So over on the Byrne board there's a lengthy thread about the Hulk which consists, for the most part, of bashing my work on the title because, well, it's the Byrne board, so it's SOP. But what really fractured me was the following comment from John:
"Once upon a time, when a writer wanted to "do something different" s/he left the character/title being worked on, handing it over to someone who wanted to continue with the established motifs. Some time around 25 years ago this started to change. Writers like Claremont and David, as well as others, began changing the books/characters to suit their interests of the moment....It's the same old song -- the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters."
You just have to love that from the guy who, before my run on the title, was handed a character who was unmarried and transformed into a monster when he got angry, and over the course of the run he split the character in two, separating them into two individual beings, thus eliminating a dynamic that had been in place for a quarter of a century, married off the hero, and basically wrote a series of stories that were indistinguishable from "Godzilla"--dedicated scientist and his group of equally dedicated followers pursues a furious green monster he's accidentally unleashed upon the world. Stories that, in short, had nothing to do with the Hulk.
And that's not even counting what the master of lip service to authorial intent did to the Vision, turning him white and unemotional when the original Vision was neither.
That John Byrne. What a crack up.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 27, 2006 09:34 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingYou forgot to mention his revamp of Supes, changed the whole dynamic of the character. When a writer comes onto a book, I want them to grow the character, not just do the same old same old with it. That would get old and repetitive, much like John's continual need to cause controversy so that everyone remembers he is still around.
You forgot to mention his revamp of Supes, changed the whole dynamic of the character. When a writer comes onto a book, I want them to grow the character, not just do the same old same old with it. That would get old and repetitive, much like John's continual need to cause controversy so that everyone remembers he is still around.
Seems a certain wall-crawling menace got a bit of a modification by Byrne as well. Anyone remember the fan reaction to that?
Memo from pot to kettle: you're black! (cough- Man of Steel- cough)
I used to read the posts at Byrne Robotics quite regularly, and I even posted there once. Because I really, really, really like Byrne's work.
But, y'know, I can't even look at that forum anymore. The man is so embittered, hyper-judgmental, and ridiculously hypocritical, even the thought of his forum just gives me a headache.
Note to any Byrnebots who may actually be reading this: I'm basing this on my evaluation of Byrne's very own postings in his own forum. I'm taking nothing out of context, I am not relying on hearsay, or doing any of the other things you accuse Byrne's detractors of doing. The man is what he is, folks.
"Oh, give us a specific example, you accursed Byrne-basher!" cried Byrne's defenders.
Why? Peter already did just that.
God, I hated his work on my Superman...Well, not mine, per se, but my hero...
Past that, he's downright wrong.
What he gave us was a formula for absolute stagnation.
I want the characters to be true to themselves, but I sure as hell want them to grow too.
There's not a whole hell of a lot in PAD's Hulk run which doesn't mesh pretty well with what came before. It just looks at it in a smarter, more focused away.
There's nothing that makes me want to stab my eyes out more than seeing comics like an episode of the Flintstones where everything's back to normal at the end of the issue.
It's only a problem when it's not done with thought and care and respect, not blind dogma.
It's sad that such a cool character like the Vision is being given the Byrne treatment AGAIN over in the pages of Teen Beat Avengers. He is nothing but a robot now.
Remember when the Vision was the android that could cry? Well, Marvel doesn't either. The character is treated like a household appliance.
PAD, I agree with every word of your post except the very last one. I believe that the correct word should be "head" rather than "up," making the last paragraph read:
"That John Byrne. What a crack head."
Silver lining - at least he used the words "PAD" and "talent" in the same sentence. ;)
Pad, I don't always agree with you, but seriously, does anyone pay attention to what John Byrne says anymore? It's not even that I disagree with 90% of what he says, but it's obvious that he isn't interested in other points of view. And he seems to actualyl be proud of the fact that apparantly every bit of his conscious thought occurs in a closed loop.
Can we give Byrne a post in the Bush White House? Seems his perspective on reality is about as unfocused as theirs.
Jay "King of the Obvious Joke"
I'd not use Byrne's Superman revamp as a counterexample, as everything that changed was either dictated by or approved directly by The Powers That Were before they went ahead. It certainly wasn't just Byrne's revamp - the new Lex Luthor was Marv Wolfman's idea, or so I keep getting told.
The Evil done to the poor Vision, however, is a) inexcusable and b) a perfect example of what Byrne himself was railing against.
I agree, VISION QUEST + HULKBUSTERS=total crap. I hate not liking Byrne anymore because I used to love a lot of Byrne's early work, especially the art.
He created the current Wonder Girl, Cassandra Sandmark who is a hottie now but when Byrne drew her she had the the worst haircuts ever seen on a young female character! With or without the wig!
Dear Peter,
Your body of original work has outshine Mr. Byrne for well over 10 years now. While he is living in his past glory days like a not so funny Al Bundy ("I once wrote the Fantastic Four and scored four touch-downs in one high school game) While he's a comic legend in his own right, so are you - and you still surpass him. While he retreads the same types of stories, you created excellent work like Fallen Angel. When John Byrne goes back to old character, he did it cause he needs the work. When you do it, it's because the fans beg for it.
As the Metallica Lyrics say, "the empty can rattles the most." John, as much as I respect his past work, hasn't had a quarter full can of true creativity for years and everyone knows it. And he is literally reaching the point where only people my age remember that glory.
You, on the other hand, will not be relegated to there. You are a comic master and everyone knows a book will only improve with you on it. You're ideas are fresh.
Remeber that next time the old bullies start yapping.
Peace.
I LOVED the changes you put the Hulk through! Those were some of the first comics I ever read and are, in a huge way, responsible for me getting into comics in the first place. And how DARE he diss Claremont - the guy who's responsibile for pretty much every awesome moment in X-Men history! Man, what a dickhead...
Howard wrote:
Seems a certain wall-crawling menace got a bit of a modification by Byrne as well. Anyone remember the fan reaction to that?
Yup! I got three or four letters printed in that miniseries (except for the one which said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!") :)
Well, just because he contradicts himself doesn't mean that his point is moot. I mean, it doesn't help, but...
When I lent the first two volumes of PAD's Hulk Visionaries to my 13-year-old cousin, he expressed disappointment because this was not the Hulk he knew.
"It's the same old song -- the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters."
I think my biggest complaint about that statement is that it puts a tremendous number of limitations on writing characters. Ya know, sometimes a gimmick gets old. Hulk can only smash so much. Supergirl can only be so bland. Superman can only be so powerful. Sometimes you need writers to come in with new ideas and force the characters to meet them head-on, even if it means transforming them. Otherwise, what he have is a thing called "stagnation," which comics must, must, MUST avoid at all cost if they are to last.
But that's on the writer's heads. Me, I'd rather just read good stories. Hulk can smash all he wants, as long as it is good. Or he can try something else, although it may take a talented writer like PAD to show us how versatile a character can be.
Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman shows what a mistake Byrne's version of the character was. Superman is limited when he is portrayed as essentially a Kansas farm boy who has super powers. However, when he's a strange visitor from another planet pretending to be Clark Kent but moving in realms beyond our dreams and conducting experiments beyond our comprehension, the sky is the limit storywise.
While I loved Byrne's run on FF, it took some getting used to because of the changes he made. And I agree that what he did with the Vision was terrible.
And Peter, when it comes to portraying the Hulk, you are The Master!!!
Writers need some freedom to innovate. Take Walt Simonson's Thor. Thor had become stale. No one could challenge him, and only if he transformed to his mortal self was there an issue. However, by introducing Beta Ray Bill - who could lift Thor's hammer - and following a great arc of Norse mythology, Thor became a must-read title.
Later in the series though, Captain America suddenly became able to lift the hammer, too. To me, that was innovation that went TOO far. By continuing to find more and more "worthy" individuals, it watered down one of the things that made Thor unique.
This reminds me of a column (BID, I think??) where PAD talked about all the conflicts between satisfying the old comic readers who want tradition, and the newer comic readers who want constant innovation on a title.
Well, I guess I'm torn here, because I'm a PAD fan and a JB fan. I really enjoyed both runs on Hulk. I seem to recall JB's run was cut short, while PAD's went...well...awhile.
