread February, when he takes over.
>
>Or was there arm-twisting that we don't know about?
>
>Either way, we don't know for sure...
>
>I know I *don't* need to go back to "Hulk Smash" again...
At the risk of incurring a flame-war, let me say that I LIKED the 1978-80 TV
series
with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno.
And it's not surprising that Byrne would find himself attracted to the TV
show, because
it evoked that same "back-to-basics" approach that Byrne himself likes to
use.
Producer Kenneth Johnson took the basic elements of the Hulk dilemma and
made it possible for everyone to believe that the Hulk could exist in
real-time. The Hulk's effect on "real people" are shown off quite
nicely--for example, one episode dealt with Banner spotting child abuse, and
going against the father as the Hulk.
So Byrne could do worse. He COULD try to go back to the
"split-Banner-in-two"storyline that he himself tried several years ago.
tru...@my-dejanews.com
Chris Abel <gen...@flash.net> wrote:
> Quoted from Wizard #85
> 'I guess Peter David said he thinks she's permanently dead,' Byrne said
> wryly. 'But I think I could revive her in Two panels.'"
Could someone please tell Mr. Byrne that this is *not* a good thing?
-- Wade (hoping good sense will prevail)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Doran
<<After reading Byrne's new direction for thr HULK in this month's Wizard,
it
appears that he's may end up retconning after all. And worst of all he's
taking cues from the old live-action TV show for his run on HULK.
Quoted from June 6,1998 Newsarama
http://www.mania.com/newsarama/newsarama060598.html:
"'...There's nothing to 'fix' on the HULK. PAD fixed the whole package
way
back when, when we were all in diapers. All you'll be seeing here is a
new
direction, a new take on things. Betty won't be arising from the grave
anytime soon. The Maestro won't blink out of existence as if he never
were
here in the first place. And NO, you probably won't be hearing the words
'Hulk Smash.'">>
Sorry I have to ask (I wade through a lot of this stuff a week), but
wasn't this actually MATT IDELSON's words, and not Byrne's?
I don't know if it make a difference, but just for the sake of clarity...
michael
Stewart Vernon
>I think I found it. In Incredile Hulk #647, Betty says: "Hey, did I
>ever mention I'm actually a clone of the original Betty Banner, so
>don't freak out if I die from some weird gamma poisoning caused
>(maybe) by something involving somebody's blood, it's no big deal."
>
>Was that it?
One word...
PRICELESS!!!
Thank you! I needed that laugh! :)
-Stewart
Brian H. Bailie
pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote:
>
> Actually, no, I said that she would have stayed dead for as long as I was
> writing the book. That's one of the reasons I wrote #467 the way I did: To
> indicate to the readers that I had no intention of it being a cheat and having
> Betty be cheaply revived had I stayed aboard.
This may seem like a naive question, and forgive me if it's been answered
elsewhere, but...
Why kill her at all?
What was the thought process that led you to think "I've got to get rid of
one of the small handful of major characters in this book"? And in a
particularly permanent way (only in comics does this line make sense :) ).
I mean, it's not like you killed her and then she could get CPR the next
issue. It's clear you meant to send her the way of Ben Parker and Bucky
Barnes.
So, I'm just curious. How come?
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Brian C. Saunders
Bailie) wrote:
>In article <199808022255...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote:
>>
>> Actually, no, I said that she would have stayed dead for as long as I was
>> writing the book. That's one of the reasons I wrote #467 the way I did: To
>> indicate to the readers that I had no intention of it being a cheat and having
>> Betty be cheaply revived had I stayed aboard.
>
>This may seem like a naive question, and forgive me if it's been answered
>elsewhere, but...
>
>Why kill her at all?
Unless PAD decides to answer, here's some thoughts on why he offed
Betty.
I believe he's answered the question in the past that it was done to
shake the title up somewhat. Betty's the one who
Hulk/Banner(clumbersome designation, but accurate folks...) have built
their life around. Several years of stories had taken away everything
that Hulk/Banner had aspired to: the Pantheon, where they could do
good work and influence the world, their personal stabilty(losing
control of their savage persona, then losing Banner), and losing
everybody who cared about him, because he didn't have a human side to
emote with anymore. After doing all that to the Hulk, it would have
been a little dull to return the book to an conventional status quo.
Moreover, Hulk/Banner being happy is not in the cards. They are a
tragic character and ducking that would have been against the grain of
the title. So, having established that Betty is all that Hulk/Banner
has left, taking her away would have been something different, which
would allow for different types of stories and place the Hulk in new
situations, from which they can learn, and ultimately, grow as a
character. Which is what good stories are about, y'know?
Brian(the other Brian), who find that plural characters are a pain in
the pronoun dept.
Acxxi
>has left, taking her away would have been something different, which
>would allow for different types of stories and place the Hulk in new
>situations, from which they can learn, and ultimately, grow as a
>character. Which is what good stories are about, y'know?
The sad truth is that that IS what good stories are about, but not what Marvel
comics is always all about. I've been reading the Hulk since PAD took over,
and the only issues I didn't like were probably the best selling issues: you
know, forced cross-overs with other titles (such as that
still-baffling-to-someone-like-me-who-didn't-read-the-other-tie-in X-person
crossover that led to Liefield writing Captain America or what-not).
PAD is probably my favorite writer in comics (read "Soulsearchers and Company"
if you haven't already), BUT Byrne is no slouch. And Byrne also has an amusing
tendency to "hint" at things in interviews and then not actually allow those
hints to ever take form.
frankly, anything would be better than this newest Hulk storyline... I might
drop the title until Byrne takes over...
R. Kevin Doyle
Mark W. Hale
[snip]
>PAD is probably my favorite writer in comics (read "Soulsearchers and
>Company" if you haven't already), BUT Byrne is no slouch. And Byrne
>also has an amusing tendency to "hint" at things in interviews and
>then not actually allow those hints to ever take form.
>frankly, anything would be better than this newest Hulk storyline...
>I might drop the title until Byrne takes over...
>
>R. Kevin Doyle
I just read Incredible Hulk #467. As far as I'm concerned,
this was the last issue of the Hulk. A more beautiful comic has not
been written in recent months, and maybe not in years. I can't think
of anything that can follow this. As such, I will not read another
Incredible Hulk. Or Rampaging Hulk. Or any Hulk that has nothing to
do with Mr David.
During the Heroes Reborn fiasco, when Thor reverted to Journey
into Mystery and the 'Frightful Four' debuted, I swore that i would
have nothing to do with Marvel if they canned the Hulk and the Silver
Surfer. In light of the improvments in most all titles concerned, I
rethought this. But my Hulk boycott still stands. I just can't do
without my Avengers every month, y'know.
Still, Mr David [if you're reading this], best of luck to you.
And tank you for writing some of the best comics I've had the pleasure
to read. And to hell with anyone who says different.
Mark W. Hale, off to slumberland, to dream of an army of
other-dimensional Hulks tearing their way across the country.
PS -- I may be picking up Young Justice soon, just so I don't get
caught off guard a few months down the line.
PPS -- But I won't be picking up the first issue of Slingers.
Padguy
>I believe he's answered the question in the past that it was done to
>shake the title up somewhat. Betty's the one who
>Hulk/Banner(clumbersome designation, but accurate folks...) have built
>their life around. Several years of stories had taken away everything
>that Hulk/Banner had aspired to: the Pantheon, where they could do
>good work and influence the world, their personal stabilty(losing
>control of their savage persona, then losing Banner), and losing
>everybody who cared about him, because he didn't have a human side to
>emote with anymore. After doing all that to the Hulk, it would have
>been a little dull to return the book to an conventional status quo.
>Moreover, Hulk/Banner being happy is not in the cards. They are a
>tragic character and ducking that would have been against the grain of
>the title. So, having established that Betty is all that Hulk/Banner
>has left, taking her away would have been something different, which
>would allow for different types of stories and place the Hulk in new
>situations, from which they can learn, and ultimately, grow as a
>character. Which is what good stories are about, y'know?
>
>
That's pretty much it. That covers about all the reasons I would have put
forward.
PAD
Brian Wilkins
wrote:
>Not only are we gonna have the Banner and Hulk trapsing around the country
>as a wanted drifter (are we gonna have a reporter hounding him the whole
>way?), But Byrne apparently thinks that PAD's Hulk does need some Fixing
>after all. I dread February, when he takes over.
Glad to know that I am not the only one dreading the day Byrne takes
over the Hulk. After he totally destroyed Wonder Woman over at DC, I
guess he feels that it's time to move over to Marvel and wreak havoc
with their universe!
I just don't think Byrne cares enough about the characters and their
respective histories enough to write good stories anymore. Yes,
occassionally he writes a good story, but those are few and far
between. If he doesn't like how another writer before him has done
something, he either ignores the whole thing or totally mutilates the
history to fit what he wants.
Lastly, Byrne has this major ego trip where he thinks he is the comic
book god. It seems that he has nothing good to say about any of his
peers. Check out the X-men Wizard special for an example. When asked
what his least favorite X-character was, he says "Hard call. I'm
tempted to say all the one's created since I left! Certainly none of
them have spoken to me in any significant way."
Sorry, to be so negative, but when it comes to Byrne I get
so....Burned!
Brian Wilkins
bwil...@magicnetXYZ.net remove the XYZ to reply
Valued Acer Customer
country
> >as a wanted drifter (are we gonna have a reporter hounding him the whole
> >way?), But Byrne apparently thinks that PAD's Hulk does need some Fixing
> >after all. I dread February, when he takes over.
Not to disagree with you there.....but might it also be that Byrne might
want to try something "new" with the character. After all, he's not PAD.
He's never claimed to be PAD. He's John Byrne.
> Glad to know that I am not the only one dreading the day Byrne takes
> over the Hulk. After he totally destroyed Wonder Woman over at DC, I
> guess he feels that it's time to move over to Marvel and wreak havoc
> with their universe!
"Totally destroyed.....", I am afraid that I can't disagree with you more.
Byrne tiued WW's continuity with the New Gods ( a staple of DC's Universe.)
We saw guest shots by numerous heroes and villains. Including Merlin.
Come on what more do you want from the guy? The characters were refreshing
and interesting.
> I just don't think Byrne cares enough about the characters and their
> respective histories enough to write good stories anymore. Yes,
> occassionally he writes a good story, but those are few and far
> between. If he doesn't like how another writer before him has done
> something, he either ignores the whole thing or totally mutilates the
> history to fit what he wants.
Not to be blatant, but all writers do that. Especially in the comics.
Spiderman's a clone. No he's the real one...No he's the clone.
Wolverine's claws aren't based on implants. (now who came up with that
one....) They killed off Hal Jordan...then brought him back. And anyone
who questions Byrne's love for the work of some of comics greats should
check out his work in OMAC, Man of Steel, Fantastic Four, New Gods, Jack
Kirby's 4th World etc.
> Lastly, Byrne has this major ego trip where he thinks he is the comic
> book god.
Let's just look at his current competition:
Liefield: can this guy not draw toes, and how come all his paramilitary
types look like Cable....
MacFarlane: Spawn's okay.....but is the story really going anywhere?
If he does have a big ego....so what! He still one of the best authors and
artist out there. His work is consistently good.
>It seems that he has nothing good to say about any of his
> peers. Check out the X-men Wizard special for an example. When asked
> what his least favorite X-character was, he says "Hard call. I'm
> tempted to say all the one's created since I left! Certainly none of
> them have spoken to me in any significant way."
First of all Byrne has stated on numerous occassions (especially in his
NextMen letter column) that he is a big fan of Walt Simonson, Art Adams,
Dave Cockrum, of course Jack Kirby, Roger Stern, Tom Defalco (but his work
on SpiderMan not FF) and Chris Claremont.
As to your second statement. Let's just take a quick survey. Do you
personally think that the last 5 years of X-Men has measured up to the
period done by Byrne/Claremont/Cockrum. Look at the stories that came
during that period.....
The Hellfire Club
The Dark Phoenix Saga
I, Magneto
The Brood
The Morlocks
Proteus
Wendigo
The New Brotherhood of Evil Mutants
and that's just in X-Men: I won't even go into the landmark work he did in
both Superman and FF.
What has the latest group of Marvel Creators come up with.....
The Legacy Virus: how long are they planning on streching this plot line
out.....
Cable/Stryfe: Has anyone ever asked if Stryfe eas always supposed to be a
clone of Cable. Then how come he has the same scar over his eye. Anyone
with a hint of biological knowledge knows that scars are not the result of
genetics, but rather life experiences and so it's highly unlikely that a
clone would have the same ones as his template. It's probably more likely
that Stryfe was supposed to be a "future version of Cable". Read your back
issues of X-Force again with that in mind. But once Cable's popularity
took off TPTB decided not to turn him into a villain.
Family Members we didn't know about: The third Summer's Brother (How come
Corsair mentioned to Scott that he had Grandparents (during Paul Smith's
run as artist) buit forgot to mention another little tyke.
X-Ternals: Marvel has yet to decide if that was all just a bad dream or
what!
I think there's a common misconception running through the comics industry
lately. That to be successful....you have to shake things up....Massive
revelations about hidden pasts....clones/not clones..... etc. etc. When if
you look at what most everyone thinks are the really great comic book
stories, they revolve around the "same old" characters dealing with
everyday situations. That was what separated Marvel in the early days.
You had SpiderMan, a hero, who in his secret Id got no respect from his
peers in school, his boss at work and had to struggle to make ends meet
financially. The Fantastic Four....a hero team "family" that constantly
bickered among themselves. Ben Grimm having to deal with being a monster.
ETC ETC.
And as a final consideration: think about this.......
Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, John Byrne, Chris Claremont, Jim Lee etc etc.
mangaed to make the same group of characters vibrant and exciting for over
30 years (through Vietnam, the disco years, rock and roll, the rise and
fall of communism, etc etc.)...... So if it's not the creation that's
gotten tired and boring...........
> Sorry, to be so negative, but when it comes to Byrne I get
> so....Burned!
Now in closing I'll say that I respect your opinion. Everyone has their
individual preferences when it comes to authors and artists (there's even a
few Byrne stuff that I don't like (usually when he just does the writing
and not the writing and the art.) But I think its important to let history
be the judge...... If Byrne's work was so damaging to the continuity of
the comics "world" why do others keep building on it and if the work of
these other "greats" (Liefield etc.) is so wonderful how come we have to
keep retroactively changing things or conveniently forgetting them....
Just another opinion......
Stewart Vernon
<man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>Not to disagree with you there.....but might it also be that Byrne might
>want to try something "new" with the character. After all, he's not PAD.
>He's never claimed to be PAD. He's John Byrne.
I won't bash Byrne because I've liked MOST things he has done.. I
wasn't a fan of his She-Hulk, nor the work he did several years back
on the Avengers. I also didn't like what he did with Wonder Woman
during the first year he took over, but I give him the benefit of the
doubt that his run improved with time..
BUT as for Hulk and trying "new" things... He is returning to the
dumber Hulk, and admitted himself to taking cues from the old TV show
for his Hulk ideas.. So he can't be given too much credit for the
"new"ness...
>"Totally destroyed.....", I am afraid that I can't disagree with you more.
>Byrne tiued WW's continuity with the New Gods ( a staple of DC's Universe.)
Ummm... Actually George Perez did that way back with the War of the
Gods and stories which led up to that. The Greek gods were closely
tied in with the New Gods... Just that the writers since Perez have
not played up that until now.
>Come on what more do you want from the guy? The characters were refreshing
>and interesting.
I LOVED what Byrne had been doing with his Next Men book at Dark
Horse.. I didn't like where he took Wonder Woman. I think I'm being
fair since I like most of his work.. I just didn't like his version
of Wonder Woman.
>And anyone
>who questions Byrne's love for the work of some of comics greats should
>check out his work in OMAC, Man of Steel, Fantastic Four, New Gods, Jack
>Kirby's 4th World etc.
I've never cared for the New Gods stuff... But OMAC, Man of Steel,
and FF were some of the best comic stuff I read and arguably some of
Byrne's best work as well. You could tell that he cared about what he
was doing..
Whereas things like Wonder Woman... I remember him saying in an
interview that "Wonder Woman" was the kind of book he did so he could
afford to do things like Next Men.. I also remember that his Avengers
work was agreed to so he could have the She-Hulk book that he wanted..
So Byrne has admitted in the past to not always being completely
enthralled with the characters he was writing.
>Let's just look at his current competition:
Or lets not... In fairness, "hack" work from Byrne surpasses a lot of
the current "hot" talent in my opinion. But there are some really
good writers out there: Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Todd DeZago, Peter
David, Frank Miller, and a score of others whom I've undoubtedly
forgotten at the moment...
Also a bunch of good artists: George Perez, Brent Anderson, Ron
Garney, and of the Kubert family (I'll wager that the Kubert dog can
draw!! :) and a score of others as well..
There's a lot of talent that I'm probably not even aware of!! So to
compare Liefeld and McFarlane... Ai caramba!
-Stewart
Valued Acer Customer
Stewart Vernon <stewart...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35cbd99c...@news.mindspring.com>...
> I won't bash Byrne because I've liked MOST things he has done.. I
> wasn't a fan of his She-Hulk, nor the work he did several years back
> on the Avengers. I also didn't like what he did with Wonder Woman
> during the first year he took over, but I give him the benefit of the
> doubt that his run improved with time..
By the Avengers, do you mean the New York Branch (w/Roger Stern) or West
Coast. Personally I loved the "Vison Quest" storyline.
> BUT as for Hulk and trying "new" things... He is returning to the
> dumber Hulk, and admitted himself to taking cues from the old TV show
> for his Hulk ideas.. So he can't be given too much credit for the
> "new"ness...
True, but he also 'borrowed' heavily from the first Superman movie to do
Man of Steel (ie-no Superboy) but I tend to think of that as going more
towards 'the character's true nature....getting back to basics......if you
would."
> Ummm... Actually George Perez did that way back with the War of the
> Gods and stories which led up to that. The Greek gods were closely
> tied in with the New Gods... Just that the writers since Perez have
> not played up that until now.
Didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. What I had meant to say was
that Byrne loves "tie-ins." Especially if he can do it with Jack Kirby
characters and I think Merlin and Morgan LeFay were all his.
> I LOVED what Byrne had been doing with his Next Men book at Dark
> Horse..
Especially the whole Danger Unlimited/Legends Universe. Man I wish that
had flown. I think I read somewhere where Byrne said NextMen might be
coming back this summer or Fall. And if we're REALLY lucky we might even
see some more Danger Unlimited or maybe 2115. Also in that same article
Byrne reported that the last line of NextMen ever was/is:
"Nathan....I'm cold." which someone rightly said would be mind-blowing if
it came from Bethany.
I didn't like where he took Wonder Woman. I think I'm being
> fair since I like most of his work.. I just didn't like his version
> of Wonder Woman.
Too each his own.
> I've never cared for the New Gods stuff... But OMAC, Man of Steel,
> and FF were some of the best comic stuff I read and arguably some of
> Byrne's best work as well. You could tell that he cared about what he
> was doing..
I should also included Namor in that as well. Kind of sad that Jack Kirby
didn't like Byrne's take on OMAC. BTW have you read "Ganthet's Tale", and
the Batman/Captain America Team Up.
> Whereas things like Wonder Woman... I remember him saying in an
> interview that "Wonder Woman" was the kind of book he did so he could
> afford to do things like Next Men.. I also remember that his Avengers
> work was agreed to so he could have the She-Hulk book that he wanted..
> So Byrne has admitted in the past to not always being completely
> enthralled with the characters he was writing.
> Or lets not... In fairness, "hack" work from Byrne surpasses a lot of
> the current "hot" talent in my opinion. But there are some really
> good writers out there: Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Todd DeZago, Peter
> David, Frank Miller, and a score of others whom I've undoubtedly
> forgotten at the moment...
Yeah I fell in love w/ Busiek's style with the line from IronMan:
"Cap, are you suuure this guy's from the government?"
> Also a bunch of good artists: George Perez, Brent Anderson, Ron
> Garney, and of the Kubert family (I'll wager that the Kubert dog can
> draw!! :) and a score of others as well..
And thank God Perez fixed Justice's costume. (Arguably the worst looking
Supersuit since some of Kitty Pryde's early outfits.)
> There's a lot of talent that I'm probably not even aware of!! So to
> compare Liefeld and McFarlane... Ai caramba!
I used those two as examples of Extreme (pardon the pun) cases. And let's
not forget Walt Simonson (writer and artist), Mike Mignola, Paul Smith,
Brett Breeding, Karl Kessel (who does a great job inking Byrne by the
way.), Terry Austin, Roger Stern, John Romita Jr. (but not on X-Men, I like
his art better with DareDevil) etc etc etc.
In closing what did you think about my remarks concerning the recent trends
in X-Men.
Victor Wong
Valued Acer Customer wrote in message
<01bdc2bc$f1ae15c0$8e6f9ecf@default>...
>> BUT as for Hulk and trying "new" things... He is returning to the
>> dumber Hulk, and admitted himself to taking cues from the old TV show
>> for his Hulk ideas.. So he can't be given too much credit for the
>> "new"ness...
>
>True, but he also 'borrowed' heavily from the first Superman movie to do
>Man of Steel (ie-no Superboy) but I tend to think of that as going more
>towards 'the character's true nature....getting back to basics......if you
>would."
That wasn't from the first Superman movie. That was from ACTION COMICS #1,
in which there is no mention of Superman donning the costume as a boy. (That
same issue also did not mention the death of Clark's parents, which is why
Byrne
felt justified in keeping the Kents alive.)
There are subtleties in the visual 'look' of Superman that borrowed from the
Christopher Reeve movie (i.e. less squint and bigger shield), and Byrne
borrowed some of the energy of George Reeves' portrayal of Clark Kent in his
interpretation of that character.
>> There's a lot of talent that I'm probably not even aware of!! So to
>> compare Liefeld and McFarlane... Ai caramba!
Well, to be fair, Liefeld HAS attempted some innovation in his version of
Cap--things
like the Picasso rotational perspective. They just don't work very well
unless you're an
arts student.
However, Liefeld fails more consistently as a WRITER. I have to admit I can
see
Marvel's point when they accuse him of ripping off Cap in his version of FA.
>In closing what did you think about my remarks concerning the recent trends
>in X-Men.
I stopped paying attention to X-Men when they started exploding the line.
With so
many X-books, the main plotline (mutants as oppressed minority) is somewhat
undermined. You can only take just so much of a persecution complex.
kashmi...@ccipost.net
after almost 10 years because Marvel wanted to take the character in a different
direction, why would Byrne take over something that he may not have free reign
on??? doesn't make sense to me.
"Ofcouse that's my opinion, I could be wrong!"
Mike
remove NOSPAM from email
Stewart Vernon
<man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>By the Avengers, do you mean the New York Branch (w/Roger Stern) or West
>Coast. Personally I loved the "Vison Quest" storyline.
To be completely fair retroactively... The West Coast book that he
was writing and drawing wasn't bad, though I hated seeing the Vision
returned to a soulless android and screwing up his marriage...
>True, but he also 'borrowed' heavily from the first Superman movie to do
>Man of Steel (ie-no Superboy) but I tend to think of that as going more
>towards 'the character's true nature....getting back to basics......if you
>would."
Getting back to basics is fine when things are bad. When he took over
Superman, I believe DC was borderline considering cancelling the book
due to low sales... So at that point ANYTHING he did would likely be
an improvement.. But on something like the Hulk when most Hulk fans
liked the direction it was going... It seems a shame go go completely
askew from that suddenly. Or maybe that's just me.
>Didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. What I had meant to say was
>that Byrne loves "tie-ins." Especially if he can do it with Jack Kirby
>characters and I think Merlin and Morgan LeFay were all his.
And perhaps Byrne took the New Gods connection to another level.
Since I didn't read them I can't be sure.. Byrne certainly seems to
like the crossover thing.
>"Nathan....I'm cold." which someone rightly said would be mind-blowing if
>it came from Bethany.
I keep hoping for more Next Men.. I could live without Danger
Unlimited.. I LIKED it... but it was too much Fantastic Four, and I'd
much rather see Byrne back on FF!! :)
>BTW have you read "Ganthet's Tale", and
>the Batman/Captain America Team Up.
Yes for Ganthet, no for the other.... I remember Ganthet as being a
good read.
>And thank God Perez fixed Justice's costume. (Arguably the worst looking
>Supersuit since some of Kitty Pryde's early outfits.)
But it was kind of counterbalanced by giving Firestar a questionable
one :) I personally liked her ORIGINAL one from waaaaaayyyy back, and
I guess this new one is similar to that but more revealing.
>I used those two as examples of Extreme (pardon the pun) cases. And let's
>not forget Walt Simonson (writer and artist), Mike Mignola, Paul Smith,
>Brett Breeding, Karl Kessel (who does a great job inking Byrne by the
>way.), Terry Austin, Roger Stern, John Romita Jr. (but not on X-Men, I like
>his art better with DareDevil) etc etc etc.
I knew I forgot a bunch.. Lots and lots...
>In closing what did you think about my remarks concerning the recent trends
>in X-Men.
To be honest? I haven't read or even wanted to read an X-book in
years.. I got turned off completely around the time they effectively
doubled the mutant line and nothing made any sense... In my opinion,
the best X-stuff was years ago when I was still a kid really.
-Stewart
Paul O'Brien
<man...@cyberramp.net> writes
>
>Not to disagree with you there.....but might it also be that Byrne might
>want to try something "new" with the character.
No, it mightn't. He's said that the tone will be similar to the
live action TV series. By which he presumably doesn't mean that
only one episode in three will be bearable and the Hulk will look
pathetic, but I can't let such a good feedline go to waste.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
My faith in anaesthetic is restored.
Dedalus
>Byrne tiued WW's continuity with the New Gods ( a staple of DC's Universe.)
> We saw guest shots by numerous heroes and villains. Including Merlin.
>Come on what more do you want from the guy? The characters were refreshing
>and interesting.
Yes, don't you love all characters who soliloquize and state EXACTLY HOW
THEY DEFEATED THE VILLAIN OF THE DAY?
Byrne's dialogue is beyond lame too. It is utterly horrid.
>Not to be blatant, but all writers do that. Especially in the comics.
>Spiderman's a clone. No he's the real one...No he's the clone.
>Wolverine's claws aren't based on implants. (now who came up with that
>one....) They killed off Hal Jordan...then brought him back. And anyone
>who questions Byrne's love for the work of some of comics greats should
>check out his work in OMAC, Man of Steel, Fantastic Four, New Gods, Jack
>Kirby's 4th World etc.
The point is nobody does it as consistently as John Byrne. He has ZERO
respect for previous writers despite what he says. Keep in mind this is the
SAME guy who bashed Image for not creating a single thing! Whereas his fame
came from working on the toys of Stan and Jack. What a hypocrite.
>and that's just in X-Men: I won't even go into the landmark work he did in
>both Superman and FF.
What landmark Superman work? What did he contribute to Superman that was so
incredbile? What story will be remembered in the annals? NOTHING. He just
redrew the origin and powered him down. Big whup.
>Just another opinion......
I'll add one too then. :)
Oh, and Terry Austin is badly missed on his pencils. Does he ink out a
blowstraw? Egads.
-D
quimico
wrote:
>
>At the risk of incurring a flame-war, let me say that I LIKED the 1978-80 TV
>series
>with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno.
>
>And it's not surprising that Byrne would find himself attracted to the TV
>show, because
>it evoked that same "back-to-basics" approach that Byrne himself likes to
>use.
It isn't "back-to-basics" approach. The producers of the referred TV
show said themselves that they applyed an over-dramatic,
soapopera-like approach to SAVE on special effects.
If you watch ANY of the show's episodes, you will count about
90% of time invested in soapoperistic drama and 10% in action.
Now, it is no secret that Byrne is a frustrated Soap's writer.
Every book he takes, he turns into soapopera. That's what
he did to Supes. That's what he did to WW.
That's what he did to the x-men, also, only those were
more-or-less created for it and the result wasn't as bad
as it could be.
>Producer Kenneth Johnson took the basic elements of the Hulk dilemma and
>made it possible for everyone to believe that the Hulk could exist in
>real-time. The Hulk's effect on "real people" are shown off quite
>nicely--for example, one episode dealt with Banner spotting child abuse, and
>going against the father as the Hulk.
I'm not saying the show was bad.
Given the limitations of the format. it was a nice solution.
I just don't agree with bringing soap to comics.
They are diferent media.
>So Byrne could do worse. He COULD try to go back to the
>"split-Banner-in-two"storyline that he himself tried several years ago.
Byrne can ALWAYS do worse.
Valued Acer Customer
Dedalus <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> wrote in article
<902627491.505329@michelob>...
> The point is nobody does it as consistently as John Byrne. He has ZERO
> respect for previous writers despite what he says.
Gee do you mean like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby?
>Keep in mind this is the
> SAME guy who bashed Image for not creating a single thing! Whereas his
fame
> came from working on the toys of Stan and Jack. What a hypocrite.
Hate to disagree with you there (well actually I don't hate it) but Byrne's
major quips with Image have to do with:
1. They don't draw buildings and other people....just splash pages of
posing teeth gritting
supers.
2. They're initial runs were always late, or never came out at all.
3. No plot or character development.
I might also point out that there is a difference between working with
characters created by previous artists/writers (as Byrne does) and passing
off cheap imitations of previous characters as your own creation.
Liefield (for example):
The Fighting American = Captain America
Supreme = Superman
Now Byrne has done "versions" of characters. Danger Unlimited is similar
to the FF and Torch of Liberty is like Captain America (except he doesn't
have a shield, the super soldier serum and he actually killed Nazis), but
Byrne has been right up front saying that that was precisely what he had
wanted to do. And the characters and storyline are decidedly different.
> What landmark Superman work? What did he contribute to Superman that was
so
> incredbile? What story will be remembered in the annals? NOTHING. He
just
> redrew the origin and powered him down. Big whup.
Gee and all the Toddler did was draw Spiderman for a few years and have
Kraven shoot him and dump him in a coffin and Jim Lee draws Scott "Slim"
Summers like Arnold Bloody Schwarzenegger, and Rob Liefield draws everyone
with ittttttyyyy bitttty little ankles and triangles for feet.
Now as for Superman: Did you read the title before Byrne fixed it......it
was pathetic! But as to what stories will be remembered.....
OKAY HERE'S A LIST:
1. Lex Luthor as the wealthy industrialist/scientist-instead of that
stupid jerk in the purple shirt.
2. Remade Lois Lane into a competent (if not always likeable woman of the
90's) and not the damsel in distress of the week.
3. Actually explained why Luthor (despite his vast intellect and
resources) never figured out Clark's secret ID. (Reread Superman #2)
4. Superman dealing with real issues like homosexuality (Maggie Sawyer),
child custody, the death penalty (#19-21), pornography, violent psychotics
(Bloodsport) etc, rather than the league of a bunch of cosmic weirdoes who
happen to have Kryptonite lasers...., alcoholism (Cat Grant) etc etc....
5. Superman losing his temper (when he thought Luthor had had his parents
killed)
6. A classic re-telling of Lori Lemaris
I also noticed that you didn't question his work on FF. But just in case:
Landmark FF work includes:
1. The Trial of Reed Richards
2. This Land is Mine
3. Childhood's End
4. Terror in a Tiny Town
5. and my personal favorite....Hero (the one where the kid immolates
himself trying to emulate Johnny Storm.)
I won't comment on your remarks concerning Byrne's inking. I am not an
artist and really can't judge the work on a technical level. I am however
a writer, and Byrne's characters have always had distinct personalities,
intricate subplots and character development. But what's all that compared
to nifty splkash pages, big guns and triangles for feet. Hmmmmm?
StarvWritr
>Kraven shoot him and dump him in a coffin
Uhh ... that wasn't Todd's story. Kraven's Final Hunt took place in ASM
#293-294, and the Toddster didn't come on until ASM #298.
Kraven's Final Hunt was written by J.M. DeMatteis and drawn by Mike Zeck.
The only thing that Todd ever did for Spidey was give him some nifty webbing.
--
Starving Writer
Daily Bugle Headlines: http://www.sigma.net/dailybugle/
Mikko Aittola
starv...@aol.com (StarvWritr) writes:
> The only thing that Todd ever did for Spidey was give him some nifty webbing.
The "nifty" webbing was NOT Todd's idea, that I'm sure of.
I seem to remember that Michael Golden was who came up with it,
but I'm not sure about that.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> writes:
> Byrne's dialogue is beyond lame too. It is utterly horrid.
Care to be more specific?
> He has ZERO respect for previous writers despite what he says.
How's that?
> Keep in mind this is the SAME guy who bashed Image for not creating
> a single thing! Whereas his fame came from working on the toys of
> Stan and Jack. What a hypocrite.