I think a character should be recognizable to the point that a 13 year old should be able to read the book and not be *too* dissapointed by what he finds. I think rule of thumb should be: "Make whatever changes to the character that you think will make for good stories...just make sure that when you are done, you leave the character either as you found him/her, as much as possible, or as close to the original model as you can. That way, when the next guy comes along, they've got a blank canvas to work with, not painting over someone else's work.
In closing, I kinda wish for the days when I didn't know who the creators were, except for the names. I sometimes wish we could close the curtain that the internet has open to the backstage area...
I actually liked the Man of Steel revamp of Superman. However, as someone already pointed out, that's was a team effort at DC.
It certainly is unfortunate that Byrne acts like this sometimes.
One other thing. When Vision was added to Young Avengers, did anyone else thing of Red Tornado in Young Justice?
This is always a complicated issue. "Changing characters" and all that. People keep arguing over Spider-Man's marriage, for instance. I generally choose to ignore Byrne's rants, though. He's a good artist and I look forward to his work on the new Atom series, but he's full of hot air.
"He created the current Wonder Girl, Cassandra Sandmark who is a hottie now but when Byrne drew her she had the the worst haircuts ever seen on a young female character! With or without the wig!"
This was always one of the things that got me about the Byrne/PAD situation. Cassie was created as part of Byrne's ongoing quest to create the "everygirl teen superheroine". First he did it with Kitty Pryde, for whom he blamed the "failure" of his vision on Chris Claremont and the nature of the X-Men comic. Then he'd create Wonder Girl, who few people cared for. After that, he created the Mattie Franklin version of Spider-Woman, who possibly lasted a shorter time than any other version of Spider-Woman.
Now, when he found out that someone wanted Cassie in Young Justice (which was still being called JLA Jr. at the time), he opposed the idea and said that he felt it would undermine the "regular girl" quality he was going for with the character. He felt that a super-team would make her seem less normal.
Now, DC let Cassie join Young Justice and handed her over to who else but Peter David. What does he do? He proceeds to absolutely slam the concept through the hoop! Cassie went from being a rather stereotypical spunky kid to being a smart, brave and yet entirely normal girl who happened to have super-powers. The perfect everykid and the heart of Young Justice. Not only that, the exact opposite of what Byrne suggested happens. Instead of Cassie being made less normal by the team, she and the other girls manage to ground the team and make them into a group of teenage friends rather than just yet another teen super-group.
So, since PAD actually managed to utilize Byrne's idea better than Byrne did, I think we can say that the things he says are to be taken with a grain of salt.
(Mind you, I do think Cassie's strayed from her "everygirl" roots, but only after she joined the Titans).
"When Vision was added to Young Avengers, did anyone else thing of Red Tornado in Young Justice?"
I think that was the idea. I mean, it couldn't have been a coincidence, since they're basically the same character with different powers.
"I think that was the idea. I mean, it couldn't have been a coincidence, since they're basically the same character with different powers."
I don't know. They're serving very different roles in the groups. The new Vision is a peer to the others, while Red Tornado was with Young Justice to supervise. Also, Vision doesn't have the dry wit that Red Tornado developed under Mr. David.
Posted by: Stephen McGrath at May 27, 2006 04:17 PM
In closing, I kinda wish for the days when I didn't know who the creators were, except for the names. I sometimes wish we could close the curtain that the internet has open to the backstage area...
I sure as hell don't. I started identifying my favorite creators when I was six or seven. I was proud that I was able to identify an artist by looking at their artwork, without seeing the credits.
Before long, I even learned to identify the styles of various writers. I was even prouder.
Why? Because the idea that "characters are more important than creators" is pure bunk. Characters, and the things they do, are the result of the work of creators. The things that happen on the comic-book page couldn't happen without the work of creators. Good characters are the result of good creators.
Spider-Man is good when the creators on Spider-Man are good. He is not as good when the creators on his book are not as good. Characters are naught but ideas until a creator does something with them. Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's the execution that counts.
I don't follow characters, I follow creators. Like Peter David.
Rock on, Peter.
PAD is actually the first author that I was really aware of. And that was when I started college and Spidey 2099 came out.
Of course, I knew *of* authors before then. I knew that Stan Lee had created lots of Spidey stuff and Bob Kane had created Batman (I now know that Bill Finger was a large part of that, too). However, at that point I was still reading comics purely because of characters. I liked Spider-Man, so all Spider-Man comics were created equal.
After I started reading Spidey 2099, I started paying attention to writers, and to artists to a lesser degree. I'm now at the point where I go onto amazon.com and type in a author's name to see what Trade Paperbacks he has out. I guess I give Peter credit for making me realise that the author maters as much as the title character.
One other thing about Byrne's comments. Stan Lee shook up the status quo *constantly*. Byrne's version of the history of comics isn't very consistent with Marvel's history.
It was John Byrne who got me into comics. Specifically that last panel in an X-men book, where Magneto turns to face them, a full page.
I didn't know who he was. But i could not wait until the next issue.
Around that time I also read the Count Nefaria trilogy in Avengers and I was totally hooked into the Marvel universe.
I really would like to like John Byrne. But it's just not possible any more. He's too bitter, too judgemental and his reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.
There are times when I think that PAD is a little too thin skinned but a few minutes over at the Byrne board and I come away convinced that Peter is as tough as Toshiro Mifune compared to the way Byrne carries on.
John Byrne will always have a special place in comics history that nobody can take away, not even himself. Which is a good thing because he has done a lot to tarnish it. If he wants to "win" his feuds with those creators he feels have wronged him here's a suggestion--beat them by writing better stories and illustrating them with the panache that made me fall in love with a medium those many years ago.
This is yet another example of why this website needs a frickin' fan board. C'mon, people! How long will I have to shout into the darkness before someone realizes that it's a good idea?
As a comic book fan, I admit I spend a fair amount of time at the Byrne board. But the more I'm there, the more disappointed I get in the way people get treated - I'm pretty sure one long-time poster was totally banned from the site because he disagreed with Byrne too much.
I would abandon that board in a heartbeat if there was a PAD board on this website, and I suspect I wouldn't exactly be leading the exodus from Byrne's site.
So please, PAD, Kathleen, I'm begging you. BEGGING YOU. Start up a message board. It would make life easier, and wonderful.
Having read all the comments on this thread thus far, I would like to take note of the fact that while everyone has critized the man and the writer, except for not liking Cassandra's orignal hairstyle(s), no one has posted a negative commnet on John Byrne the artist.
It just goes to show that there is some good in everybody.
Perhaps Byrne needs to ask his doctor to check for hardening of the arteries or blocked arteries, because I suspect he has diminished flow to his head.
PAD is by far the superior writer.
Bryne's Fantastic Four (issue #340, to be exact, picked up in line at the grocery store) got me into comics. I collected until I was about 13 and decided I was too old for comics.
About two years later I couldn't help myself, and peeked at Hulk #354 (or was it 355?) while I was wasting time at Waldenbooks. "Read my mind Jones." I fell for it immediately and had to buy a copy. Of course, it started the addiction back up (damn you, PAD).
I picked Bryne back up, but when he came back to the mainstream after doing "Next Men," his stuff slowly became unreadable for me. I'm still not sure if I just grew up and refined my taste, or he just got bad.
Everyone, do yourself a favor and stay away from the Byrne board. You'll feel much better.
I'm still a fan of Byrne's work. I buy the FF Visionaries line, just bought the X-Men Omnibus. Heck, I even liked Lab Rats!
Byrne the man, well...
I'll choose to remember the guy who signed my comics when a friend gave them to him at a convention while I was home sick over the guy who called me "Insult Boy" on his board for no reason I could detect. Byrne's FF was a big part of my childhood, and I'll always thank him for that.
Posted by: Kurt at May 27, 2006 07:16 PM
This is yet another example of why this website needs a frickin' fan board. C'mon, people! How long will I have to shout into the darkness before someone realizes that it's a good idea?
As a comic book fan, I admit I spend a fair amount of time at the Byrne board. But the more I'm there, the more disappointed I get in the way people get treated - I'm pretty sure one long-time poster was totally banned from the site because he disagreed with Byrne too much.