Excuse me? Has Byrne said his fame didn't came from working
on the toys created by other people?
I can't understand how you can put two separate comments that
have nothing to do with eachother and claim someone's a hypocrite
based on those.
> What landmark Superman work? What did he contribute to Superman that was so
> incredbile? What story will be remembered in the annals? NOTHING. He just
> redrew the origin and powered him down. Big whup.
What was good about Byrne's Superman work was that he made
the character work again. He had some good Superman stories to tell.
Of course I can't be sure about it, but I think Byrne's Man
of Steel miniseries will be "remembered in the annals".
I think at least the following stories are worth checking out:
Superman #1, #2
Action Comics #587 - The Demon team-up
Superman #5, #6 - The Mummy Strikes, The Last Five Hundred
The cliffhanger in #5 is just aces!
Superman #9 - The Joker, Luthor back-up story
Action Comics #592, #593
Superman #11 - Mr. MXYZPTLK
I also like the New Gods crossover by Byrne/Ordway/Wolfman
in Superman #3, Adventures #426 and Action #586.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Valued Acer Customer" <man...@cyberramp.net> writes:
> 1. Lex Luthor as the wealthy industrialist/scientist-instead of that
> stupid jerk in the purple shirt.
I think the credit for the "new" Luthor should go mainly
to Marv Wolfman. (Or the Gene Hackman Luthor from the movies?)
/Mikko
bill geradts
>
>> What landmark Superman work? What did he contribute to Superman that was so
>> incredbile? What story will be remembered in the annals? NOTHING. He just
>> redrew the origin and powered him down. Big whup.
>
> What was good about Byrne's Superman work was that he made
> the character work again. He had some good Superman stories to tell.
>
> Of course I can't be sure about it, but I think Byrne's Man
> of Steel miniseries will be "remembered in the annals".
>
> I think at least the following stories are worth checking out:
>
> Superman #1, #2
>
> Action Comics #587 - The Demon team-up
>
> Superman #5, #6 - The Mummy Strikes, The Last Five Hundred
> The cliffhanger in #5 is just aces!
>
> Superman #9 - The Joker, Luthor back-up story
>
> Action Comics #592, #593
>
> Superman #11 - Mr. MXYZPTLK
>
>
> I also like the New Gods crossover by Byrne/Ordway/Wolfman
> in Superman #3, Adventures #426 and Action #586.
>
>> /Mikko
>
>
>
true byrne is playing with other peoples toys but the mark of a good writer is
what he does with those toys.
i must admit i have been a little disapionted with his wonder woman, but that
was mainly because i don't think he is up to coloring his own work, terry
austin always seemed to make brynes work shin out a little more.
but hey with all of the crap that spiderman has had to deal with lets wait and
see, this seems to me to be one of thwe most positive things that could happen
to spidey and hopefully the hulk (al;though i like joe caseys take on things)
in a long time.
why don't we all just sit back and enjoy the ride if you don't like it get of i
for one am not ready to condemn a character just because i have a few
misgivings about the writer, too many time have i seen sone one coment that
"so&so a writer has left so i will not get that title any more" grow a brain,
surely it is worth looking at the new work firsts too many people are happy to
vilafy bryne before he even steps up to the plate.
bill geradts
Sandy
>Given the limitations of the format. it was a nice solution.
>I just don't agree with bringing soap to comics.
>They are diferent media.
Not true, PAD's early Hulk issues were very soapy. An extreme example I can
give you is at the end of Hulk #339.
Hulk: But you never forget Rick. (Said prior stuff I can't remember just so it
makes more sence)
Then a panel shows Rick looking out to the readers and he thinks to himslelf
"He called me Rick."
Ground Zero was a soapy storyline if ever I read one, and it was also the BEST
Hulk storyline I have ever read.
--
Wanna see my weird dog on Mars?
Then go to http://lonestar.texas.net/~csnow
Sandy
to look foward to at all! I loved his FF and even his first Hulk run.
Julian Eales
>
> What landmark Superman work? What did he contribute to Superman that was so
> incredbile? What story will be remembered in the annals? NOTHING. He just
> redrew the origin and powered him down. Big whup.
>
He brought the Kents back from being dead, which has been the most
monumental development in the book since the year zip. It may not be as
newsworthy as being killed or power/costume changes, but that one change
in the revamp has made the series so much better.
For that, if nothing else, he has my gratitude.
J
Sean Curtin
> The only thing that Todd ever did for Spidey was give him some nifty webbing.
And dislocated joints.
Sean Curtin
Douglas Clayborn Peterson
> Gee and all the Toddler did was draw Spiderman for a few years and have
> Kraven shoot him and dump him in a coffin
I hate to interrupt this argument, but I have to point out that Todd
McFarlane had *nothing* to do with the Kraven's Last Hunt storyline. He
didn't draw it, and most certainly did not write it.
Clay
"Who loves us? Nobody!"
-- Emily Saliers
Dwight Williams
Gary St. Lawrence -- The Saint (sa...@goodnet.com) writes:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 16:35:49 GMT, BLOCKTHI...@aye.net (Mark W. Hale)
> wrotE:
>
>> Still, Mr David [if you're reading this], best of luck to you.
>>And tank you for writing some of the best comics I've had the pleasure
>>to read.
>
> here is PRECISELY what Marvel did, verbatim.
Yeah, right up to and including Bruce's farewell to Rick. Which is where
Casey decided to turn off the path and go as far down another road as he
could...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Accidental Founder - _Chase_ Flame Keepers' Society
Mark W. Hale
-- The Saint) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 16:35:49 GMT, BLOCKTHI...@aye.net (Mark W.
Hale)
>wrotE:
>
>> Still, Mr David [if you're reading this], best of luck to you.
>>And tank you for writing some of the best comics I've had the
pleasure
>>to read.
>
> The truly ironic twist to Mark Hale's statement above is that
what he wrote
>here is PRECISELY what Marvel did, verbatim.
>
>
>Saint.
>http://www.goodnet.com/~saint/saint.htm
>
Hmph. Damn typos. You know what I meant... I hope ;)
Dedalus
Valued Acer Customer wrote in message
>>Gee do you mean like Stan Lee and Jack Kirby?
No, since Byrne himself thinks he is Kirby reincarnated.
>Hate to disagree with you there (well actually I don't hate it) but Byrne's
>major quips with Image have to do with:
> 1. They don't draw buildings and other people....just splash pages of
>posing teeth gritting
> supers.
> 2. They're initial runs were always late, or never came out at all.
> 3. No plot or character development.
4. Jealous of being outshined by up and coming young talent that outsold his
books 5 times over.
>I might also point out that there is a difference between working with
>characters created by previous artists/writers (as Byrne does) and passing
>off cheap imitations of previous characters as your own creation.
>
>Liefield (for example):
>
>The Fighting American = Captain America
>Supreme = Superman
>
>Now Byrne has done "versions" of characters. Danger Unlimited is similar
>to the FF and Torch of Liberty is like Captain America (except he doesn't
>have a shield, the super soldier serum and he actually killed Nazis), but
>Byrne has been right up front saying that that was precisely what he had
>wanted to do. And the characters and storyline are decidedly different.
Ha! Pull the other one.
Simlar? How about exact? You don't seem to realize that Byrne is possessed
with all things Kirby. In an interview I read a while back he said that he
wanted to work on the Doom Patrol because "if you look, it's actually the
FF!"
HELLO? Someone didn't read MOrrison's run of the book.
>Gee and all the Toddler did was draw Spiderman for a few years and have
>Kraven shoot him and dump him in a coffin and Jim Lee draws Scott "Slim"
>Summers like Arnold Bloody Schwarzenegger, and Rob Liefield draws everyone
>with ittttttyyyy bitttty little ankles and triangles for feet.
Err. you have your storylines confused there. Kraven's last Hunt was my
DeMatteis and Zeck and EVERY SPIDEY FAN WITH AN IOTA OF INTELLIGENCE will
tell you that's one of the the best damn Spidey stories ever. You're
thinking of "Torment" by the Toddler and yeah, that sucked. But I'm not
picking on Todd, it's too easy.
>Now as for Superman: Did you read the title before Byrne fixed it......it
>was pathetic! But as to what stories will be remembered.....
Oh, really? Read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (published in
the last few issues) and then take a few days to recuperate. Better yet,
check out Moore's Supreme which embarasses DC consistently because it shows
how the pre-Crisis Superman did not need a 'reboot'.
>OKAY HERE'S A LIST:
>1. Lex Luthor as the wealthy industrialist/scientist-instead of that
>stupid jerk in the purple shirt.
You've just described the pre-Crisis Luthor. I'm not sure what you're
getting at..
2. Remade Lois Lane into a competent (if not always likeable woman of the
>90's) and not the damsel in distress of the week.
She was in trouble every three issues and needed Super-assistance. I
actually checked. I'll grant you that she took on more of a life but hardly
significant enough to issue any credit to Byrne.
>3. Actually explained why Luthor (despite his vast intellect and
>resources) never figured out Clark's secret ID. (Reread Superman #2)
>4. Superman dealing with real issues like homosexuality (Maggie Sawyer),
>child custody, the death penalty (#19-21), pornography, violent psychotics
>(Bloodsport) etc, rather than the league of a bunch of cosmic weirdoes who
>happen to have Kryptonite lasers...., alcoholism (Cat Grant) etc etc....
I'm not sure Sawyer is there yet with Byrne's run. The Death Penalty was
far better dealt in teh "trial of Galactus" anyhow.
I'm not saying he denigrated the S-books. I'm saying he did NOTHING
significant (especialy to warrant a reboot)
>5. Superman losing his temper (when he thought Luthor had had his parents
>killed)
>6. A classic re-telling of Lori Lemaris
Bud, do a me a favour and check out the original issue - he practically
STOLE the story; it's the SAME STORY. He doesn't even tell it from a
different viewpoint.
No, landmark is FF #1-102 (Kirby and Lee). Bryne is largely re-treading (He
himself will admit to that. He has repeatedly said he is invoking Kirby in
his work at all times. That is just creepy)
>I won't comment on your remarks concerning Byrne's inking. I am not an
>artist and really can't judge the work on a technical level. I am however
>a writer, and Byrne's characters have always had distinct personalities,
>intricate subplots and character development. But what's all that compared
>to nifty splkash pages, big guns and triangles for feet. Hmmmmm?
My fave artists are Tony Harris, Michael Zulli, Miller and Sienkiewicz for
your info. I was never trying to defend Image comics to you (even though
they have published some excellent work..check out KB's Astro City) but I'm
saying Byrne is NOT a good storyteller and even though he has had success in
the past, all he does now is take Kirby concepts and integrate them into
anything he does. Check out WW for more heinous details...
Peace.
-D
Dedalus
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
>
>"
>> Excuse me? Has Byrne said his fame didn't came from working
> on the toys created by other people?
>
> I can't understand how you can put two separate comments that
> have nothing to do with eachother and claim someone's a hypocrite
> based on those.
He doesn't have to say it. He bashes Image for creating nothing original (i
can't remember the column of NextMen I read it in) and it is IRONIC and
hypocritical because he has hardly ever created any original characters
himself. In fact, as a poster pointed out, has created characters VERY
similar to Marvel and DC characters (check out Torch of Liberty in Danger
Unlimited...it's Cap, for pete's sake and I'm NO fan of Liefeld but it's
amazing how the hounds come out when Ol'Robbie rips off Marvel compared to
when Byrne does.)
Please respond if I have to clarify again.
> What was good about Byrne's Superman work was that he made
> the character work again. He had some good Superman stories to tell.
It wasn't working?? the longest-selling and first super-hero character was
doing just fine. It was a marketing/promotional thing that had NOTHING to do
with the loss of artistic merits behind the greatest superhero ever. Check
out Moore's last say on Supes. 'Nuff said.
> Of course I can't be sure about it, but I think Byrne's Man
> of Steel miniseries will be "remembered in the annals".
IT is horrendously bad! It's actually really hilarious at parts. LIke
where Clark is shaving with his heat vision and Byrne is taking his
meticulous narrative time explaining the superpower physics of the
situation. It's like, Duh, I KNOW how he's shaving. No need to tell, Byrne,
just SHOW.
> I think at least the following stories are worth checking out:
>
> Superman #1, #2
Mediocre Superman in #1. #2 fared a lot better. I will admit that Byrne
gave Luthor more of that insidious quality we have known to love but he
WASTED the opportunity to develop Luthor but instead made it painfully clear
in his near-two-year run how depowered Superman was. Okay, Byrne, we get
it..now let's MOVE ON...
> Action Comics #587 - The Demon team-up
>
> Superman #5, #6 - The Mummy Strikes, The Last Five Hundred
> The cliffhanger in #5 is just aces!
Yes, it made me think "I hate Byrne cliffhangers! This is by the far the
worst yet!"
> Superman #9 - The Joker, Luthor back-up story
His best Luthor work. I agree.
But check out Gaiman's Luthor in Black Orchid just a year later. (I know,
using Gaiman against other mortal writers can be unfair :)
> Action Comics #592, #593
>
> Superman #11 - Mr. MXYZPTLK
Funny, I admit. But it would elicit a smirk is all. And I'm not that hard
to impress. Quantum & Woody has me on the floor, wetting myself.
> I also like the New Gods crossover by Byrne/Ordway/Wolfman
> in Superman #3, Adventures #426 and Action #586.
The thing is, during that crossover, and with so much of Byrne's dialogue,
the balloons are almost interchangeable. no one has a distinct voice.
Peace
-D
Valued Acer Customer
Dedalus <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> wrote in article
<902943610.597861@michelob>...
> 4. Jealous of being outshined by up and coming young talent that outsold
his
> books 5 times over.
Strange then that since Image is doing such great work that with the
exception of Spawn, the local half priced bookstores have truckloads of
their back issues, while there are very few issues of Byrne's stuff. And
it's not because of age of material either since there are alot of back
issues of that same time period (mid 80's) as well.
> Ha! Pull the other one.
> Simlar? How about exact? You don't seem to realize that Byrne is
possessed
> with all things Kirby. In an interview I read a while back he said that
he
> wanted to work on the Doom Patrol because "if you look, it's actually the
> FF!"
> HELLO? Someone didn't read MOrrison's run of the book.
Check my other post for my response to that question. As to Doom Patrol,
do you think it might be possible that Byrne was comparing that both books
had the "squabbling family" dynamic inherent to them, as well as the
non-traditional super hero superhero-ala no pretenses made to secret ids
and what not. Not to mention the fact that Robotman's condition (a human
mind trapped in an android body) leads to similar story ideas as Ben Grimm
(man vs. monster.)
> Err. you have your storylines confused there. Kraven's last Hunt was my
> DeMatteis and Zeck and EVERY SPIDEY FAN WITH AN IOTA OF INTELLIGENCE will
> tell you that's one of the the best damn Spidey stories ever. You're
> thinking of "Torment" by the Toddler and yeah, that sucked. But I'm not
> picking on Todd, it's too easy.
You're right there I goofed. My favorite Spider-Man will always be The Kid
who collected SpiderMan. Another classic.
> >Now as for Superman: Did you read the title before Byrne fixed
it......it
> >was pathetic! But as to what stories will be remembered.....
> Oh, really? Read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (published
in
> the last few issues) and then take a few days to recuperate.
Haven't read Man of Tomoorow, but I still cringe when I remember the
following....
1. Super Ventriloquism
2. The Costume as the former Blanket.....
3. 31 assorted flavors of Kryptonite and the fact that everyone seemed to
have the stuff.
4. Everyone from Lois Lane to Jimmy Olsen having super-powers at one time
or another. Remember Lana Lang's Bee Queen days?
5. Krypto, the superdog. The supermonkey (I forget his name), and the
other assorted super animals.
6. The Superman museum.
Better yet,
> check out Moore's Supreme which embarasses DC consistently because it
shows
> how the pre-Crisis Superman did not need a 'reboot'.
No one's arguing that you can have an extremely powerful superbeing and
still do great stories. My major contention with Pre-Byrne Superman had to
do with having to contrive the villains an edge (having kryptonite lasers,
or some such) so that Superman had a bit of a problem with them, instead of
just mopping the floor with them.
> >OKAY HERE'S A LIST:
> >1. Lex Luthor as the wealthy industrialist/scientist-instead of that
> >stupid jerk in the purple shirt.
> You've just described the pre-Crisis Luthor. I'm not sure what you're
> getting at..
My memory may be a bit foggy, but in my issues of Crisis. Luthor is wearing
that silly purple and green jumpsuit and talking like a "neighborhood
thug."
> 2. Remade Lois Lane into a competent (if not always likeable woman of
the
> >90's) and not the damsel in distress of the week.
> She was in trouble every three issues and needed Super-assistance. I
> actually checked. I'll grant you that she took on more of a life but
hardly
> significant enough to issue any credit to Byrne.
1. Gee what about the issue where she dioscovers the relationship between
Clark and Superman (I believe it was #17) and she debates whether or not to
expose the Kents' secret.
2. How about in Man of Steel #2 where she fights the terrorists along with
Supes.
3. Or stands up to the Quraci ambassador in #19 or Glorious Godfrey in #2.
> >3. Actually explained why Luthor (despite his vast intellect and
> >resources) never figured out Clark's secret ID. (Reread Superman #2)
> >4. Superman dealing with real issues like homosexuality (Maggie
Sawyer),
> >child custody, the death penalty (#19-21), pornography, violent
psychotics
> >(Bloodsport) etc, rather than the league of a bunch of cosmic weirdoes
who
> >happen to have Kryptonite lasers...., alcoholism (Cat Grant) etc etc....
> I'm not sure Sawyer is there yet with Byrne's run.
Reread the issue with the vampire bat guy. It's there believe me. (Check
the flashback panels.) However I will admit that I didn't see Byrne's
Northstar as being gay.
The Death Penalty was far better dealt in teh "trial of Galactus" anyhow.
I don't think so. In TTOG Reed is put on trial for doing the humane and
noble thing (saving a life no matter its identity.) In Superman #21,
Superman kills the criminals responsible for the destruction of millions of
lives and must live with the consequences, knowing that he will never again
be the "same."
> I'm not saying he denigrated the S-books. I'm saying he did NOTHING
> significant (especialy to warrant a reboot)
In your opinion what would warrant a re-boot?
> >5. Superman losing his temper (when he thought Luthor had had his
parents
> >killed)
> >6. A classic re-telling of Lori Lemaris
> Bud, do a me a favour and check out the original issue - he practically
> STOLE the story; it's the SAME STORY. He doesn't even tell it from a
> different viewpoint.
Hence the phrase "classic RE-telling." For that matter, let's really get
on Byrne's case for blatantly stealing the following in his Superman
stories....
1. He has him coming from a planet called Krypton. STOLE THAT!
2. Main Bad Guy=Lex Luthor. STOLE THAT ONE TOO!!!
3. Girlfriend=Lois Lane DOES THIS GUY HAVE NO SHAME!!!!
4. Not to mention....Perry White, Ma and Pa Kent, The Daily Planet, the
whole costume thing....etc.etc etc...
Of course the preceeding was a case of illustrating the absurd by being
absurd. Of course Byrne "re-told" the Superman mythos.....That was his
JOB. Top fix what was wrong (ie-get rid of super ventriloquism etc....)
but keeping what made the character great (supporting cast.)
> No, landmark is FF #1-102 (Kirby and Lee). Bryne is largely re-treading
(He
> himself will admit to that. He has repeatedly said he is invoking Kirby
in
> his work at all times. That is just creepy)
By that same tune, Lee, Liefield and McFarlane really didn't do anything
remarkable with X-Men, Spidey or the Hulk. Compared to Jack and Stan's
initial work. C'mon that's like comparing the work of the current Pope to
Jesus Christ. Sure he does good works but comparatively speaking........
> My fave artists are Tony Harris, Michael Zulli, Miller and Sienkiewicz
for
> your info. I was never trying to defend Image comics to you (even though
> they have published some excellent work..check out KB's Astro City)
I don't consider AstroCity to be typical "Image." Either. For one thing
it has a plot.
> saying Byrne is NOT a good storyteller and even though he has had success
in
> the past, all he does now is take Kirby concepts and integrate them into
> anything he does. Check out WW for more heinous details...
Gee using the work of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee in the telling stories of the
characters they created. You know you're right there. What we need is
comic book heroes that don't owe anything to the worlds their original
creators envisioned. Imagine it....
SPIDERMAN: No references to the Daily Bugle, JJ Jameson, Mary Jane, The
Green Goblin, the Sandman and Dock Ock.
X-MEN: No Magneto, Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, Sentinels, Moira
MacTaggert.
THOR: Lose that Odin guy, that whole Hammer thing, and who really needs
Asgard.
IRONMAN: Gee you mention Busiek as being a good writer...did you notice
that the bit about Iron Man not wanting to confront Ms. Marvel about her
drinking...gee you'd think that he might have had a problem with alcohol at
one time.....Nah that was in the past....better left forgotten, or what
about agent Gyrich, Project Pegasus, Squadron Supreme, the Vision, Ultron
etc. Gee we seem to be using alot of other people's work in the supposed
"new" stuff.
BATMAN: Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns had the Joker in it. Can't
Miller have any original ideas. Or does he have to "channel" Kane for
everything.
Got the point yet.....Bud.
It's one thing to use a character's supporting cast in your stories. I
don't think I'd get much argument in saying that Spiderman wouldn't be
Spiderman without JJJ or Mary Jane or the others. BUT its another thing
entirely to use these characters and pass them off as your own work. I
think I've read or seen just about everything that Byrne has ever done and
nowhere does he say that HE created those characters. In fact, even
according to you, he openly admits to "channelling" Kirby. So if using a
characters supporting cast isn't a violation of being "original." What
constitutes original work and is there "original" work still out there?
Well of course there is.....
Original work not only means creating new characters but new stories, or
even putting a fresh spin on an old story. Lets face it most every hero
created in the 90's is a rip off (or as I like to think about it-"owes"
something) to some other creation from the past.
As to Byrne's writing style, if you don't like it. Well I'm sorry. That's
your opinion. But to chastise the man for merely re-telling the Superman
mythos.....when that was what he was hired to do...is just plain....stupid.
Dedalus
Valued Acer Customer wrote in message
>>Strange then that since Image is doing such great work that with the
>exception of Spawn, the local half priced bookstores have truckloads of
>their back issues, while there are very few issues of Byrne's stuff. And
>it's not because of age of material either since there are alot of back
>issues of that same time period (mid 80's) as well.
Yeah, I can sell you a truckload of Starbrand if you like... :)
>Check my other post for my response to that question. As to Doom Patrol,
>do you think it might be possible that Byrne was comparing that both books
>had the "squabbling family" dynamic inherent to them, as well as the
>non-traditional super hero superhero-ala no pretenses made to secret ids
>and what not. Not to mention the fact that Robotman's condition (a human
>mind trapped in an android body) leads to similar story ideas as Ben Grimm
>(man vs. monster.)
And Wolverine is man trapped in a beast, and the Hulk is monster in a man.
You're almost as good as Bryne as stretching out very thin parallels.
Doom Patrol was made utterly unique through Grant's wonderful work and to
compare that to a (relatatively) simple book like the FF is not getting the
point of it.
Let me just state now I am going to be civil and apologize if you think I
wasn't earlier (and that's not a slight. I just want to see more
intelligent discussion on newsgroups. Cool? cool.)
>You're right there I goofed. My favorite Spider-Man will always be The Kid
>who collected SpiderMan. Another classic.
I personally love "When Commeth the Commuter" It's Amazing #265/6(?) by the
one and only PAD!
>Haven't read Man of Tomoorow, but I still cringe when I remember the
>following....
I almost can't believe you haven't read it!!. Seriously go out and buy it
(it was put into a trade a year or two ago and it will blow you away.
Guaranteed. And not a big Supes fan myself but greatly admired it.
>1. Super Ventriloquism
>2. The Costume as the former Blanket.....
>3. 31 assorted flavors of Kryptonite and the fact that everyone seemed to
>have the stuff.
>4. Everyone from Lois Lane to Jimmy Olsen having super-powers at one time
>or another. Remember Lana Lang's Bee Queen days?
>5. Krypto, the superdog. The supermonkey (I forget his name), and the
>other assorted super animals.
>6. The Superman museum.
You know there is a fine line between hokey and nostalgia and I'm guilty of
liking works for both those reasons. Now, I have no desire to read about
how Superman left Krypto for another Superdog..... I will admit that comics
were a lot hokier back then but that doens't mean it necessarily bad. The
depowering of Superman was a good thing but let me just say that the stories
of Moore, Maggin and all those great S-book writers far outshadows Byrne's
in all qualities. Byrne never got into the psychology of Superman as those
writers did. By retreading the origin, he 'gave it a modern artistic' look
but didn't set about what set apart HIS Superman from the previous versions.
The psychology of Superman stayed the same....and now we're getting onto a
running debate I have with my friend Steve. I say that Superman is much
more interesting when the SUPER is played up. (see Kingdom Come, Man of
Tomorrow) but he likes the MAN. And hey, I think Clark is alright but I
don't want to read about mr.average hick. I want alienation, isolation and
the meaning of being an icon in my Superman stories.
For all the hype about the re-launch, Byrne didn't touch any of it. If
anything, he gave more importance to the idea of SuperMAN which is fine, but
Clark is a pretty boring guy. If I want to read about a superhero having
rent problems and "real world" issues, I'll read Spidey (old spidey that
is!).....Byrne didn't put a spin on the Superman titles that made them
unique as to what they were previously, IMHO. And man, I was WAITING for
it. I was rooting for Byrne and it didn't happen. He let me down.
>No one's arguing that you can have an extremely powerful superbeing and
>still do great stories. My major contention with Pre-Byrne Superman had to
>do with having to contrive the villains an edge (having kryptonite lasers,
>or some such) so that Superman had a bit of a problem with them, instead of
>just mopping the floor with them.
Again, it's a lot worse than it sounds. I don't disagree that there were
very campy elements and things that just super(!)suspended our disbelief
but, by and large, his Supes will not be remembered I would think.
>My memory may be a bit foggy, but in my issues of Crisis. Luthor is wearing
>that silly purple and green jumpsuit and talking like a "neighborhood
>thug."
Luthor was always a brilliant scientist/businessman. This isn't a Byrne
spin. Pre-Crisis Luthor upped the science angle, if anything.....Hey, my
fave Luthor is the one in "Rock of Ages".
But I give Byrne credit for his portrayals of Luthor in #2 (where his ego
wouldn't let him believe the facts!) and the backup in #9.
>1. Gee what about the issue where she dioscovers the relationship between
>Clark and Superman (I believe it was #17) and she debates whether or not to
>expose the Kents' secret.
She was doing that a LOOOONg time before. Lana too....
>
>Reread the issue with the vampire bat guy. It's there believe me. (Check
>the flashback panels.) However I will admit that I didn't see Byrne's
>Northstar as being gay.
I'm doubtful on that too. Byrne said he was unhappy with the way Marvel
handled it. I dunno....I was never a huge follow
>In your opinion what would warrant a re-boot?
A dramatic overhaul of a character. I mean, you might not have to
completely alter his origin but tweak and add elements in your effort to
start anew. The recent Martian Manhunter book is a good example of this.
Again, you may argue that doing something that drastic with Superman is
uncalled for (since hey, he has a pretty cool origin) and wouldn't be
possible anyway because the PTB at DC (and comics intelligentsia at large)
would scream bloody murder if you discarded the origin.
Honestly, I find almost EVERY reboot (I say 'almost' now because I could be
reminded of one later) is completely unwarranted!!!
I mean,..Heroes Reborn/Return? More like Heroes Redundant. Reboots are
either complete sales gimmicks (collect all 10 versions of #1) or a painful
admittal that "damn, our continuity is lame, let's chuck it". I think the
latter wasn't too far from the minds of the Spidey folks.
>> Bud, do a me a favour and check out the original issue - he practically
>> STOLE the story; it's the SAME STORY. He doesn't even tell it from a
>> different viewpoint.
>
>Hence the phrase "classic RE-telling." For that matter, let's really get
>on Byrne's case for blatantly stealing the following in his Superman
>stories....
>
>1. He has him coming from a planet called Krypton. STOLE THAT!
>2. Main Bad Guy=Lex Luthor. STOLE THAT ONE TOO!!!
>3. Girlfriend=Lois Lane DOES THIS GUY HAVE NO SHAME!!!!
>4. Not to mention....Perry White, Ma and Pa Kent, The Daily Planet, the
>whole costume thing....etc.etc etc...
Now you're just being silly!!!
>Of course the preceeding was a case of illustrating the absurd by being
>absurd. Of course Byrne "re-told" the Superman mythos.....That was his
>JOB. Top fix what was wrong (ie-get rid of super ventriloquism etc....)
>but keeping what made the character great (supporting cast.)
Honestly, do you think they would go to the trouble of a reboot and hiring
the famous Mr.Byrne jsut do get rid of those and I quote byrne "unwanted
barnacles". Was superventriloquism such a bane?! Nope. Just don't use
the character and treat villains with more respect in their portrayal.
>> No, landmark is FF #1-102 (Kirby and Lee). Bryne is largely re-treading
>(He
>> himself will admit to that. He has repeatedly said he is invoking Kirby
>in
>> his work at all times. That is just creepy)
>
>By that same tune, Lee, Liefield and McFarlane really didn't do anything
>remarkable with X-Men, Spidey or the Hulk. Compared to Jack and Stan's
>initial work. C'mon that's like comparing the work of the current Pope to
>Jesus Christ. Sure he does good works but comparatively speaking........
You bet they didn't! But people take enough shots at them. (For the
record, I think Toddler drew a funky Ditko-esque spidey but I won't buy his
work nor Mr.Lee's today). I'm just saying let's knock down the egotistical
Byrne a couple of pegs. He has more than asked for it.
Case in point....he was doing nothing with Donna; she was a regular in Green
Lantern but he brazenly and arrogantly took her from GL to redefine her
origin. WHY? She was already interesting in GL! Why did Byrne meddle with
Donna? She wasn't used nor is VITAL to the WW mythos.
Just a random byrne check but you get my point. It's so BYRNE of him to muck
continuity at some other creator's expense.
>I don't consider AstroCity to be typical "Image." Either. For one thing
>it has a plot.
It's really not fair to bash Image when they are publishing some great
stuff - see Joe Pruett's work or Channel Zero or Jinx.
I mean, sure, you think Image and you think Wildcats (shameless X-men
ripoff) but hey, man....
>> saying Byrne is NOT a good storyteller and even though he has had success
>in
>> the past, all he does now is take Kirby concepts and integrate them into
>> anything he does. Check out WW for more heinous details...
>
>Gee using the work of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee in the telling stories of the
>characters they created. You know you're right there. What we need is
>comic book heroes that don't owe anything to the worlds their original
>creators envisioned. Imagine it....
No! No! No! You keep the original stuff but let me tell you...the mark of a
great writer, to me anyway, is that he WORKS With continuity. He doesn't
brush it aside. Who cared about a guy who runs fast? But Mark Waid took
all these speedsters and wove this legacy of the Speed Force. How cool is
that? (tell me you read Flash) He made me care without rebooting, without
discounting things he didn't like. I think Byrne does too much of "oh,
well this didn't happen..."
Case in point, 'member Busiek's painted Amazing Fantasy 16-18? Byrne is
going to "Man of Steel" it away. Why? It's not 'hokey' by anyone's
standards. Why? It's his ego. "oh, it doesn't fit into my plans so I will
delete it." How Byrne!
>
>It's one thing to use a character's supporting cast in your stories. I
>don't think I'd get much argument in saying that Spiderman wouldn't be
>Spiderman without JJJ or Mary Jane or the others. BUT its another thing
>entirely to use these characters and pass them off as your own work. I
>think I've read or seen just about everything that Byrne has ever done and
>nowhere does he say that HE created those characters. In fact, even
>according to you, he openly admits to "channelling" Kirby. So if using a
>characters supporting cast isn't a violation of being "original." What
>constitutes original work and is there "original" work still out there?
>
>Well of course there is.....
>
>Original work not only means creating new characters but new stories, or
>even putting a fresh spin on an old story. Lets face it most every hero
>created in the 90's is a rip off (or as I like to think about it-"owes"
>something) to some other creation from the past.
Bud, I completely agree with you there. I'm not being facetious at all(!)
A lot of characters are simple descendents of heroes. It's very difficult
to put a spin that is unique. Personally, I like generational heroes.
>As to Byrne's writing style, if you don't like it. Well I'm sorry. That's
>your opinion. But to chastise the man for merely re-telling the Superman
>mythos.....when that was what he was hired to do...is just plain....stupid.