I would abandon that board in a heartbeat if there was a PAD board on this website, and I suspect I wouldn't exactly be leading the exodus from Byrne's site.
So please, PAD, Kathleen, I'm begging you. BEGGING YOU. Start up a message board. It would make life easier, and wonderful.
Apparently, Kurt, you were never on AOL. PAD had a message board there, and it was a good board. However, it frequently went off onto some pretty wild tangents, and even attracted more than a couple of posters who didn't even know who PAD was. PAD was pretty liberal regarding the topics discussed on the board; even though it was ostensibly supposed to be regarding PAD's work, the banner for the board stated that pretty much anything and everything was open. That, however, was the opening for those who didn't know PAD's writings. When topics turned political, some incredibly non-liberal AOL members started coming along, weighing in with their contrary opinions. Note, PAD never had any argument with opposite viewpoints, just as here. But when the posters never bothered reading PAD's "real-world" writings (whether comics-related or B5 or Star Trek or Sir Apropos), it became truly annoying. Towards the end of PAD's active participation on the board (about the same time the blog became active), PAD was making efforts to rein in the political chat as much as possible, especially those who wouldn't bother reading the comics or books or watching the shows PAD would discuss.
PAD, of course, can refute or verify (and most likely, will), but I think it was that experience--people who only wanted to fight his politics--that burned him on the message boards.
Well, in my opinion Byrne has a point, he just isn't making it very well. In reality there is a trend that's happened for the last 5 years or so of creators taking characters and changing them just to suit a storyline or hot trend. Take WonderWoman for example, who has been turned into Frank Castle by Greg Rucka just so DC can have a conflict (nevermind treating characters with respect, there's money to be made!). That is the most egregious example. The other one is Cassie Sandsmark. See, I believe that a writer can change a character and grow them forward but should never regress. Unfortunately when PAD matured Cassie into a leader and a good, grounded character who handled crisis well Geoff Johns decided that was enough of that and regressed her to the state of a whiny,spoiled, "My So-Called Life" teen character. Both reasons why I won't read any new DC comics until DiDio leaves.
PAD is actually the first author that I was really aware of. And that was when I started college and Spidey 2099 came out.
The first PAD book I bought specifically because he wrote it was the Spider-man/Spider-man 2099 special. Which probably explains why I do not at all mind the return of Hobby 2211.
"It's the same old song -- the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters."
Okay, I've thought of something else to say. This statement of Byrne's really makes me wonder if he means "characters" or "gimmicks." Because gimmicks can get old, and change becomes necessary, otherwise you lose readers. (This is probably a change from my previous position, in which I say that Hulk can "smash" as much as wants, as long as the stories are good. Truth is, I'd probably get tired of it after 150 consecutive issues, even with PAD's fantastic writing.)
The challenge for writers, I guess, is all about timing. Some changes you don't want to make changes right away--you want to let it develop at its own pace. Sometimes you want it to be sudden for the shock value. And always, always, you have to make these decisions based on the characters, the gimmick, and the audience. Because PAD's character writing was strong, he was able to change the Hulk's established gimmick without compromising the fact that he was telling Hulk stories.
This raises some questions, though. Which characters can you change, and which character can't you change? Superman Red and Blue would never work as a permanent concept, yet essentially we have the same sort of change that PAD has successfully implemented on Hulk: Gimmick changes, characters remain.
So how does one know when it is time to change a gimmick? Can it be done from the start, or should it be done over some time?
Ugh. Byrne. There's nothing that will make me stop buying a book like the name Byrne attached to it on writing duties. Unless it's David Byrne. THAT would be interesting.
Its not Byrne's fault. Its just hard for him to see what hes typing due to his head being so far up his ass.
Joseph - I was on AOL, and I remember his message board. Regardless of the political tensions, I enjoyed it there.
There are two solutions: charge everybody $2 to become members, in the same manner as Kevin Smith on the View Askew board, and ruthlessly ban all trolls. If someone joins the community only to antagonize, then BOOM. They're booted. End of story. The internet is not a democracy.
It's thinking like this (Byrne's) that there hasn't been a successful new X-Men character in 15 years. The last one was Bishop, who was introduced in '91.
And it hasn't been for lack of trying on Marvel's part. There's been: Maggot, Marrow, Cecilia Reyes, Thunderbird, Lifeguard, Slipstream, and Stacy X (No, Emma and Tessa don't count as "new" characters).
Ah, here's some sad news--the great Alex Toth passed away. He was 78 and reportedly died at his drawing table. A great talent.
Count me in as one who very much enjoyed the changes Byrne brought to most characters. Yes, even Supes who, in the decades prior, had really not undergone much in the way of any change. Byrne threw that out the window and had me really interested in what would happen.
Which, of course, makes his current stance all the more sadly hypocritical.
First let me say that Byrne's early work is still some of the finest in comics. Next Men, FF and of course X-men all thrived during his tenure. Something happend though around the time he took over Wonder Woman. Either his ego had gotten so large her became unconcerned to what others thought was a good story, or he was unable to adapt to the change in what readers wanted from comics.
He has became an egotistical, bitter, irrational old man. I miss the Old Byrne
Hmmm. While I do not care for his bitterness, my main complaint is that he is not writing and/or drawing anything worth reading. Because of his past glories, I usually order the first few issues of anything that he does. The last time that I continued ordering all the way through to the end was his Generations stories for DC.
The last Generations miniseries would have been dropped by me if it was an ongoing series.
Byrne is suffering from the terminal sin, blandness.
I don't think the comment about Byrne's first run on the HULK is entirely fair. We're talking about one story arc. That's like saying that PAD's intent was to write about the HULK as The Maestro (when that appeared as a brief story arc).
It's common knowledge that Byrne's first run was cut short and that from his interviews prior to his run, his intent seemed to be to take the character back to his Kirby days (which would have been in character for him). Now, if he'd stated that he wanted to permanently separate the Hulk and Banner, that's something else. My understanding is that the merged Hulk was the goal of PAD's run -- that he did not intend to return to the savage Hulk.
Also, it's worth noting that someone else started the thread about the Hulk on the Byrne board. It wasn't Byrne and the point wasn't to bash PAD's work but to comment on changes to the character. The thread was titled "Does anyone miss the classic Hulk?" Considering that most of the people who posted *did* miss that version of the character, it's safe to say that most of them would not be a fan of PAD's run. That said, many posters did defend it (including former HULK editor Glenn Greenberg, who I mention mostly because of his connection to the character and because he's a big fan of PAD's run on the book and has never been banned or anything because of it).
I also think it's misleading to say that it's SOP to bash PAD's work on the Byrne board. It happens rarely but Byrne is not a fan of PAD's work but PAD is not singled out in that regard. It seems to be less personal but more stylistic... which happens.
Thing about posts like "Does anyone miss the Classic hulk"...sure they do...till they get it again. I mean, go read the Hulk smash issues, and you'll be no longer missing it.
It's like the Hal Jordan crowd. Well, they got him back...and he's as bland as ever. Hal was much better as a dead hero, then a live one.
It's interestig that a writer known for "writing to the bit" would criticize a superior writer like John Byrne.
Wonder Woman, Lab Rats, Doom Patrol and Blood of the Demon. These are just a few of the man's latest masterpieces. Talked about by fans and pros alike as fresh and innovative takes on the hoary old superhero concept.
Let's not even bring up Next Men, Babe, Danger Unlimited, Namor and of course Alpha Flight. All of them celebrated by fans as all-time classics of comic literature!
Byrne has even written novels for chrissakes! What am I getting at here, sweetpea?
Just this, why does a tired old hack like Peter David continue to bash John Byrne? Could it be jealousy by a man who had to beg to get back on the Hulk and Spider-Man. Could it be because we have a very active messageboard honoring a true gentleman of the field, not a blog, what a creepy concept, by a man who just won't let go of his connection to a man greater than him.
Who knows? When John Byrne writes a character he brings out the best and the heroic side of the character and never forgets it's the all-age quality of the character that matters most. When David writes a character he tries to tear down the goodness and replace it with dick jokes and oh-so funny putdowns.
Now I'll go back to my mean old board and think about what Bono said: Vertigo, my friend Vertigo.
So that was a dick joke, right? I mean it was a joke, and it was by... oh, never mind.
Byrne does nothing but create masterpieces, Lab Rats, Doom Patrol and the Demon have proven his artistry of the superhero concept. Fans and pro alike agree it's fresh and innovative.
Byrne's working on the All-New Atom with full-figured writer supreme, Gail Simone.
What's Peter's next gig?
John Byrne's work has also appeared on the cover of Time.
I'm sure Peter's work on The Dark Tower book will garner mucho publicity as well.
That and $4.50 will get you a double late mochachino or 5 U2 songs on iTunes.
I recommend Native Son as one choice. It's an early version of Vertigo but moodier.
Byrne does nothing but create masterpieces.
Then apparently you and the rest of the world are at odds as to what the definition of the word "masterpiece" is.
A double 'late' mochachino? C'mon, somebody else step in; I can't do all the heavy lifting here!
Joe, you can't do any of the heavy lifting. Oh my, you caught me, I misspelled "latte" a thousand pardons good sir!
Here try this one. If Peter David cares so much about the integrity of the characters he works on; why did he change the brilliant Wonder Girl character that Byrne created to be a normal teenager, into a blonde stand-in for Jenna Jameson?
You know who Jenna is, right Joe. I'm sure you do.
Masterpiece. The output of one John Byrne. Open your eye and stol trying to curry the favor of your master for once.
LOL! That should say: Open your eyes and stop trying to curry the favor of your master for once.
Anyway, be honest with yourselves. Peace.
> It's sad that such a cool character like the Vision is being given the Byrne treatment AGAIN over in the pages of Teen Beat Avengers. He is nothing but a robot now.
Actually, that only lasted two issues (#4 and #6 - he didn't appear in #5) before he developed a personality - it's a new character, not the Vision that Bendis killed, but it's not "nothing but a robot" either.
Normally I don't like to get involved in these sorts of things, but I gotta say that this Mike O'Brian/O'Brien (which is it? Does he really not know how to spell his own name?) is just the most pitiful person I've ever encountered. And he's certainly not doing any favors for John Byrne. He can't be for real, can he? He makes me miss that X-Ray guy.
Now can we get back to an actual rational, adult discussion?
Robert, I think you're being completely unfair. If somebody can't spell latte, I'm sure his own name would prove to be equally difficult. And the fact that both versions link back to Byrne's website is also surely a bizarre coincidence.
Well, considering he's also living in a bizarro-universe where people praised Byrne's Doom Patrol, perhaps spelling is equally mutable in his world.
And, sorry, I can't let this one slide by. Byrne has written novels? Um, yeah, techically, since the exactly two that he has written does qualify for the plural. Now if only PAD could manage to write that many...
I don't agree Somebody, I feel Marvel has trashed the Vision character...again. I'm glad you like the new one though.
Never read Whipping Boy or Fear Book? Those were best-sellers. Guess you guys missed out on real literature. Undoubtedly too busy reading "the Hulk" by PAD. Or the character using the name "Hulk," anyway.
As a matter of fact, son, I did read Whipping Boy. Had to track it down at used shops, since it's such a best-seller it was totally out of print. Never did find Fear Book.
If you had passed Reading Comprehension 101 you might have noted that I did say Byrne had written two novels, therefore, perhaps, just perhaps, implying that I was aware of their existence...
Despite JBs best-selling novels, there are a lot of people in charge of ordering books at bookshops, who, not unlike yourself, have an agenda against the man and his work. They refuse to place orders, and suddenly, not so surprisingly, there is the illusion of a lack of demand. This is a hallmark of the comic shop owners who wish to see him fail.
This is a hallmark of the comic shop owners who wish to see him fail.
And I'm sure most comic shop owners couldn't give a rat's ass about who writes what.
Rather, they care about what sells.
Which probably says alot about Byrne and his works right there.
Did you just propose that there is a conspiracy amongst book vendors to keep John Byrne down? If you believe that, I have a nice tin foil hat I'd like to sell you...
I can't tell who's trying to be ironic in this thread.
And please my friend, don't be so rude with your Reading Comprehension 101 remark. You know full well that Gods and Goddesses, the wonderful John Byrne Wonder Woman novel, was a best-seller as well as Fear Book and Whipping Boy. So please stuff your smugness in a sock, mister!
Well, I was never an Avengers fan, or read much of Byrne’s Hulk run, but The Dark Phoenix Saga was my first introduction into reading a monthly superhero comic (my first ongoing monthly was the tie-in Transformers), and his Next Men is a masterpiece. Nonetheless, news that he’s being a hypocrite isn’t exactly news.
As far as different writers’ approaches to writing, I was really into Claremont’s X-Men in my teens, but got out of in my twenties, because there was this increasing feeling that nothing of any permanence or insight was happening with the characters or the premise; things were going in circles: The mansion’s destroyed. Now it’s rebuilt. Now it’s destroyed again. Now it’s rebuilt. They’re at the mansion. No, now they’re in the Australian Outback. Now they’re scattered and regrouping……at the mansion. Jean’s dead. Jean’s alive. Jean’s dead again. Nightcrawler/Storm/Wolverine have to deal with the loss/weakening of their powers. Nope, not any more. New costume change because the artist just feels like it. And another. And another. And so on.
I don’t mind some storylines and premises being temporary, but I’d like some sense of progression. But because of the serial and decades-long nature of comics, the big franchise-nature of books like the X-books, and the interferences of corporate suits from upstairs, it’s easier nowadays to stick to individual writers in the intimate environment of single-character or non-franchise books like Peter’s Hulk to see that sort of progression that still remains true to the fundamentals of the character. That’s just me.
Julio Diaz: PAD, I agree with every word of your post except the very last one. I believe that the correct word should be "head" rather than "up," making the last paragraph read: "That John Byrne. What a crack head."
Luigi Novi: You’re both wrong. It should be crack-up or crackhead. Peter forgot the hyphen, and you wrongly put in a space between the two words. :-)
Stephen McGrath: I think a character should be recognizable to the point that a 13 year old should be able to read the book and not be *too* dissapointed by what he finds.
Luigi Novi: the problem statement is that it only references age as the only determining factor in this. 13-year-olds could just as easily be disappointed with something as an adult would. A 13-year old, for example, might pick up an issue of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s Hulk #1 and be disappointed that the Hulk is gray and not green.
Michael J. Norton: Take WonderWoman for example, who has been turned into Frank Castle by Greg Rucka just so DC can have a conflict (nevermind treating characters with respect, there's money to be made!).
Luigi Novi: I respectfully disagree. The issue of when homicide is justifiable is a valid one in the real world, it’s a valid one in fiction, and hence, it’s a valid one in superhero comics, including with regards to one character who is a warrior. Warriors are people who fight in wars. In wars, warriors kill. Given that Diana did what she had no choice but to do, I don’t know why that act on her part is causing so much grief. But that’s just me.
Kurt: There are two solutions: charge everybody $2 to become members, in the same manner as Kevin Smith on the View Askew board, and ruthlessly ban all trolls. If someone joins the community only to antagonize, then BOOM. They're booted. End of story. The internet is not a democracy.
Luigi Novi: Thank you! I wish more webmasters would do this.
Mike O’Brien: Wonder Woman, Lab Rats, Doom Patrol and Blood of the Demon. These are just a few of the man's latest masterpieces. Talked about by fans and pros alike as fresh and innovative takes on the hoary old superhero concept…Fans and pro alike agree it's fresh and innovative.
Luigi Novi: Too bad fans and pros alike didn’t agree that those books were worth buying.
Can you document these claims? Or buy “fans and pros alike”, are you just projecting your own feelings onto others?
Mike O’Brien: It's interestig that a writer known for "writing to the bit" would criticize a superior writer like John Byrne…..Byrne has even written novels for chrissakes!
Luigi Novi: And Peter has written dozens of novels. Your point?
Mike O’Brien: Here try this one. If Peter David cares so much about the integrity of the characters he works on; why did he change the brilliant Wonder Girl character that Byrne created to be a normal teenager, into a blonde stand-in for Jenna Jameson?
Luigi Novi: He didn’t. Peter wrote the character. He didn’t draw her. If you feel she was drawn in that manner (a common and unfortunate aspect of most superhero illustration), you should direct that criticism to the one who drew her that way. Not the writer.