I never blamed him for re-telling.
I think it works in broad strokes. I loved Galactus vs. Darkseid. I really
liked his FF.
But his style of storytelling doesn't change enough for me. He is rooted in
melodramatics and villains who say waaaayy too much aloud and things being
so obvious that they need not explanation.
See the flash 80-pg. giant for how jay and johnny beat the Shade.
How....unnecessary.
I will say his most enjoyable work was She-Hulk without a doubt. He had a
sense of humour about
BTW, Did you know that Byrne said Watchmen was "beautifully drawn but
totally useless?"
USELESS?!
An intense examination of the social, political and psychology of
superheroes and the very medium of comix storytelling is useless?
I don't hate Byrne. I think him overrated and there is not enough change in
his written work to keep me interested in him.
And his penciling has lost that nice, smooth contour look. I hate that
'choppy' Byrne. He needs an inker!!
Feel free to email me back.
Peace.
-D
Victor Wong
Valued Acer Customer wrote in message
>> >OKAY HERE'S A LIST:
>> >1. Lex Luthor as the wealthy industrialist/scientist-instead of that
>> >stupid jerk in the purple shirt.
>
>> You've just described the pre-Crisis Luthor. I'm not sure what you're
>> getting at..
>
>My memory may be a bit foggy, but in my issues of Crisis. Luthor is wearing
>that silly purple and green jumpsuit and talking like a "neighborhood
>thug."
Okay, here's a timeline:
1940s -- Luthor as mad scientist with red hair
1940s-1960s -- Luthor as mad scientist usually in a business suit.
1960s-1970s -- Luthor as mad scientist in prison greys
1970s-1980s -- Luthor as mad scientist in purple jumpsuit
1980s-1985 -- Luthor as mad scientist in green battle armor
Luthor never wore the purple jumpsuit during Crisis.
Valued Acer Customer
Kind of sad when you really think about it, because I collected all those
issues of Starbrand and I kind of think Byrne did the best with what he had
to work with (wasn't the New Universe practically a dead horse by then?)
It was a bold experiment and had it been done a little better-a pretty cool
concept.
> And Wolverine is man trapped in a beast, and the Hulk is monster in a
man.
> You're almost as good as Bryne as stretching out very thin parallels.
> Doom Patrol was made utterly unique through Grant's wonderful work and to
> compare that to a (relatatively) simple book like the FF is not getting
the
> point of it.
No. You missed my point entirely. I'm not saying that Doom Patrol = FF,
anymore than Danger Unlimited = FF (Byrne so much as said so in one of his
letter columns.) Merely that these characters lend themselves to telling a
certain "type or kind of story." You wouldn't expect to see Skrulls or
Galactus in Spiderman, nor would you expect to see "Kingpin" type
characters in FF (not that they can't appear-in fact I really liked Byrne's
"Mission for A Dead Man" in FF [Hammerhead]) its just that the character's
really don't lend them to that sort of story.
Also I think its totally unfair to call FF "simple".
> Let me just state now I am going to be civil and apologize if you think I
> wasn't earlier (and that's not a slight. I just want to see more
> intelligent discussion on newsgroups. Cool? cool.)
> >You're right there I goofed. My favorite Spider-Man will always be The
Kid
> >who collected SpiderMan. Another classic.
>
> I personally love "When Commeth the Commuter" It's Amazing #265/6(?) by
the
> one and only PAD!
Apology duly noted and accepted. I too am a HUGE Peter David Fan.
> I almost can't believe you haven't read it!!. Seriously go out and buy
it
> (it was put into a trade a year or two ago and it will blow you away.
> Guaranteed. And not a big Supes fan myself but greatly admired it.
Going to the comics shop tomorrow to look for it. Thanx for the
recommendation.
> You know there is a fine line between hokey and nostalgia and I'm guilty
of
> liking works for both those reasons. Now, I have no desire to read about
> how Superman left Krypto for another Superdog..... I will admit that
comics
> were a lot hokier back then but that doens't mean it necessarily bad.
True......but also by definition it doesn't mean good either.
> The psychology of Superman stayed the same....and now we're getting onto
a
> running debate I have with my friend Steve. I say that Superman is much
> more interesting when the SUPER is played up. (see Kingdom Come, Man of
> Tomorrow) but he likes the MAN. And hey, I think Clark is alright but
I
> don't want to read about mr.average hick. I want alienation, isolation
and
> the meaning of being an icon in my Superman stories.
But I think you're missing the point. Byrne's contention (and mine as
well) is that for all his power, alien heritage and abilities beyond mortal
ken, Superman is Clark Kent-raised by a small town farmers in a small town
with all those small town mid-western values (re-read MOS#6) And I think
that makes for the alienation/isolation option all the more poignant.....He
has the same ideological/emotional make-up as all other human beings....but
he'snot a human being. MOS #1 brilliantly illustrates that point with Pa
Kent's taking Clark aside and explaining why he shouldn't "show off" with
his abilities during football games.
As to being an icon/isolation storyline what about Superman 19-21. He
KILLS the Phantom Zone Criminals and then in the last panel laments that he
is no longer the "shining" hero that he was. Isolation wise.....he's alone
in that parallel universe with 3 beings with no remorse, he can't turn to
the courts for instructions, ask his pa, or anything or anyone else.
> >1. Gee what about the issue where she dioscovers the relationship
between
> >Clark and Superman (I believe it was #17) and she debates whether or not
to
> >expose the Kents' secret.
>
> She was doing that a LOOOONg time before. Lana too....
Yeah but Byrne added a certain flair to the character.
> A dramatic overhaul of a character. I mean, you might not have to
> completely alter his origin but tweak and add elements in your effort to
> start anew.
Could you be a bit more specific with what you'd change about Superman.
The recent Martian Manhunter book is a good example of this.
> Again, you may argue that doing something that drastic with Superman is
> uncalled for (since hey, he has a pretty cool origin) and wouldn't be
> possible anyway because the PTB at DC (and comics intelligentsia at
large)
> would scream bloody murder if you discarded the origin.
> Honestly, I find almost EVERY reboot (I say 'almost' now because I could
be
> reminded of one later) is completely unwarranted!!!
> I mean,..Heroes Reborn/Return? More like Heroes Redundant. Reboots are
> either complete sales gimmicks (collect all 10 versions of #1) or a
painful
> admittal that "damn, our continuity is lame, let's chuck it". I think
the
> latter wasn't too far from the minds of the Spidey folks.
AGREEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!! And another one.....Defalco's Alicia's a
skrull.....puh-lease.
> >> Bud, do a me a favour and check out the original issue - he
practically
> >> STOLE the story; it's the SAME STORY. He doesn't even tell it from a
> >> different viewpoint.
> >
> >Hence the phrase "classic RE-telling." For that matter, let's really
get
> >on Byrne's case for blatantly stealing the following in his Superman
> >stories....
> >
> >1. He has him coming from a planet called Krypton. STOLE THAT!
> >2. Main Bad Guy=Lex Luthor. STOLE THAT ONE TOO!!!
> >3. Girlfriend=Lois Lane DOES THIS GUY HAVE NO SHAME!!!!
> >4. Not to mention....Perry White, Ma and Pa Kent, The Daily Planet, the
> >whole costume thing....etc.etc etc...
>
> Now you're just being silly!!!
>
> >Of course the preceeding was a case of illustrating the absurd by being
> >absurd. Of course Byrne "re-told" the Superman mythos.....That was his
> >JOB. Top fix what was wrong (ie-get rid of super ventriloquism etc....)
> >but keeping what made the character great (supporting cast.)
>
> Honestly, do you think they would go to the trouble of a reboot and
hiring
> the famous Mr.Byrne jsut do get rid of those and I quote byrne "unwanted
> barnacles". Was superventriloquism such a bane?! Nope.
Yes....Yes it was. Proof of it's banality is evident in the fact that no
writer since Byrne has resurrected it.
> Case in point....he was doing nothing with Donna; she was a regular in
Green
> Lantern but he brazenly and arrogantly took her from GL to redefine her
> origin. WHY? She was already interesting in GL! Why did Byrne meddle
with
> Donna? She wasn't used nor is VITAL to the WW mythos.
Not meaning to contradict.....but didn't Ms. Troy used to be called
"WONDER"-girl.
> It's really not fair to bash Image when they are publishing some great
> stuff - see Joe Pruett's work or Channel Zero or Jinx.
> I mean, sure, you think Image and you think Wildcats (shameless X-men
> ripoff) but hey, man....
I don't consider Wildcats a rip-off off X-men, but then I stopped reading
them after issue 12 or so.
> No! No! No! You keep the original stuff but let me tell you...the mark
of a
> great writer, to me anyway, is that he WORKS With continuity. He doesn't
> brush it aside. Who cared about a guy who runs fast? But Mark Waid took
> all these speedsters and wove this legacy of the Speed Force. How cool
is
> that? (tell me you read Flash) He made me care without rebooting,
without
> discounting things he didn't like. I think Byrne does too much of "oh,
> well this didn't happen..."
I'm a big time Flash fan (heck I even liked the short lived TV show-one of
the better super hero adaptations.) However, let us not forget that Waid
pretty much had a blank slate in the case of our Scarlet Speedster friend.
Flash was pretty much spared the ravages of "super dogs", "mauve
Kryptonite" and other such banalities. And I don't know about you but I'd
love to see more of John Fox's 27th century Flash.
> Bud, I completely agree with you there. I'm not being facetious at
all(!)
> A lot of characters are simple descendents of heroes. It's very
difficult
> to put a spin that is unique. Personally, I like generational heroes.
Thank you.
> BTW, Did you know that Byrne said Watchmen was "beautifully drawn but
> totally useless?"
> USELESS?!
> An intense examination of the social, political and psychology of
> superheroes and the very medium of comix storytelling is useless?
Well, in the case of Watchmen I can see both sides. Yes the story was
good, and the plot interesting. But in the end it left a bad taste in my
mouth. I just didn't care about any of the characters... They were hardly
heroic in any sense of the word....and maybe that's what Byrne meant. It's
too easy to be cynical nowadays.
kar...@my-dejanews.com
"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> wrote:
>
> Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
> >
> >"
> >> Excuse me? Has Byrne said his fame didn't came from working
> > on the toys created by other people?
> >
> > I can't understand how you can put two separate comments that
> > have nothing to do with eachother and claim someone's a hypocrite
> > based on those.
>
> He doesn't have to say it. He bashes Image for creating nothing original (i
> can't remember the column of NextMen I read it in) and it is IRONIC and
> hypocritical because he has hardly ever created any original characters
> himself. In fact, as a poster pointed out, has created characters VERY
> similar to Marvel and DC characters (check out Torch of Liberty in Danger
> Unlimited...it's Cap, for pete's sake and I'm NO fan of Liefeld but it's
> amazing how the hounds come out when Ol'Robbie rips off Marvel compared to
> when Byrne does.)
> Please respond if I have to clarify again.
the torch of liberty is not cap. the torch is a rip on the golden age patriot
theme of which cap was part of but he bears little stylistic similarity to
captain america himself.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mait...@cc.hut.fi
"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> wrote:
> Reboots are either complete sales gimmicks (collect all 10 versions
> of #1) or a painful admittal that "damn, our continuity is lame,
> let's chuck it". I think the latter wasn't too far from the minds
> of the Spidey folks.
As far as I know, continuity is not being "chunked" in the Spider-reboot.
> Case in point....he was doing nothing with Donna; she was a regular in Green
> Lantern but he brazenly and arrogantly took her from GL to redefine her
> origin.
Byrne asked the GL editors for Donna over a year before he started
using her in WW. GL editors OK'd it.
> But his style of storytelling doesn't change enough for me. He is rooted in
> melodramatics and villains who say waaaayy too much aloud and things being
> so obvious that they need not explanation. See the flash 80-pg. giant for
> how jay and johnny beat the Shade.
What was wrong with that?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> writes:
> Oh, really? Read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (published in
> the last few issues) and then take a few days to recuperate.
Huh?
Tell me how many "last Superman story" stories you can publish
in monthly comic-book?
Yes, it was well written and drawn.
Maybe it's even one of the best Superman stories, but that's because
of the rich history of the character. And that rich history has
more to do with simple great straight ahead superhero stories more
than events.
> Better yet, check out Moore's Supreme which embarasses DC consistently
> because it shows how the pre-Crisis Superman did not need a 'reboot'.
Supreme got canceled. Superman was also selling low before the reboot.
> I'm not sure Sawyer is there yet with Byrne's run.
She was. Check you back issues.
/Mikko
mait...@cc.hut.fi
"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> wrote:
> He doesn't have to say it. He bashes Image for creating nothing original
> (i can't remember the column of NextMen I read it in) and it is IRONIC and
> hypocritical because he has hardly ever created any original characters
> himself.
Has Byrne claimed he has created lots of original characters?
> (check out Torch of Liberty in Danger Unlimited...it's Cap, for pete's
> sake and I'm NO fan of Liefeld but it's amazing how the hounds come out
> when Ol'Robbie rips off Marvel compared to when Byrne does.)
I have not followed Liefeld's Cap or the discussions about it, but wasn't
some critiques based on Rob (or his studio cats) making minor changes to
his completed Cap story and then claiming it was an original Fighting
American story instead of that Cap story?
[Superman reboot]
> It wasn't working?? the longest-selling and first super-hero character was
> doing just fine.
The sales were low.
> Check out Moore's last say on Supes.
How many "last Superman story" stories you can publish in a monthly
comic-book?
> IT is horrendously bad! It's actually really hilarious at parts. LIke
> where Clark is shaving with his heat vision and Byrne is taking his
> meticulous narrative time explaining the superpower physics of the
> situation. It's like, Duh, I KNOW how he's shaving. No need to tell, Byrne,
> just SHOW.
That scene is one of my favorites!
And if you look at the artwork it's not necessary clear what he's
doing. Most people don't shave that way :) and I think the combination
of words and pictures was justified in this case. And some words
were definetely needed to explain where Clark got the "reflector"!
> Yes, it made me think "I hate Byrne cliffhangers! This is by the far the
> worst yet!"
What was wrong with the cliffhanger in Superman #5. Could you
be a bit more specific?
Juliesback
>Date: Thu, Aug 13, 1998 13:21 EDT
>Message-id: <idnzpd8...@beta.hut.fi>
>
>
>"Dedalus" <izagu...@SPAMMITYgeocities.com> writes:
>> Oh, really? Read "Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (published in
>> the last few issues) and then take a few days to recuperate.
>
> Huh?
>
> Tell me how many "last Superman story" stories you can publish
> in monthly comic-book?
>
> Yes, it was well written and drawn.
>
> Maybe it's even one of the best Superman stories, but that's because
> of the rich history of the character. And that rich history has
> more to do with simple great straight ahead superhero stories more
> than events.
>
excellent. Also FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING in SUPERMAN ANNUAL #11.
______________________________________
Stephen Robinson
scholar, lover, crimefighter
"Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
-Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
TB
Justice" today (Aug 13).
Please stop by if you have a moment. Go to Theater #8.
--
THIRD MILLENNIUM entertainment
Screenwriting, Film, Video, and more!
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/2561
Shawn Hill
: Simlar? How about exact? You don't seem to realize that Byrne is possessed
: with all things Kirby. In an interview I read a while back he said that he
: wanted to work on the Doom Patrol because "if you look, it's actually the
: FF!"
: HELLO? Someone didn't read MOrrison's run of the book.
Esp. since it's "actually" the X-men, not the FF.
: I'm not sure Sawyer is there yet with Byrne's run. The Death Penalty was
: far better dealt in teh "trial of Galactus" anyhow.
Byrne created Maggie Sawyer, and wrote the very strong issues that
"hinted" at her sexuality.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: the torch of liberty is not cap. the torch is a rip on the golden age patriot
: theme of which cap was part of but he bears little stylistic similarity to
: captain america himself.
Except for the kid sidekick, the colors of the costume, the time period,
and that patriotism thing.
Shawn
kar...@my-dejanews.com
except those things are not sole property of captain america. the shield was
the first patriotic styled superhero of the forties and there were a legion
others to follow in addition to cap. you see the torch and you think cap. i
see the torch and i think of the tradition that cap was only part of. there
are a ton of differences in costume, character, backstory, and style that
make the torch of liberty a character in his own right.
now, if you add a shield and super soldier serum, you start infringing on
elements that separate cap from most other golden age patriot heroes.