Mike O’Brien: Open your eyes and stop trying to curry the favor of your master for once.
Luigi Novi: Try opening yours and seeing all the times Peter’s fans her have disagreed with him on various different topics, and then tell us how you incorporate that into your “currying favor” theory. To say nothing of the fact that Peter doesn’t delete such comments from his board as Byrne does.
Robert Fuller: Normally I don't like to get involved in these sorts of things, but I gotta say that this Mike O'Brian/O'Brien (which is it? Does he really not know how to spell his own name?) is just the most pitiful person I've ever encountered. And he's certainly not doing any favors for John Byrne. He can't be for real, can he? He makes me miss that X-Ray guy.
Luigi Novi: Oh please, I’ve seen far worse. Try checking out some of the troglodytes on the imdb boards, or some of the rare trolls at Nitcentral. Or those intrepid miscreants extras from the cast of Deliverance that have popped up on these boards on occasion.
Mike O’Brien: Despite JBs best-selling novels, there are a lot of people in charge of ordering books at bookshops, who, not unlike yourself, have an agenda against the man and his work. They refuse to place orders, and suddenly, not so surprisingly, there is the illusion of a lack of demand. This is a hallmark of the comic shop owners who wish to see him fail.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, because the main thing that retailers want to do is not sell product. Especially the owners of comic book stores, which A. are apparently the only type of outlet that you can buy novels in, according to Mike’s perception of the world, and B. are so healthy right now as an industry, that they can afford to not stock books that would otherwise sell, just for reasons of personal spite.
Craig J. Ries and "djinnmastr", your true colors are showing. Comic shop owners say "Byrne doesn't sell," so of course they under-order his books. So when kids come in to find the all-ages books he produces---guess what?!? They don't carry them! Self-fulfilling prophecy!
But you knew this already.
Craig J. Ries and "djinnmastr", your true colors are showing.
Your right... my true colors are that I'd ban your worthless ass if I had the power. We get enough spam around here that we don't need a troll like you, too.
Go sniff Byrne's ass since you seem to enjoy being behind it so much.
But you knew this already.
I'm guess that, like spelling, logic isn't really your forte.
Btw, for the record, the only stuff of Byrne's I've ever really read that lasted more than an issue or two is his run on Alpha Flight. Not bad stuff, but not great either; certainly nothing that jumps out and says "go buy other stuff he's written".
the brilliant Wonder Girl character that Byrne created to be a normal teenager
Yeah, I know, this isn't a Wonder Girl discussion, but on that tangent, I can't believe that Byrne has the nads to create a character who runs off and gets superpowers by any means necessary and calls her "a normal teenager." SHE'S IN A SUPERHERO COMIC BOOK. Vanessa Kapatelis was a normal teenager. Lucy Spears was a normal teenager. Cassie? No freaking way. I mean, what did he expect her to be?
Byrne's problem is that he wants too much consistency. And that only leads to stagnation of a character.
Peter made Cassie grow into a more mature, responsible young woman under his pen, and instilled in her the capability of leadership and - dare I say it? - nobility that she'd earlier lacked. That evolution gave her room to progress to the point where she's at now in TEEN TITANS - and, BTW, I like her in the Titans. I'm dying to see the effect of Kon's death on her, since I'm reading 52, and I'm going to be paying very close attention to TT OYL to see how her "deal" with Ares affects her.
Ironic, is it not, that I like the David/Johns versions of Cassie a billion times more than I did the Byrne version? And this is the guy who created her!
Sorry, Johnny ol' boy, but I'm afraid the sales (and fans and critics) are speaking for themselves.
Queen Anthai-here is the problem with your statement that Cassie grew into a more mature young woman. Why didn't the othe rpeople around her also grow and mature.
They are all the same age but Cassie grew a few years, I guess in between panels.
Nothing new for Peter, he changes ages, backgrounds and origins of characters on a whim.
Let's also not be so quick to pat Peter on the back for writing almost 50 novels. Most of those were done for existing characters. Byrne came up with Fear Book and Whipping Boy on his own. He created the characters.
If only the bookstores weren't run by the same fanboys that have taken over and slaughtered the direct sales market, he could have been the next Stephen King.
Mr. O'Brien, some polite advice:
Your attempts to defend John Byrne are pretty much achieving the opposite effect intended. I respect and admire Byrne's contributions to the comics industry, but you're championing his weakest work as being "lauded by fans and pros alike", you're actively insisting that "the bookstores" are run by people who have an anti-Byrne agenda (this would be every bookstore in America, then? Nationwide chains like Barnes and Noble are run by some geek saying, "Pffh. John Byrne's not anywhere near as good as Peter David. I won't order any of his books for my hundreds of stores.")...in short, you're really making a bad impression.
My advice would be to keep quiet and let John Byrne's writing and art speak for themselves. (Which would probably be my advice to Byrne, too, should he ask for it; his central point, that sometimes writers make too drastic a change on a book simply to "shake things up", is valid, but he does it a disservice with the examples he cited.)
This isn't a popularity contest, it isn't a "Byrne vs. David" debate; both of them have done some almighty great work over the course of their long careers. John Byrne just put his foot in his mouth, that's all. Trying to fit it all the way down your throat, while insisting that you love the taste of shoe leather, isn't the best way to prove your point.
Actually, at this point I'm leaning more towards believing that Mike O'Brien (sounds like Miguel O'Hara) isn't being serious.
Well, believe it or not, Darick Robertson used this 'Mike O'Brian' as a basis for the editor character in Transmetropolitan. So, he's not John Byrne.
He is, however, a deeply disturbed individual. He is like the Silas character in The DaVinci Code, except he uses Byrne comics as a method of self flagelation.
Just watch and laugh.
Posted by: Mike O'Brien at May 28, 2006 08:59 PM
It's interestig that a writer known for "writing to the bit" would criticize a superior writer like John Byrne.
Your evaluation of Peter's writing skills relative to John's are irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Peter didn't criticize John's comic-book scripts or novels. He merely pointed out the hypocrisy of John criticizing others for something he has done, numerous times.
Wonder Woman, Lab Rats, Doom Patrol and Blood of the Demon. These are just a few of the man's latest masterpieces. Talked about by fans and pros alike as fresh and innovative takes on the hoary old superhero concept.
I'm not going to bother debating the accuracy of that statement, because, again, it's irrelevant to the debate at hand. The question at hand is: why is John Byrne criticizing others for altering characters to suit their "whims" when he has altered characters?
Let's not even bring up Next Men, Babe, Danger Unlimited, Namor and of course Alpha Flight. All of them celebrated by fans as all-time classics of comic literature!
Agreed. Let's not bring them up, because they have nothing to do with this discussion.
Byrne has even written novels for chrissakes! What am I getting at here, sweetpea?
Good question.
Just this, why does a tired old hack like Peter David continue to bash John Byrne? Could it be jealousy by a man who had to beg to get back on the Hulk and Spider-Man. Could it be because we have a very active messageboard honoring a true gentleman of the field, not a blog, what a creepy concept, by a man who just won't let go of his connection to a man greater than him.
Actually, Peter was only answering an unfair swipe from John Byrne. John brought this on himself, not the other way around. I'm not sure how you could see otherwise. The documentary evidence is right here before your eyes. Check the date/time on the entry in John's forum where he criticizes Peter, and then check the date/time the entry that spawned this thread. John's came first, Peter's came afterwards. QED.
Who knows? When John Byrne writes a character he brings out the best and the heroic side of the character and never forgets it's the all-age quality of the character that matters most. When David writes a character he tries to tear down the goodness and replace it with dick jokes and oh-so funny putdowns.
And, again, this is all irrelevant to the debate we're having.
Now I'll go back to my mean old board and think about what Bono said: Vertigo, my friend Vertigo.
Your subsequent posts demonstrate your inability to keep that promise.
Look, Mike O'Brien/Mike O'Brian/Madman Mike, I happen to like John's writing, although I like Peter's writing a lot more. You apparently loathe Peter's writing and worship John's. The world's big enough to accommodate your view and mine.
The world is not big enough, however, to accommodate lies nor hypocrisy. You are lying when you say Peter routinely "bashes" John and cannot "let go of his connection" to him. Peter routinely defends himself against John's distortions.
And it is hypocritical for John to criticize others for that which he has done numerous times.
By the way, many people on this board, myself included, have criticized or disagreed with Peter on more than one occasion. Only once did I see Peter shut someone down (actually, I think he shut the thread down) for spitefully arguing with someone who had suffered a personal tragedy. Peter tried repeatedly asking the offender to be civil, and only shut him down after said attempts had failed. So Peter is not our "master," and he doesn't try to be. His commitment to free speech is demonstrable and admirable.
John, on the other hand, routinely calls his own fans "stupid" and has deleted posts and/or threads that exposed his hypocrisy.
"It's common knowledge that Byrne's first run was cut short and that from his interviews prior to his run, his intent seemed to be to take the character back to his Kirby days (which would have been in character for him)."
Which was exactly what I did, particularly when one considers that, in the "Kirby days," the Hulk regularly went through different incarnations (at least four in the first five issues). The fact that later writers locked the Hulk into a certain version does nothing to change the fact that, back in the day, there were many variances in the Hulk's personality. I went back to that spirit. John, for all his posturing, instantly changed the character more sweepingly than I ever did, and made the impossible-to-roll-back change of Bruce being married, to boot. I don't object to John having made changes. I object to the hypocrisy of accusing others of wrongheadedness when they do the same.
"Now, if he'd stated that he wanted to permanently separate the Hulk and Banner, that's something else. My understanding is that the merged Hulk was the goal of PAD's run -- that he did not intend to return to the savage Hulk."
Your understanding is wrong. The merged Hulk was intended as a storyline with a beginning, middle and end. What I said was that, when I started on the book, the concept of merging all the personalities into one persona was something that I was "working toward" so that, when the development occurred, it would make sense. But I NEVER said that it was intended to be permanent, anymore than "Mr. Fixit" was. Common sense should dictate otherwise, particularly considering that I ended the storyline and went in another direction.
"Also, it's worth noting that someone else started the thread about the Hulk on the Byrne board. It wasn't Byrne and the point wasn't to bash PAD's work but to comment on changes to the character."
That's a agood point. Let's see: The thread was started on April 30 at 5:24 AM. And how long did it take John to reply with a comment, not on the topic in general, but bashing my work in specific? It went up at...hmmm...April 30 at 5:29 AM.
So basically he restrained himself for five whole minutes.
Boy, you're right, he's mellowed out.
As for Mike's (Mikes') comments, it's hilarious that he would accuse people here of kowtowing to me when he parrots, word for word, John's inaccurate criticisms of my work. Tragically, there's no party line here to be toed, no cute slam phrases to be echoed, so everyone is forced to think for themselves rather than mouth John's words. Tragic, that. Set your watches: I'm sure he'll be along to accuse me of having someone fall to their death underwater any time now.
And yes, John's done more "original" titles than I. Then again, "Soulsearchers and Company" has run far longer than any of John's original titles, and then there's "Sachs & Violens" and "Fallen Angel," not to mention novel series such as "Sir Apropos of Nothing," the King Arthur trilogy, and the upcoming "Hidden Earth" series, so...
PAD
"Queen Anthai-here is the problem with your statement that Cassie grew into a more mature young woman. Why didn't the othe rpeople around her also grow and mature."
Did you even read "Young Justice" or did you just believe what John said?
It is, frankly, nuts to complain over Cassie's becoming more mature in her personality and leadership skills. God forbid one should actually show teens maturing. At the same time, the other characters grew and changed as well (although, admittedly, Impulse and Robin least of all, but that's because Impulse pretty much is ADD boy and major changes for Robin had to be reserved for his own title.) Arrowette actually decided to leave her costumed persona behind and lead a "normal" life although she remained loyal to her friends; Empress wound up taking on the responsibility of caring for her de-aged parents in a clear metaphor for adults having to tend to their aged folks; Superboy matured enough to realize that the perfect girl for him was right there in front of him and came to acknowledge the deep love he felt for her; Secret faced a number of issues and wound up having a happy ending, at the hands of Darkseid of all people.
If you're talking about making Cassie voluptuous, that wasn't at either my or Todd Nauck's hands. That came after the book and characters were taken away from us. Go argue with DC.
I was completely respectful to John's vision of the character. Not all the slams, inaccuracies or jibes can possibly change that.
PAD
"Byrne's working on the All-New Atom with full-figured writer supreme, Gail Simone.
What's Peter's next gig?"
You mean BESIDES X-Factor, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Fallen Angel, Marvel Adventures Spider-Man, Wonder Man, the Dark Tower, Spike vs. Dracula, Soulsearchers and Company, an FF novel, the novelization of Spider-Man 3, the next New Frontier novel and a NF novella, a Next Gen novel, and "The Hidden Earth?" Besides all that?
Okay, actually, I do have another comic series I've turned in the first script for, but Marvel wants to be further along before it's announced, so I'm going to respect that.
PAD
"John Byrne's work has also appeared on the cover of Time."
My work has appeared on the Op-Ed page of "The New York Times." So...your point?
PAD
Posted by: Peter David at May 29, 2006 08:22 AM
"Byrne's working on the All-New Atom with full-figured writer supreme, Gail Simone.
What's Peter's next gig?"
You mean BESIDES X-Factor, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Fallen Angel, Marvel Adventures Spider-Man, Wonder Man, the Dark Tower, Spike vs. Dracula, Soulsearchers and Company, an FF novel, the novelization of Spider-Man 3, the next New Frontier novel and a NF novella, a Next Gen novel, and "The Hidden Earth?" Besides all that?
Okay, actually, I do have another comic series I've turned in the first script for, but Marvel wants to be further along before it's announced, so I'm going to respect that.
But, Peter, don't you know that if John Byrne has fewer writing gigs than you at the moment, it means he has more writing gigs than you at the moment? And if you're work sells better than his, his work is selling better than yours? It's the new math! :)
Good night, I can't believe I used "you're" when I should have used "your" in my last post! I know the damn difference, yet in the last couple of years I've been making that mistake with increasing frequency.
Gah! I must have a slow-acting form of brain-eating bacteria!!!!
Can somebody tell me what a full-figured writer supreme is? Or is this something I'm better off not knowing?
"Can somebody tell me what a full-figured writer supreme is? Or is this something I'm better off not knowing?"
Just look in a mirror and take out the writer part.
Whoa! When I wrote "Now THAT, my friends, is comedy." in regards to Mr O'Brian/O'Brien/O'Calcutta I really honestly thought he was joking.
If not--and I'm STILL not totally convinced this isn't a big put on--that has to be the worst defense of an artist possible. You're making Byrne look like a shmuck and, in all fairness, one shouldn't judge someone by the quality of the people who idolize them.
"Open your eyes and stop trying to curry the favor of your master for once." I mean, could anyone actually read this board for more than a few days and actually believe that???
If this is all on the level, the only thing that makes sense is that now Mr O'Brian/O'Brien/O'Canada can now go back to the Byrne board and tell everyone that he ventured into the land of Byrne bashing PADbots and gave them a right sound thrashing that they shall long remember, so devastating them with his protean wisdom and grasp of the facts that they retreated in shame. Which is at least as realistic as calling Babe an "all-time classics of comic literature!"
Mike O’Brien: It's interestig that a writer known for "writing to the bit" would criticize a superior writer like John Byrne.
Luigi Novi: Not really, since Peter’s criticism was for Byrne’s inconsistency (i.e.: the fact that Byrne has done things himself that he is now criticizing), not the quality of his writing.
If you want to refute what Peter said, therefore, then your obligation is to show that Byrne’s statements and his own record are not inconsistent. Responding with ad hominem comments about your own opinion of Peter’s writing is completely irrelevant.
Mike O’Brien: Comic shop owners say "Byrne doesn't sell," so of course they under-order his books. So when kids come in to find the all-ages books he produces---guess what?!? They don't carry them! Self-fulfilling prophecy!
Luigi Novi: Or, they don’t order his books heavily because when they do, they don’t sell. If they did, then retailers would order them more, since retailers want to do as much business as they can. If you can establish otherwise, and with clear, rational argumentation instead of fact, then please do so.