Valued Acer Customer
> : the torch of liberty is not cap. the torch is a rip on the golden age
patriot
> : theme of which cap was part of but he bears little stylistic similarity
to
> : captain america himself.
I'd agree with that statement. The Torch isn't Cap (although Byrne stated
that he wanted to do something very stylistically similar to the character
when he created the Torch....) However, Byrne also aimed for the
following....
1. A more realistic portrayal of supers during WWII. (ie-the Torch has
absolutely no problem with picking up a machine gun and mowing down row
upon row of nazi creeps.)
2. The fact that people around the Torch also get killed, (how many of
Caps fighting allies (normal soldiers or fellow supers got shot and killed
during a battle?)
3. A much "darker" character. Paul Gibney (the Torch's secret Id) is a
far cry from Cap's Steve Rogers (especially in their reasons to go to war.
Gibney wanted "action and adventure." A naivette that was rapidly broken.
4. Golgotha was a lot more interesting than the Red Skull.
T. Smith
man...@cyberramp.net
Paul O'Brien
<mait...@beta.hut.fi> writes
>
> Tell me how many "last Superman story" stories you can publish
> in monthly comic-book?
Back in the days of Imaginary Stories, a hell of a lot.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
My faith in anaesthetic is restored.
DERVISH M
>
>: the torch of liberty is not cap. the torch is a rip on the golden age
>patriot
>: theme of which cap was part of but he bears little stylistic similarity to
>: captain america himself.
Ahh then you agree with Rob Liefeld then? He didn't rip off Cap either it was
just a patriotic spin and he even bought Fighting American which had already
been established. I know Byrne likes to call his works "tributes" while the
Image guys works were rip-offs. Now, I have trouble with the distinction when
coming the explanation comes from John Byrne. It seems that when Byrne does
something (according to Byrne) it is in the interest of the original creator.
If someone else does it, they are tarnishing the original intent.
All I figure is either both are rip offs or both are tributes. You can't have
it both ways.
M J Moran
Valued Acer Customer
> Ahh then you agree with Rob Liefeld then? He didn't rip off Cap either it
was
> just a patriotic spin and he even bought Fighting American which had
already
> been established. I know Byrne likes to call his works "tributes" while
the
> Image guys works were rip-offs. Now, I have trouble with the distinction
when
> coming the explanation comes from John Byrne. It seems that when Byrne
does
> something (according to Byrne) it is in the interest of the original
creator.
> If someone else does it, they are tarnishing the original intent.
>
> All I figure is either both are rip offs or both are tributes. You can't
have
> it both ways.
I think you're wrong there. The difference between Byrne and Liefield is
that Byrne admitted to his Torch being influenced by Captain America (for
that matter is it really possible to do a "patriotic" themed character set
in the 1940's and have them not be influenced by Cap, or the Patriot, the
Spirit of '76 (and those were just Marvels characters I won't even go into
DC's bunch). Whereas Liefield took an existing character like Kirby's
Fighting American-gave him a shield (which I don't believe was in the
original concept) and essentially re-wrote Captain America. Byrne's Torch
is completely different from Cap (see my other posts....)
DERVISH M
>that Byrne admitted to his Torch being influenced by Captain America (for
>that matter is it really possible to do a "patriotic" themed character set
>in the 1940's and have them not be influenced by Cap, or the Patriot, the
>Spirit of '76 (and those were just Marvels characters I won't even go into
>DC's bunch). Whereas Liefield took an existing character like Kirby's
>Fighting American-gave him a shield (which I don't believe was in the
>original concept) and essentially re-wrote Captain America. Byrne's Torch
>is completely different from Cap (see my other posts....)
>
Well I really don't see that much difference from Torch of Liberty and Cap or
the Shield or well whoever whatever your other post say. My main point is that
Byrne should not be the one to cast stones at other creators considering he has
done this "tributes". Danger Unlimited was not only influenced by the Fantastic
Four it was a copy of them done Byrne's way. Byrne has consistently cast
aspersions on creators who have copied other people's work although he does the
very same thing. Difference is Byrne says up front that they are "influenced"
while people like Liefeld and Larsen don't. I'm not a fan of the Image boys but
I'm also becoming a non-fan of Byrne's.
Byrne will state often enough that he is staying with the original creators
vision of a character or characters while ignoring what creators have done
after with the characters or even what the original creators have done after
Byrne stopped reading them.
An interesting statement was made by Harlan Ellison about Byrne's adaptation of
"I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". Ellison states that John being John
decided to change the story a little in his presentation enough that Ellison
ran the original text concurrently in Dream Corridor opposite Byrne's story.
Funny how he sticks to the original creators ideas.
M J Moran
Valued Acer Customer
DERVISH M <derv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808150334...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Well I really don't see that much difference from Torch of Liberty and
Cap or
> the Shield or well whoever whatever your other post say.
Differences between Captain America and the Torch of Liberty......
1. Captain America=Steve Rogers-a sickly youth whose patriotism causes him
to volunteer for an experimental super soldier serum which grants him
increased physical stamina and agility. Torch of Liberty-average Joe
American who enlists in the Army to "get some action." (His naivette does
not last long....)
2. Captain America has a super strong shield which he uses to stun/render
uncosnscious nazi soldiers and other bad guys. Torch of Liberty-grabs a
machine gun and shoots to kill (it is war after all.)
3. Captain America-accident throws him into suspended animation saving him
from the turbulent eras of 60's-90's. Torch of Liberty-lives through those
times (unfortunatley we only get a hint as to his activities during those
times in Babe)
>My main point is that
> Byrne should not be the one to cast stones at other creators considering
he has
> done this "tributes".
Tribute is one thing.....blatantly copying something and passing it off as
your own work is something entirely different.
>Danger Unlimited was not only influenced by the Fantastic
> Four it was a copy of them done Byrne's way.
How can something be a "copy" if its done in a different way than the
original.
>Byrne has consistently cast
> aspersions on creators who have copied other people's work although he
does the
> very same thing. Difference is Byrne says up front that they are
"influenced"
> while people like Liefeld and Larsen don't. I'm not a fan of the Image
boys but
> I'm also becoming a non-fan of Byrne's.
Why? If Byrne is honest about his inspiration whats wrong with that. I'd
like to see anyone try to write/create a story without it being influenced
by something they've read or seen. At least Byrne has the decency to admit
it up front.
> Byrne will state often enough that he is staying with the original
creators
> vision of a character or characters while ignoring what creators have
done
> after with the characters or even what the original creators have done
after
> Byrne stopped reading them.
Sometimes a back to basics approach is the best way to handle writing about
established characters, and what better source material to draw from than
the original creative team?
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Well I really don't see that much difference from Torch of Liberty and
> people's work although he does the very same thing. Difference is Byrne
> says up front that they are "influenced" while people like Liefeld and
> Larsen don't.
In the case of Rob's Fighting American the critiques was based
on Rob claiming his story wasn't a reworked Cap story, although
it was. And Marvel sued him.
If Byrne has "cast aspersions", could it be because either
the creator or some people talking about the work claims it's
"original" and he doesn't agree? Or what kind of "aspersions"
you're talking about?
Byrne has written a column about "creating" in Next Men #12.
/Mikko
DERVISH M
>1. Captain America=Steve Rogers-a sickly youth whose patriotism causes him
>to volunteer for an experimental super soldier serum which grants him
>increased physical stamina and agility. Torch of Liberty-average Joe
>American who enlists in the Army to "get some action." (His naivette does
>not last long....)
>2. Captain America has a super strong shield which he uses to stun/render
>uncosnscious nazi soldiers and other bad guys. Torch of Liberty-grabs a
>machine gun and shoots to kill (it is war after all.)
>3. Captain America-accident throws him into suspended animation saving him
>from the turbulent eras of 60's-90's. Torch of Liberty-lives through those
>times (unfortunatley we only get a hint as to his activities during those
>times in Babe)
>
Call him the Spirit of '76, Patriot, Shield (which Torch does resemble as much
if not more than Cap). I lump this type of character together.
>>My main point is that
>> Byrne should not be the one to cast stones at other creators considering
>he has
>> done this "tributes".
>
>Tribute is one thing.....blatantly copying something and passing it off as
>your own work is something entirely different.
>
Sorry, saying is a tribute and then blatantly copying it does not make it
better. Again, my main point is Byrne should not be one to be throwing stones
considering his track record -- good or bad.
>How can something be a "copy" if its done in a different way than the
>original.
Basic premise, coinciding powers, storyline similar to those used in
FF.>Difference is Byrne says up front that they are
>"influenced"
>> while people like Liefeld and Larsen don't. I'm not a fan of the Image
>boys but
>> I'm also becoming a non-fan of Byrne's.
>
>Why? If Byrne is honest about his inspiration whats wrong with that. I'd
>like to see anyone try to write/create a story without it being influenced
>by something they've read or seen. At least Byrne has the decency to admit
>it up front.
>
Nothing wrong with Byrne being honest about his inspirations. The Image boys in
the press have stated what their influences have been. Again the problem I have
is Byrne feeling that it is OK for him to do it but not for others.
>Sometimes a back to basics approach is the best way to handle writing about
>established characters, and what better source material to draw from than
>the original creative team?
Sometimes reading material after the original creator/creators have left is a
better way to handle things. Opposed to reading only the source material and
then deciding that anything after that does not matter so why bother reading
it. Etrigan the Demon is an example of this.
When Jack Kirby was asked about the handling of characters he created, he said
that he didn't care since he was no longer writing them. So it is strange that
Byrne insists on doing something Kirby himself would not do with his
characters.
Also noted the snipping of the Ellison example-- classic of Byrne going to the
source material and then doing his own thing with it, claiming creator
integrity.
M J Moran
DERVISH M
> the creator or some people talking about the work claims it's
> "original" and he doesn't agree? Or what kind of "aspersions"
> you're talking about?
>
> Byrne has written a column about "creating" in Next Men #12.
>
>
> /Mikko
His attacks on the Image boys when Image for started. And I admit they fought
back in very poor taste. At the time I agreed with Byrne to some extent about
the plagiarism. Although I think Peter David had much better reasons for being
distraught with Image and what they could've done at the time.
The problem now is that I don't see much difference between what Larsen,
Liefeld and MacFarlane did and what Byrne has been doing the last five years.
Byrne using different terms for it so he is getting better PR. Byrne can copy
page after page of Kirby's New Gods sign it Apre' Kirby and it is OK. Before
you ask Mikko it was JK4W 1# which took various pages from New Gods Vl 1 issues
1#-9#. We condemn those who do this without saying it is after another artist
but when Byrne did this page after page he was only a little better.
I have to admit that again we will have to wait and see what Byrne does with
the Hulk and what Byrne does with Spiderman. Alas I know what Byrne did with
the Demon, Donna Troy, Wonder Woman and the DC Universe--pretty messy stuff for
a bad to mediocre end. I'll may stick around for the Hulk stuff, the Spiderman
stuff I'll probably get secondhand. For once I'm not wasting my time or money,
just because Byrne is doing it.
M J Moran
Valued Acer Customer
DERVISH M <derv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808150612...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Again I really don't see much of a difference in the patriotic hero
thing.
> Call him the Spirit of '76, Patriot, Shield (which Torch does resemble as
much
> if not more than Cap). I lump this type of character together.
I find that a little to generalized, because by that token any super strong
flying character is just a rippoff of superman.
Is Captain Marvel the same as Superman: they have similar powers, and
codes of ethics...but completely different origins. I find them completely
different characters and by that token similar motivations but different
abilities (as is the case in Cap and the Torch of Liberty) are also
completely different. (they also have different codes of conduct-the Torch
will kill, Cap won't.)
> Sometimes reading material after the original creator/creators have left
is a
> better way to handle things. Opposed to reading only the source material
and
> then deciding that anything after that does not matter so why bother
reading
> it. Etrigan the Demon is an example of this.
> When Jack Kirby was asked about the handling of characters he created, he
said
> that he didn't care since he was no longer writing them. So it is
strange that
> Byrne insists on doing something Kirby himself would not do with his
> characters.
Why? That is his right as an author isn't it? To write and handle the
characters as he sees fit. It's quite logical for him to hold this
position since it has been his aim to tell the kinds of comics stories he
gr ew up reading....hence he would pay more attention to the original
creative team's work than the later stuff.
As an example of this take the British Sci-Fi character Dr. Who. Most fans
readily admit to liking the "Doctor" that they were originally exposed to.
That actor (in the US it's usually Tom Baker btw, sets the tone by which
all the others who follow him are judged.) Comic books are the same
way..........
> Also noted the snipping of the Ellison example-- classic of Byrne going
to the
> source material and then doing his own thing with it, claiming creator
> integrity.
The reason I snipped the Ellison example in my rebuttal was that I hadn't
read the original story, so I felt I couldn't comment on it.
Stewart Vernon
<man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>Is Captain Marvel the same as Superman: they have similar powers, and
>codes of ethics...but completely different origins. I find them completely
>different characters and by that token similar motivations but different
>abilities
You picked the wrong example here... Because when Captain Marvel
first appeared in comics way back when, and began to outsell
Superman... the folks at DC (maybe still called National Periodical at
that time) sued the creators of Captain Marvel and WON because he was
too similar to their Superman...
Flash forward many many years... Since the other company couldn't
publish Captain Marvel, they eventually lost the copyrights and
trademarks... DC came along and scooped it up and have been trying to
publish Captain Marvel ever since...
So it is interesting that DC is now profiting from a creation that
they sued out of existence years ago... But then that title is to be
canceled soon, so maybe they aren't profiting so much...
-Stewart
DERVISH M
>characters as he sees fit. It's quite logical for him to hold this
>position since it has been his aim to tell the kinds of comics stories he
>gr ew up reading....hence he would pay more attention to the original
>creative team's work than the later stuff.
>
>
And it is my right as a reader to not like it and to comment when I don't. Also
I find it disconcerting that Byrne does something in Kirby's name that Kirby
himself would not do. Byrne has an apparent tendency to read the original work
and not read the later material. I would have no problem if Byrne read the
material and then decided to restore the character more like he remembered.
Note: I do not expect creators to read all the material of a character
especially when they are guest starring but if they refer to an incident in the
character's history, they should know the about the incident and a little
background of the character. When a creator makes sweeping, broad changes that
affect the history of the character then I do expect to them to be conversant
with most the material of that character.
Dr. Who exampled snipped but essentially was pointing out that the original Dr.
Who sets the tone for the series. Counter-example, Curly sets the tone for the
Three Stooges but he was not the original third member, Shemp was. Shemp left
Curly joined. Shemp was to come back after Curly was gone. Curly sets the tone
when most people think of the Three Stooges.
>The reason I snipped the Ellison example in my rebuttal was that I hadn't
>read the original story, so I felt I couldn't comment on it.
Sounds like you've read Byrne's adaptation though. If so, you have the original
text right there. Ellison ran it along side Byrne's adaptation so that the
reader could see how the story was supposed to be set.
M J Moran
Valued Acer Customer
original Dr.
> Who sets the tone for the series. Counter-example, Curly sets the tone
for the
> Three Stooges but he was not the original third member, Shemp was. Shemp
left
> Curly joined. Shemp was to come back after Curly was gone. Curly sets
the tone
> when most people think of the Three Stooges.
Wrong. That's not what I said. My point was that the "first" (not
neccessarily chronological) Doctor to whom an audience exposed, is usually
their favorite and sets the standard by which the other actors (Doctors)
are rated. For example, the Tom Baker (4th) Doctor was the first one whose
shows were widely circulated in the US, and thus is usually considered to
be the favorite. Whereas in Britain, many of the older fans who grew up on
Pertwee's (3rd) Doctor consider him the favorite. Does that help.
Valued Acer Customer
> first appeared in comics way back when, and began to outsell
> Superman... the folks at DC (maybe still called National Periodical at
> that time) sued the creators of Captain Marvel and WON because he was
> too similar to their Superman...
But the characters as they exist now are completely different, despite
their similarities in powers and attitudes (morality).
> Flash forward many many years... Since the other company couldn't
> publish Captain Marvel, they eventually lost the copyrights and
> trademarks... DC came along and scooped it up and have been trying to
> publish Captain Marvel ever since...
Re-read that and see if that makes sense, I always thought Capt. Marvel
(Shazam) was DC's puppy-then they stopped (for whatever reason). Then
Marvel took the name and created Capt. Mar-Vell (Kree superhero) and then
killed him off, but later resurrected the name in Monica Rambeau (black
superheroine w/energy form powers) to keep control of the name, which is
why the curent DC book is entitled the Power of Shazam.