Mike O’Brien: Luigi? Time for a reality check, my man.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Refute a single thing I said, and make it clear that you’re not simply trolling.
Mike O’Brien: Let's also not be so quick to pat Peter on the back for writing almost 50 novels. Most of those were done for existing characters. Byrne came up with Fear Book and Whipping Boy on his own. He created the characters.
Luigi Novi: And Peter did so with Howling Mad, the Sir Apropos of Nothing trilogy, and with most of the characters in New Frontier. What’s your point?
And in any case, of what relevance is the fact that the characters of many of his other novels were pre-existing have to do with anything?
Mike O’Brien: If only the bookstores weren't run by the same fanboys that have taken over and slaughtered the direct sales market, he could have been the next Stephen King.
Luigi Novi: In what way was the direct sales market “slaughtered” by bookstores?
Mike Seavey: My advice would be to keep quiet and let John Byrne's writing and art speak for themselves.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think he should keep quiet; I just think he should attempt to engage in discussion with something resembling cogent logic and a well-illustrated argument, instead of unsupported rhetoric and fallacious non-sequiturs.
Peter David: …and the upcoming "Hidden Earth" series..
Luigi Novi: Ooh, what’s that, Peter? (I couldn’t find it at Amazon.com).
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 29, 2006 10:33 AM
Whoa! When I wrote "Now THAT, my friends, is comedy." in regards to Mr O'Brian/O'Brien/O'Calcutta I really honestly thought he was joking.
Nope. I've run into this fellow before. If it's the same guy, he believes this stuff.
That's why I'd say his posts amount to tragic comedy.
Bill Myers:
"I sure as hell don't. I started identifying my favorite creators when I was six or seven. I was proud that I was able to identify an artist by looking at their artwork, without seeing the credits.
Before long, I even learned to identify the styles of various writers. I was even prouder."
Okee doke...missed my point. I almost wish the creators of the books were just the name on the page...that way I could enjoy both and not have to watch them engage in a pissing match...both ways! It's almost like watching my children fight over a toy.
********
To Joe Zhang: So you thing Byrne has his head up his ass...does that make it hard for you to hear him when he posts something on the board that you've posted on almost 4000 times? I would think so...
********
Kurt: "There are two solutions: charge everybody $2 to become members, in the same manner as Kevin Smith on the View Askew board, and ruthlessly ban all trolls. If someone joins the community only to antagonize, then BOOM. They're booted. End of story. The internet is not a democracy."
Well, whether they're payin' or not, if the guys name is over the door, he should be able to tell someone their not welcome, just like I can tell you not to come into my home. Just like PAD could ban me. He may choose not to, but if he did, it's his deal, not mine.
*********
Craig J. Reis: "And I'm sure most comic shop owners couldn't give a rat's ass about who writes what.
Rather, they care about what sells."
RIGHT! So, they should keep their yaps shut when someone walks to the counter with a JB book, and not bash Byrne cuz THEY don't like him. I sell for AT&T. I'd be FIRED if I said to a customer: "You shouldn't get our DSL, I think it stinks and you should go with cable!"
********
Stephen McGrath: I think a character should be recognizable to the point that a 13 year old should be able to read the book and not be *too* dissapointed by what he finds.
Luigi Novi: the problem statement is that it only references age as the only determining factor in this. 13-year-olds could just as easily be disappointed with something as an adult would. A 13-year old, for example, might pick up an issue of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby’s Hulk #1 and be disappointed that the Hulk is gray and not green.
Stephen McGrath again: Ok, missed my point again. Ok...so a 13 year old hears about this cool Hulk character...thinks he's cool cuz he's this dude who gets big and green when he's ticked off...but he picks up the book and all there is is this big green guy who sounds like the guy who should be turning into the big green guy when he's ticked off.
Now, look...I REALLY LIKED that story line. I thought it was cool. I personally don't like the "HULK SMASH" Hulk. But PAD's Hulk was "off-model" and for a long time. Whether or not JB's split hulk was going to last for years, or was going to be resolved the next issue after he left, we'll never no.
I just thing that this is how it should go: Creator comes to book with Character on-model...proceeds to go off-model to tell a great story...when story/creator's run is over, Character returned to on-model status.
Does that make sense?
Which was exactly what I did, particularly when one considers that, in the "Kirby days," the Hulk regularly went through different incarnations (at least four in the first five issues). The fact that later writers locked the Hulk into a certain version does nothing to change the fact that, back in the day, there were many variances in the Hulk's personality. I went back to that spirit. John, for all his posturing, instantly changed the character more sweepingly than I ever did, and made the impossible-to-roll-back change of Bruce being married, to boot. I don't object to John having made changes. I object to the hypocrisy of accusing others of wrongheadedness when they do the same.
****************
I don't see the marriage as "impossible to roll back" since Bruce was not entirely himself at the time -- he was split in two. There's no telling if the marriage was meant to be permanent given that situation. However, we can only speculate, but Byrne is a proponent of the "illusion of change" not permanent change -- for good or for ill. These are two different camps, for sure, and I don't think one is wrong or right, per se, though I think everyone has their preference.
****************************
"Now, if he'd stated that he wanted to permanently separate the Hulk and Banner, that's something else. My understanding is that the merged Hulk was the goal of PAD's run -- that he did not intend to return to the savage Hulk."
Your understanding is wrong. The merged Hulk was intended as a storyline with a beginning, middle and end. What I said was that, when I started on the book, the concept of merging all the personalities into one persona was something that I was "working toward" so that, when the development occurred, it would make sense. But I NEVER said that it was intended to be permanent, anymore than "Mr. Fixit" was. Common sense should dictate otherwise, particularly considering that I ended the storyline and went in another direction.
***********************
I apologize for misreading the situation. I think that right after the "Savage Banner" period, it became hard to tell where the book was going (though I suspect this was due to outside interference at the time).
I regret that this issue has to be so polarizing. I'm very vocal about not liking the merged Hulk storyline and the rest of your run after that point. However, I think the first four years of your run ranks as the best of the character's history. I'm sort of the same way about BUFFY -- love the first three years, but think the last four suffer diminishing returns and the last year is almost unwatchable. I hope this would not be seen as bashing Whedon's work because I'm a big fan of BUFFY overall.
And of course, the merged Hulk, despite my issues with it, is still better than anything since then, unfortunately.
RIGHT! So, they should keep their yaps shut when someone walks to the counter with a JB book, and not bash Byrne cuz THEY don't like him.
Wow, yet another new id. Congrats!
Thanks also for the insult of spelling my name wrong. As if I don't see enough complete @#$^'ing idiots do that already.
If I'd read the material in question, I'd probably be willing to give my opinion on it, regardless of who wrote it and what I think of them.
For example, I think Alan Moore is a bit loony when it comes to his views on his stuff being turned into movies, but that won't stop me from recommending V For Vendetta to somebody.
See how this works, Mr. McGareth? Oops, spelled it wrong, oh well.
The point of all this? Yeah, apparently some of the folks have their heads firmly lodged up Byrne's ass, and Byrne's ego needs deflated a bit. Either that, or his head checked.
Posted by: Stephen McGrath at May 29, 2006 11:37 AM
Okee doke...missed my point. I almost wish the creators of the books were just the name on the page...that way I could enjoy both and not have to watch them engage in a pissing match...both ways! It's almost like watching my children fight over a toy.
You're correct. I did miss your original point because I was reading too fast. Upon closer examination of your first post, I realized that you said you wished you didn't know who your favorite creators were, except for their names.
I still disagree with you. Learning about who an artist is helps me develop further insights into their work.
And this isn't a "pissing match" between two creators. John Byrne is unfairly criticizing Peter David for things Byrne himself has done over the years. Peter is merely defending himself and, by extension, defending the truth.
And you don't "have to" watch it. You're free to do something other than reading these threads.
By the way, if your children fight over a toy by countering illogic with logic as Peter has done, you've got a couple of prodigies on your hands.
RIGHT! So, they should keep their yaps shut when someone walks to the counter with a JB book, and not bash Byrne cuz THEY don't like him. I sell for AT&T. I'd be FIRED if I said to a customer: "You shouldn't get our DSL, I think it stinks and you should go with cable!"