Stewart Vernon
<man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>> Flash forward many many years... Since the other company couldn't
>> publish Captain Marvel, they eventually lost the copyrights and
>> trademarks... DC came along and scooped it up and have been trying to
>> publish Captain Marvel ever since...
>
>Re-read that and see if that makes sense, I always thought Capt. Marvel
>(Shazam) was DC's puppy-then they stopped (for whatever reason).
Nope. Captain Marvel was published by a completely different company.
They were attempting to capitalize on the popularity of super heroes
and Cap was their take on things, along with the entire Marvel family.
I don't think DC really cared at first, but when Cap began outselling
Superman... DC took notice and promptly shut them down.
It was during the absence of Captain Marvel that the Marvel Comics
Group decided to have a Captain Marvel character... By the time DC
tried to revive Cap, Marvel had already established their character so
a compromise of sorts was reached..
In the "olden" days, Captain Marvel could be called that, but ONLY on
the interior of the comic.. Marvel retained sole rights to use the
title Captain Marvel on covers, but inside they called him Mar-Vell...
Somewhere along the lines things seem to have relaxed a bit because
the female Captain Marvel seems to have been ok to use by Marvel.
I hope that clarifies things a bit more for you.. The end result is
that neither Marvel nor DC are the originators of "Captain Marvel" as
a character name, BUT Marvel has more rights to it since DC drove the
original owner out of business and Marvel beat DC to the punch in
using the name for a character later...
-Stewart
DERVISH M
>that neither Marvel nor DC are the originators of "Captain Marvel" as
>a character name, BUT Marvel has more rights to it since DC drove the
>original owner out of business and Marvel beat DC to the punch in
>using the name for a character later...
Fawcett was the original company for Captain Marvel (Billy Batson). M.F.
Enterprises published Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel Presents the Terrible 5
between 4/66 and 9/67. Marvel's Captain Marvel first appeance in Marvel
Super-Heroes 12# was cover dated 12/67. Both M. F. and Marvel's were aliens
from another planet although M.F.'s was pretty lame.
My belief, which could be wrong was that Marvel used the Mar-Vell name inside
the comic to distinguish the character from M.F. Enterprises and Fawcetts. Also
to avoid any lawsuit that for character infringement that M.F. might have.
By the time Shazam was published in '73 there might of been legal reasons that
DC could not use the name. There was also the legacy of Superman driving
Captain Marvel off the stands so calling the comic could have been a PR move.
There are others here who can give exact reasons for the use of Shazam! over
Captain Marvel.
Oh yeah back to the original idea-- yes I do consider Superman and Captain
Marvel variations on a theme same as Maximmortal. What is done with them is
what makes them different. So what I saw Byrne doing with Torch of Liberty, I
didn't see being very different than the reprints of Captain America from the
'40s that I've read. Maybe if Byrne had done more stories of Torch I would get
to see how different his run on the theme was. As is, it was just another riff
that wasn't that original too me, much like the Image boys when they started.
M J Moran
Valued Acer Customer
> that neither Marvel nor DC are the originators of "Captain Marvel" as
> a character name, BUT Marvel has more rights to it since DC drove the
> original owner out of business and Marvel beat DC to the punch in
> using the name for a character later...
Thanks. I guess you learn something new everyday. Especially about things
that you usually take for granted......
But wouldn't you agree that the characters of Shazam (Capt. Marvel) and
Superman as they exist now while having decidedly similar powers and
attitudes (traditional guy in cape) are really different characters? I
know its hard to find examples of truly completely original character
concepts nowadaysbut that's just because so much has gone before that
practically every concept has been done in one form or another.
Byrne's Torch of Liberty is similar to Cap, his Danger Unlimited is very
similar in style to FF, but in the case of both of these sets of characters
he deliberately designed them that way. The similarities are only
superficial however. I've compiled a list of the differences between the
two groups of characters to illustrate my point.
TORCH OF LIBERTY VS. CAPTAIN AMERICA
1. Unlike Cap, the Torch has absolutely no problem with killing his
enemies.
2. The Torch is not the product of a Government Super Soldier Project.
3. The Torch doesn't have a shield or other such contrivance.
DANGER UNLIMITED VS. FANTASTIC FOUR
1. Hunk Whorley is different from the Thing in that he can disguise his
appearance over a layer of pseudo-flesh. Alleviating somewhat the agony of
his existence as a monster.
2. In DU, the "torch" and "invisible girl" characters are the children of
the "reed richards" type scientist character.
3. Doc Danger's final inhuman incarnation offers a variety of different
story options than Mr. Fantastic.
DERVISH M
>neccessarily chronological) Doctor to whom an audience exposed, is usually
>their favorite and sets the standard by which the other actors (Doctors)
>are rated. For example, the Tom Baker (4th) Doctor was the first one whose
>shows were widely circulated in the US, and thus is usually considered to
>be the favorite. Whereas in Britain, many of the older fans who grew up on
>Pertwee's (3rd) Doctor consider him the favorite. Does that help.
>
>
Yes it does. As you can see I'm not a Dr. Who fan.
Now if we Byrned Dr. Who we would go back to the original actor and his
rendition, ignoring all the other incarnations including Tom Baker and Pertwee.
Instead of acknowledging that previous incarnations while moving on with the
new one (which is how I understand the show has handled transitions).
Byrne's treatment of the Demon was to claim it was all hypnotism ( I was going
to claim super hypnotism but Byrne retconned that out of Superman). Essentially
a bad dream, well that explanation ignores the fact that a lot of characters
would have to be hypnotized besides the Demon including Lobo, Wonder Woman,
Hitman, Batman etc.
Byrne claims he is going to bring Spiderman back to Lee/Ditko vision while
tweaking him to make it better. Rumors of an explosion as part of the origin
has arisen. I'm afraid that Byrne may do the same with the Hulk, return him to
the Lee/Kirby version ignoring 13 years of character developement by one
creator. Unfortunately, that may be what Marvel wants and Byrne will probably
deliver. At that time I will be off the Hulk train which has been an over 15
year experience for me. I hope Byrne goes back to what he used to
do--incorporate not demolish and I will keep enjoying the Hulk as long as buy
comics.
M J Moran
J1isback
Galactus in Spiderman, nor would you expect to see "Kingpin" type
characters in FF (not that they can't appear-in fact I really liked Byrne's
"Mission for A Dead Man" in FF [Hammerhead]) its just that the character's
really don't lend them to that sort of story.
Also I think its totally unfair to call FF "simple". <<
please tell that to Claremont, who has succeeded in adding yet another X title
to the MU with his FF storytelling. God forbid, I miss the DeFalco days....
Johnny
what the??
Mikko Aittola
stewart...@mindspring.com (Stewart Vernon) writes:
> You picked the wrong example here... Because when Captain Marvel
> first appeared in comics way back when, and began to outsell
> Superman... the folks at DC (maybe still called National Periodical at
> that time) sued the creators of Captain Marvel and WON because he was
> too similar to their Superman...
Well, lets put it this way then:
Marvel sued Rob because oh his FA work.
Marvel didn't sue Byrne (as far as I know) because
of his Torch work.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Also I find it disconcerting that Byrne does something in Kirby's
> name that Kirby himself would not do.
Huh?
What has Byrne done in Kirby's name?
I think you work very hard to put things in Byrne's mouth
in order to "prove" whatever you're trying to prove.
BTW, what ARE you trying to say with the above remark?
/Mikko
Victor Wong
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
> Well, lets put it this way then:
>
> Marvel sued Rob because oh his FA work.
>
> Marvel didn't sue Byrne (as far as I know) because
> of his Torch work.
One major difference:
Byrne may have drawn Cap, but he was never hired to write him on a regular
basis.
The same cannot be said for Liefeld.
When Liefeld first announced FA, the promo artwork STRONGLY implied
that he was using re-worked art for the HReborn Cap. How else can one
explain
FA getting a round shield (that looked a lot like Cap's Texas Bullseye) when
he'd never had one before?
I doubt that Marvel would have brought Liefeld to court if he hadn't left
the smirking
impression that he was going to ride on Cap's coattails.
Stewart Vernon
<man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
>But wouldn't you agree that the characters of Shazam (Capt. Marvel) and
>Superman as they exist now while having decidedly similar powers and
>attitudes (traditional guy in cape) are really different characters?
Well... Yes and no.. Ther are VERY similar characters.. I happen to
like Captain Marvel as a concept and have bought the new series since
its inception.. I haven't been buying Superman lately because it
hasn't been so great to me. So while they are similar, different
creative teams can add some originality to a storyline I think.
-Stewart
Stewart Vernon
wrote:
> Marvel sued Rob because oh his FA work.
And the interesting thing... I think the only reason Rob Liefeld
bought the rights to Fighting American was to cover his own behind..
Rumor has it that he was using plots for his new series that he had
intended to use with the Captain America series he was doing for
Marvel... and too many of the characters look and act too similar to
Captain America counterparts.
> Marvel didn't sue Byrne (as far as I know) because
> of his Torch work.
I do think there is a distinct difference when someone says "Hey, I
based this on Character X intentionally" than when someone makes
something SOOOOOO close and then vehemently denies any similarity at
all. Granted it can be a fine line, but I think intent means as much
as anything sometimes. Someone like Rob Liefeld who, along with the
original Image gang, turned up their noses at Marvel and said lots of
nasty stuff when they left... I'd expect Marvel to come down on them
if they stepped out of line like that... Whereas if you keep your
nose clean, they might not bite you if you are nice and forward about
things.
-Stewart
Victor Wong
Mikko Aittola wrote in message ...
>
According to the interviews that Dervish has quoted to support his view,
once Kirby
was taken off a particular title he no longer bothered to follow up on
it--the succeeding
creator was free to divurge on another creative path. IOW, he would leave
the character alone.
I suspect that Dervish wants Byrne to continue PAD's interpretation of the
Hulk,
rather than reverting to the earlier Kirby-inspired version. But I don't
think Kirby was
ever quoted as saying that he would continue another creator's plot thread.
Paul O'Brien
<derv...@aol.com> writes
>
>Now if we Byrned Dr. Who we would go back to the original actor and his
>rendition, ignoring all the other incarnations including Tom Baker and Pertwee.
That would be William Hartnell. In practice, you can't do that
because he's been dead for twenty years, but the equivalent would
be to have the Doctor regenerate into an old man with similarly
eccentric behaviour.
Never liked Hartnell. Mind you, I grew up with the Peter Davison
stories, so what do I know?
DERVISH M
>
> What has Byrne done in Kirby's name?
>
> I think you work very hard to put things in Byrne's mouth
> in order to "prove" whatever you're trying to prove.
> BTW, what ARE you trying to say with the above remark?
>
>
>
Gee Mikko, I've known you to sometimes misread post but I didn't know about the
faulty memory.
Byrne stated that he was returning Etrigan the Demon to Kirby's vision (in an
AOL chat which was logged), he also took on the title of "Keeper of the Kirby
Flame". All this was talked about in the Wonder Woman threads in which you
participated, usually with snipping and taking things out of context.
I have stated my opinions-- not trying to prove anything--this is a discussion
group. Why do you participate? I do it, to discuss ideas.
My opinion of Byrne is that he used to criticize the Image creators for
stealing/copying Marvel and other creators--for not being original. At the time
Byrne was publishing Next Men (a fairly original concept). Byrne started doing
exactly what he criticized the Image boys for doing except it was "a tribute"
to the creators. Danger Unlimited and Torch of Liberty were the examples
discussed.
Along with this I stated another criticism I have of Byrne. He has been
"returning" characters to their roots while ignoring other creators work on the
characters. Only it is "John doing a John" to quote Harlan Ellison. He is
returning them to what he wants the character to be. Ya know what, I have no
problem with this if he didn't use the guise of following the original creators
vision excuse.
Byrne is about to take over a book I have followed for over 15 years. I hadn't
realized that until I had gone through that part of my collection the other
day. I'm fearful of what Byrne will do with the character and comic. Especially
in light of some of the changes (oh excuse me-- tweaking) that Byrne is
planning for Spiderman. I don't buy the Spiderman titles now but my pattern
used to be to buy anything I could get my hands on that Byrne was associated
with. I won't be buying these new Spiderman books essentially because Byrne is
doing the retcon. I will buy the Hulk series and will give it a try but I will
not buy it as long as I did Wonder Woman (completing the Byrne run for some
gawd forsaken reason) if it is of the same quality of writing, plotting and
research as the Wonder Woman series.
M J Moran
DERVISH M
>Hulk,
>rather than reverting to the earlier Kirby-inspired version. But I don't
>think Kirby was
>ever quoted as saying that he would continue another creator's plot thread.
>
I don't think Kirby ever did either. And you are going along the lines of my
thinking. Byrne is going to his own thing which any creator should. So I don't
feel that Byrne has to pursue any plots that PAD would have done unless he
chooses.
I fear that he will ignore or deconstruct what Peter David has done in the
name of "the original concept". Something he did poorly with Etrigan. Another
fear is that he will solve all the problems he sees with the various
incarnations ala' Donna Troy but at least he wouldn't leave other writers to
deal with the mess.
M J Moran
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> The problem now is that I don't see much difference between what Larsen,
> Liefeld and MacFarlane did and what Byrne has been doing the last five
> years.
And because of that Byrne should keep his mouth shut instead
of saying his opinion if he wants to or if he's asked to?
BTW, what has Byrne said about Larsen?
And I see a difference between what Image has done and
what Byrne has done during last five years:
For one thing, Byrne has done his creator owned work himself.
And last three years he has worked mostly for DC.
> Byrne can copy page after page of Kirby's New Gods sign it Apre' Kirby
> and it is OK.
That's left to readers to judge.
IMHO, it certainly is better to credit the swipes than to not
credit the swipes. Do you disagree?
Also, what's VERY different here is that Byrne retold/recapped the SAME
Kirby story where he lifted the panels. He didn't "create"
'John Byrne's Modern Gods' and swipe the art from Kirby's New
Gods. See the difference?
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Byrne's treatment of the Demon was to claim it was all hypnotism ( I was
> going to claim super hypnotism but Byrne retconned that out of Superman).
Well, how'd you explain a competely different origin for a
character? How's that possible?
> Byrne claims he is going to bring Spiderman back to Lee/Ditko vision while
> tweaking him to make it better.
SHOW ME where Byrne claims he's going to make Spider-Man better
than Lee/Ditko did.
> I'm afraid that Byrne may do the same with the Hulk, return him to
> the Lee/Kirby version ignoring 13 years of character developement by one
> creator.
Frankly, what's the character development in the case of
David's Hulk? David has written many versions of Hulk.
I haven't read them all, so I could be wrong - but for example
I didn't see much connection between Gary Frank era Hulk
and Adam Kubert era Hulk. I'm a big fan of both runs, but
I certainly can't find a reason from those stories that would
prevent some other version of Hulk used in future.
I'd certainly prefer that Byrne/Garney Hulk is self-contained
and doesn't require the knowledge of Peter David's stories.
And I hope Byrne/Garney do a version of Hulk THEY prefer.
I don't understand how people can AT THE SAME time be sympathetic
and understand how David didn't want to write a version of Hulk
he wasn't comfortable with AND DEMAND that Byrne should write
a Hulk he isn't comfortable with. Where's the logic?
/Mikko
Tim Roll-Pickering
>
> >Now if we Byrned Dr. Who we would go back to the original actor and his
> >rendition, ignoring all the other incarnations including Tom Baker and Pertwee.
>
> That would be William Hartnell. In practice, you can't do that
> because he's been dead for twenty years, but the equivalent would
> be to have the Doctor regenerate into an old man with similarly
> eccentric behaviour.
>
> Never liked Hartnell. Mind you, I grew up with the Peter Davison
> stories, so what do I know?
>
Davison's portrayal very similar to a younger Hartnell's.
DERVISH M
>> The problem now is that I don't see much difference between what Larsen,
>> Liefeld and MacFarlane did and what Byrne has been doing the last five
>> years.
> And because of that Byrne should keep his mouth shut instead
> of saying his opinion if he wants to or if he's asked to?
It's called throwing stones in glass houses. Byrne can say anything he wants
and he can be criticized for that which he puts into public domain. That is
what I'm doing.
> BTW, what has Byrne said about Larsen?
Larsen was "named withheld" in CBG. Byrne attacked Image enmass when they first
formed. PAD did a better job of critiquing them than Byrne. Can someone help us
out with the particulars, I don't have my old CBG's nor do I wish to trot out
my Next Men from the barn.
> And I see a difference between what Image has done and
> what Byrne has done during last five years:
> For one thing, Byrne has done his creator owned work himself.
Which part have been "tributes" to characters
> And last three years he has worked mostly for DC.
>> Byrne can copy page after page of Kirby's New Gods sign it Apre' Kirby
>> and it is OK.
> That's left to readers to judge.
Yes it is and this reader is judging. I don't particularly care for it when
done over and over in a single issue.
> IMHO, it certainly is better to credit the swipes than to not
> credit the swipes. Do you disagree?
Yes and no. I don't the the swiper who credits and who swipes as much as Byrne
has should be the one criticizing those who don't always credit.
> Also, what's VERY different here is that Byrne retold/recapped the SAME
> Kirby story where he lifted the panels. He didn't "create"
> 'John Byrne's Modern Gods' and swipe the art from Kirby's New
> Gods. See the difference?
I don't argue that there isn't a difference. I argue that the difference really
doesn't matter that much. Byrne is only slightly less guilty than those he
accuses. Many writers and artist have retold stories without lifting image
after image from the comics. They did not resort to "almost" copying the
layouts and panels of the originals. (I have compared the panels in
question--Byrne did not trace as accused but it appears close). Check out
various origin issues for Iron Man to see this. See a difference?
> /Mikko
DERVISH M
> and understand how David didn't want to write a version of Hulk
> he wasn't comfortable with AND DEMAND that Byrne should write
> a Hulk he isn't comfortable with. Where's the logic?
>
Gee got to revert to the snip and cut tactics. Kind of like hit and run driving
ain't it.
Where's the logic? Where has Byrne said he isn't comfortable writing a Peter
David style Hulk? Need sources here Mikko, sources!
Also you might try following the ideas presented. I don't expect Byrne to write
the Hulk as Peter David did. I pretty sure he would be a pale imitation as he's
been with Kirby recently. What I don't want is a negation of the work that has
gone on before.
> I didn't see much connection between Gary Frank era Hulk
> and Adam Kubert era Hulk. I'm a big fan of both runs, but
> I certainly can't find a reason from those stories that would
> prevent some other version of Hulk used in future.
PAD had a habit of bridging the disperant versions without negating the
previous incarnation. He would shake things up but also would get around to
explaining the changes.
M J Moran
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Another fear is that he will solve all the problems he sees with the
> various incarnations ala' Donna Troy but at least he wouldn't leave
> other writers to deal with the mess.
I think Donna Troy is pretty much an open slate.
Before people had read Byrne's story they accused him of
making major changes - defining new powers, new identity and
new costume - before he leaves, but because that didn't
happen it's now called a "mess". I guess you have to complain
about something...?
/Mikko
DERVISH M
>
> Before people had read Byrne's story they accused him of
> making major changes - defining new powers, new identity and
> new costume - before he leaves, but because that didn't
> happen it's now called a "mess". I guess you have to complain
> about something...?
>
>
> /Mikko
Sorry about a DC conversation here. Donna Troy was left essentially the exact
same she was before except we now know that she is a doppleganger (read
"magical" clone) of Diana, Wonder Woman. We now have retconned into place a
WWII Wonder Woman which has to be explained as well as a change in the origin
of Diana, Wonder Woman since her reasons for leaving Paradise Island has been
nullified.
Byrne left Donnna Troy all nifty and clean and unchanged while mucking up the
DC Universe to attain this. This is why it is called a mess. Most creators
"loop" their time in comics so that the ramifications stay small and contained
within the comic or comic "family of books. Byrne left the time loop open with
8 years. Like the changes in Etrigan, it seems he did not think past his own
book about what the changes meant.
Again it is a discussion, Mikko. If you can't handle it and wish to call it
complaining, so be it. I call it talking about what Byrne did with the
characters.
I tend to forget that you can't criticize your idols which Byrne seems to be
one. I used to defend Byrne myself, not so blindly, but I did. Now a days, I
take most my idols off their pedestals, guess it comes with age.
M J Moran
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Yes and no. I don't the the swiper who credits and who swipes as
> much as Byrne has should be the one criticizing those who don't
> always credit.
Well, at least he knows what he's talking about...
/Mikko
Valued Acer Customer
the
> name of "the original concept". Something he did poorly with Etrigan.
> fear is that he will solve all the problems he sees with the various
> incarnations ala' Donna Troy but at least he wouldn't leave other writers
to
> deal with the mess.
I don't think that's likely....given that in the case of Donna Troy, her
origin and powers have gone thorough so many changes that it was getting
more than a little messy.
Valued Acer Customer
DERVISH M <derv...@aol.com> wrote in article
> I don't argue that there isn't a difference. I argue that the difference
really
> doesn't matter that much. Byrne is only slightly less guilty than those
he
> accuses. Many writers and artist have retold stories without lifting
image
> after image from the comics. They did not resort to "almost" copying the
> layouts and panels of the originals. (I have compared the panels in
> question--Byrne did not trace as accused but it appears close). Check out
> various origin issues for Iron Man to see this. See a difference?
I think you're missing the point behind Byrne's use of the samge imagery as
Kirby. In a title like Jack Kirby's 4th World it has a definitive style
(ie-costumes, technology, environment.) Byrne was attempting to
capture that imagery for the modern reader-who might have missed Kirb's
initial run on the title. And the reason I think that Byrne's art looks
like Kirby's is simple....Byrne has stated on numerous occasions that he's
a big fan of Kirby's artistic style and has been trying to emulate it as
much as possible.
DERVISH M
>Kirby. In a title like Jack Kirby's 4th World it has a definitive style
>(ie-costumes, technology, environment.) Byrne was attempting to
> capture that imagery for the modern reader-who might have missed Kirb's
>initial run on the title. And the reason I think that Byrne's art looks
>like Kirby's is simple....Byrne has stated on numerous occasions that he's
>a big fan of Kirby's artistic style and has been trying to emulate it as
>much as possible.
>
Choosing to use a panel or two or even three to swipe to do this, I understand.
Taking a page layout, copying it so that even the character's stances are the
same-- In a couple panels the major difference between the original and Byrne's
redrawing was the placement of a hat. (scene: Izaya facing off against
Steppenwolf). Copying other page layouts to the same extent is what I criticize
Byrne on.
I have no quarrel with Byrne evoking the spirit of Kirby in his artwork.
The main point which I don't think I'll restate after this is--- Byne
criticizing people for ripping off material is the pot calling the kettle
black. The only difference is that Byrne's pot has been teflon coated by
labelling and his own spin doctoring.
M J Moran
DERVISH M
>origin and powers have gone thorough so many changes that it was getting
>more than a little messy.
>
>
Just remember that Byrne did almost nothing to clear up the messy part you are
talking about except to make her a clone of Diana. All the other things
happened just as Wally West remembered them.
M J Moran
DERVISH M
>> much as Byrne has should be the one criticizing those who don't
>> always credit.
>
> Well, at least he knows what he's talking about...
My fast typing left out "think" in the line "I don't think the swiper who
credits and who swipes as much . . .
I'll concede who would know better about swiping than Byrne, oooops I mean
homaging than Byrne.
M J Moran
Paul O'Brien
<mait...@vipunen.hut.fi> writes
>
> What has Byrne done in Kirby's name?
"Jack Kirby's Fourth World"?
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
ITV-2, indeed.
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> The main point which I don't think I'll restate after this is--- Byne
> criticizing people for ripping off material is the pot calling the kettle
> black. The only difference is that Byrne's pot has been teflon coated by
> labelling and his own spin doctoring.
I'm not 100% sure if I've understood Byrne correctly, but AFIK:
Byrne thinks it's wrong to "swipe" without proper attribution.
[He propably has more parameters than that, but let's assume
that's THE parameter.]
I don't understand why Byrne, based on that, can't:
* "Swipe" with what he thinks is "proper attribution"
* Criticize others who "swipe" without what he thinks is
"proper attribution"
I'd like someone to explain me what is the part Byrne does
wrong AND explain what he should do then.
I mean, if you have formed some sort of opinion about something,
let's say, something being wrong and something being right, why
shouldn't you do the "right" thing and explain to others what
you think is "right" and what's "wrong".
BTW, I didn't find any specific examples where Byrne accuses
Image artist of swiping.
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
derv...@aol.com (DERVISH M) writes:
> Byrne stated that he was returning Etrigan the Demon to Kirby's vision (in
> an AOL chat which was logged),
Yes, and if you have noticed, the stories are credited 'written
by John Byrne' or something like that. And I don't know what in you
makes you believe that when Byrne says 'Kirby's vision' he means
that literally instead of of his INTERPRETATION of it.
Here's couple quotes, presented here out of context:
(How anybody could misunderstood the "message" in these is beyond me.)
***begin quote***
Where variants like the Demon storyline go wrong is in contradicting what was
clearly established -- and repeatedly so -- by the creator. Kirby showed that
Merlin had transformed Etrigan into Jason Blood, and thus gave us something
marginally original, in that Blood longed for his own "life", separate from
Etrigan, even tho he did not exist except as an extension of the Demon. Later
writers turned it into demonic possession, and, as I have said elsewhere, you
can't throw a stick in the DC Universe without hitting someone who was/is
possessed by a demon. Thus something interesting was changed into a cliche,
and that, by anyone's definition, is not a change for the better.
****end quote****
***begin quote***
Realistically, the scenario is this: I am a die-hard Kirby fan, and as far as I
am concerned anything Jack did with the characters he created is canon,
and anything else (including my own work) is suspect. Some of us, in
following Kirby's footsteps, have tried the best we can to calculate the
path upon which he would have led us had he continued with the various
projects we have "inherited". Others have come to the table with their own
agendas, and have taken the Kirby characters to places they
thought/deemed appropriate.
Now, I came to NEW GODS/FOURTH WORLD with one thing in mind:
getting it back to the Kirby "plan", as best and as nearly as I could
discern it. However, foremost in my mind at all times is that these are very
much NOT "my toys", and I do not have anything remotely like the ability
to "go. . . home" with them. They belong to DC Comics, and it is up to DC
Comics to make the final and commanding decisions that control these
characters. Up to this point, those decisions have been to hand me the
whole kit and kaboodle and let me pursue without interference the
directions I feel the book/characters should take. If DC was to decide that
Orion should join the JLA and, through this process, be transformed into
someone other than who I think he is, they would be completely within
their right to do so.
***end quote****
> problem with this if he didn't use the guise of following the original
> creators vision excuse.
It's VERY HARD for me to understand what kind of way of thinking
might lead you to use the words "guise" and "excuse".
Frankly, I can't imagine how Byrne could be more straightforward
explaining his approach to the two series above. You may not
like his approach, and that's fine, but I don't understand what's
the problem with his "explanation".
/Mikko
Paul O'Brien
<rollpi...@mcmail.com> writes
>Paul O'Brien wrote:
>>
>> Never liked Hartnell. Mind you, I grew up with the Peter Davison
>> stories, so what do I know?
>>
>That's strange. Many people, including Hartnell's widow Heather, found
>Davison's portrayal very similar to a younger Hartnell's.
Perhaps more accurately, I didn't particularly like the few Hartnell
stories I've seen. There's a massive style gulf between the sixties
and eighties Dr Whos.
DERVISH M
> might lead you to use the words "guise" and "excuse".
>
> Frankly, I can't imagine how Byrne could be more straightforward
> explaining his approach to the two series above. You may not
> like his approach, and that's fine, but I don't understand what's
> the problem with his "explanation".
>
>
> /Mikko
Well nice quotes as good as the chat logs. Having read the original Demon's
Byrne's interpretation of what Kirby did was just as good as those authors who
made it demonic possession. Either interpretation worked with what Kirby had
layed out and written. The demonic possession made a little more sense since
Jason Blood seemed reluctant at times to call forth Etrigan.
As for what Byrne considers mundane in the DC Universe (yeah I know this is
Marvel). Demon possession was not run of the mill at the time that
interpretation was taken. Nor is it quite as prevalent even today as the Dr.
Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde (also known as the werewolf syndrome) character in DC. A
villain and sometimes hero who transforms into something bigger and meaner. Hey
maybe Byrne is hitting his niche with Hulk and Etrigan was just practice.
Gee, what Kirby did was canon. So Byrne would play with what Kirby layed out
trying to extrapolate where Kirby would lead with it. Sure explains all those
times Kirby showed Scott Free hanging around the building of America some 200
years. Oh Kirby never showed Scott Free in the past? That was a Byrne
invention-- kind of contradicted the foundation Kirby had laid? Contradicts the
plot idea that earth was a new front of the war between New Genesis and
Apokolips? but Byrne would never go against Kirby's canon now would he?
See that is the problem with his explanation Mikko. It doesn't ring true from
what Byrne has done. So I question what he says his objectives for the Hulk are
since he is quite capable of saying one thing and doing another
I find it interesting that you can quote Byrne so extensivly without being able
to snip any of my ideas in one piece. You snip and cut and then attempt to tear
the pieces apart. Also for further reference--what source are you quoting?
M J Moran.
trak...@hotmail.com
qui...@fortalnet.com.br (quimico) wrote:
> I just don't agree with bringing soap to comics.
> They are diferent media.
>
I'm guessing you haven't read many Stan Lee comics, have you. He built Marvel
on the idea of comics as soap opera. Probably the best example of this is his
run on Amazing Spider-Man. They make today's soaps look like gritty drama.
trakkian
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
trak...@hotmail.com
"Valued Acer Customer" <man...@cyberramp.net> wrote:
> What has the latest group of Marvel Creators come up with.....
>
> The Legacy Virus: how long are they planning on streching this plot line
> out.....
>
> Cable/Stryfe: Has anyone ever asked if Stryfe eas always supposed to be a
> clone of Cable. Then how come he has the same scar over his eye. Anyone
> with a hint of biological knowledge knows that scars are not the result of
> genetics, but rather life experiences and so it's highly unlikely that a
> clone would have the same ones as his template. It's probably more likely
> that Stryfe was supposed to be a "future version of Cable". Read your back
> issues of X-Force again with that in mind. But once Cable's popularity
> took off TPTB decided not to turn him into a villain.
>
> Family Members we didn't know about: The third Summer's Brother (How come
> Corsair mentioned to Scott that he had Grandparents (during Paul Smith's
> run as artist) buit forgot to mention another little tyke.
>
> X-Ternals: Marvel has yet to decide if that was all just a bad dream or
> what!
>
I agree with most of what you said about Byrne, but I just wanted to clarify
something: All of the above storylines were begun well before the current
X-Writers (Joe Kelly and Steven Seagle on X-Men and UXM, Joe Casey on Cable,
and John Francis Moore on X-Force) came in. All of these writers have spent
the last 6 months+ trying to deal with all of those issues while still
telling entertaining stories, and they're pulling it off nicely, and I'm
looking forward to seeing what they can do once they've put all of the above
stories behind them. Just to let you know what they have done, since I
assume you haven't read the X-Books in a while (which is just fine):
Kelly & Seagle: The two books are now beginning to focus on one team of
X-Men consisting of Storm, Wolverine, Shadowcat, Collosus, Nightcrawler,
Marrow, and Rogue. They're also telling small, character driven stories in
which the action plays a part, but isn't the only thing. Very good stuff.
Joe Casey: Is taking Cable as far from the X-Verse as possible. Cable is
still a soldier sent from the future to defeat Apocalypse, but that battle
isn't going to happen until the Millenium. Meantime, Cable is based in
Hell's Kitchen, harassed by Shield Agents, and featuring non-X guest stars
(like Black Panther). He's stopped looking like Liefeld's standard big
soldier design (no giant guns, no arsenal strapped to every appendage, etc).
And the artist is very Kirby influenced, which, while derivative, makes for
an interesting look.
John Francis Moore: All of that X-ternal crap is gone. Now you have a book
about half a dozen young folks who are the best of friends and out on their
own in San Francisco. Features Sunspot, Meltdown (aka Boom-Boom), Siryn,
Warpath, and Dani Moonstar, and Cannonball's rejoining the team.
Now, I don't mean to sound like an X-Freak (my tastes run more toward Busiek,
Waid and Robinson's work) but these are consistently good titles and a vast
improvement over most of the X-Books a.c. (after Claremont). UXM and X-Men
are starting a new storyline (the UXM issue is out, XM isn't yet), The latest
issue of Cable is the start of a new storyline, and the next issue of X-Force
is a new storyline. All worth at least checking out.