I have yet to meet a comic-book retailer who has discouraged anyone from buying Byrne's books. Perhaps you've met some, but I doubt it's an industry-wide epidemic. Byrne may think so, but he has a rather self-centered and child-like view of the universe.
For example, here is a quote from John Byrne himself, posted on his very board: "Having a "Bad Byrne" story to relate is a way of getting creds in some "pro" circles."
Right. It's got nothing to do with the way he disparages people like Peter David, accusing them of capriciously altering characters to suit their whims, while conveniently omitting his alterations of Superman, Spider-Man and the Vision, among others.
Does that make sense?
Yes, but I still largely disagree with you on the points I quoted above. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they misunderstand you.
Kurt wrote:
"As a comic book fan, I admit I spend a fair amount of time at the Byrne board. But the more I'm there, the more disappointed I get in the way people get treated - I'm pretty sure one long-time poster was totally banned from the site because he disagreed with Byrne too much."
Try dozens of long-time posters. I was the #2 poster there behind Byrne himself when he banned me a year and a half ago. Just last week, he banned 2 more old-timers. We all laugh about it over at IMWAN.com, which is basically the JBF without JB. Much more pleasant place.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at May 29, 2006 12:05 PM
Wow, yet another new id. Congrats!
Thanks also for the insult of spelling my name wrong. As if I don't see enough complete @#$^'ing idiots do that already.
If I'd read the material in question, I'd probably be willing to give my opinion on it, regardless of who wrote it and what I think of them.
For example, I think Alan Moore is a bit loony when it comes to his views on his stuff being turned into movies, but that won't stop me from recommending V For Vendetta to somebody.
See how this works, Mr. McGareth? Oops, spelled it wrong, oh well.
The point of all this? Yeah, apparently some of the folks have their heads firmly lodged up Byrne's ass, and Byrne's ego needs deflated a bit. Either that, or his head checked.
Craig, I'm going to give you some unsolicited advice: be cool. You're being more insulting than he was. And when you do that, you obscure the central issue: John Byrne condemns others for things he does himself. That's been proven by using Byrne's own words and comparing them with his own creative works.
We've already won the argument, Craig. There's no need take it to a personal level. When you do that, you're sinking to the level of Mike O'Brien/Mike O'Brian/Madman Mike -- and I believe you're better than that, Craig. Much, much better.
Craig, I'm going to give you some unsolicited advice: be cool.
You know, you're right. But making an effort to spell somebody's name right isn't that difficult. And it may seem like a little thing to you, but when you see it all the damn time like I do (and not the first time on PAD's site recently), it gets a little old. My name is right there, right above my posts; you can even copy and paste it. :)
Oh, and I see now that Stephen posted earlier in the thread. In reading just one post after another from the troll, seeing a name I didn't recognize right off the bat might've lead me to the wrong conclusion. So if he's not the troll, I apologize.
As usual, haven't read all the comments yet (over 100 at this point), but here are my 2 cents: I think the 'problem' of radical changes being made to characters has more to do with the character (and owning company) than the writers. PAD made radical changes to the Hulk that everyone agrees was well done. I also think that Byrnes post-Crisis adaptation of Superman and his history was good. The difference is that with some iconic characters like the Hulk, Spider-Man, or Batman, no matter how many great changes you make to the character, if the writer of those changes leaves the book it will eventually revert back to 'normal'; and normal for the Hulk is big, green, and dumb.
Superman is different, since the changes to him were the result of a universe-wide change that was called for by the company. Of course, there are some minor changes that can be made; Peter Parker can get married at last, even A Robin (if not THE Robin) can die, but dome characters are just too important to mess with radically for long, anyway.
Well, each time i see a thread about Byrne here or a trade about Pad at the JBF, i know one thing for sure and its that my dream of a comicbook writen by Peter David with art by John Byrne is not for tomorow.
I'm a regular at the John Byrne Forum, and a fan of both your works.
Your Hulk was great, even if for me the real hulk is the Len Wein/Herb Trimpe and Bill Mantlo/Sal Buscema version. For reasons linked to the change of the owner of the rights in France at the time, the first Hulk by you that was published was the issue where Betty meets the merged Hulk for the first time (with at his side Doc Samson and the Ringmaster) art by Dale Keown. Thats only later that some of the issues with the grey hulk (art by Todd MacFarlane and Eric Larsen) were published. As I see it the grey hulk was very true to the original Lee/Kirby version.
The merged hulk, thats something else. It was very interesting and better than most of the hulk issues by other writers, but i always thought he was more like Doc Savage (other people would say a lesser Superman) than like the hulk.
This diminish in no way the quality of this great stories. It was just that on many level it was another, if not character, at least concept.
Recently i liked very much the Tempest arc. And it was the real hulk.
I grow up with the Hulk Tv Show, and the Len Wein and Bill Mantlo comics. And Sal Buscema will always for me be the best Hulk artist.
I first met your work on The Death of Jean Dewolf (one of my all time favorite Spidey stories) in Peter Parker the spectacular Spiderman (published in France in "Nova"), and some years later i bought each issue of your Hulk. More recently I enjoyed the Maddrox mini, and i really needs to make an effort to be abble to wait for the X-Factor trades. (By the way i was a fan of Val Cooper in your first run. Great version of the character).
I'm a huge fan of Chris Claremont too. I grow up with his X-Men, and I enjoyed his recent work too.
I know that Byrne's recent work doesn't make the unanimity, but his art on Blood of the Demon is very good. That was his best work in years artwise. And he recently did some great commisions too.
We know that his tastes in comics are very linked to the works of silver age creators like Kirby and Neal Adams, and that he may sometime be a little bit excessive in some of his statements about his own contemporaries.
Maybe too that there's between you two some personal stuff that doesn't concern us the fans.
Both of you are great talents, as are Claremont and David Michelinie.
You may not like each other's work, but us the fans, who are the ones who buy the books, we do.
I hope to have years of Peter David and of John Byrne comics ahead. And I still hope that one day I will read a comics with: "Plot: Peter David and John Byrne, Dialogue: Peter David, Art: John Byrne".
Stéphane.
Mike O'Brien,
Congrats, dude. I never thought that I would laugh this hard on Pad's site again after X-Ray bugged off. You've definitely put yourself up high in the running for LOL Idiot/Troll 2006.
I don't mind characters being changed a bit, or even a lot, if it leads to an interesting story.
Like the Sandman. He was created as, and remained, a nasty crook for a long time. Mean, vicious, crooked.
Until he changed. He just got sick of the villain business and went straight. And I found him a lot more interesting that way. I liked that he had to deal with his past, and had regrets, and still kept straight even when it might have been easier to be a crook again. I especially liked his friendship with Ben Grimm.
Until Bryne got hold of him. Changed the Sandman to a crook again. Made him stupider and bigger, too. I guess that is returning him to his roots. Especially when Bryne had Grimm shout, "I never trusted him!" Boy, that is giving it to those previous writers who dared to allow the Sandman to grow as a character!
Sometimes change is for the better. And sometimes a change back totally sucks.
(P.S. I could be wrong about Bryne being the one who changed Sandy bad to bad. But I saw the back-to-bad Sandy in a Bryne FF comic, and I saw that Grimm line that Bryne wrote, and I almost used an F-word right then.)
And this isn't a "pissing match" between two creators. John Byrne is unfairly criticizing Peter David for things Byrne himself has done over the years. Peter is merely defending himself and, by extension, defending the truth.
*****************
You could argue that what makes it a pissing match is that it often gets personal -- rather than being seen as criticism of one person's work. Byrne has critized the work of creators he likes personally (Frank Miller's work on ALL-STAR BATMAN AND ROBIN), for example. Granted, it would be disingenious to state that someone like PAD won't take personal offense to what is viewed as an inaccurate criticism of his work.
Byrne is very much an "originalist" -- with few exceptions, he thinks the creator got it right, so most of his work that involves sweeping changes is to revert back to original intent. This is not so much a defense of him but to put things in the right perspective. I think it would be inaccurate to place Byrne in the same camp as creators who make true sweeping changes.If you think that's a *good* trait (and many do), you'd be giving Byrne too much credit -- placing him with Moore, Morrison, and yes PAD.
PAD isn't an originalist, from my view. He certainly respects the history but if organic webshooters or a mature Cassie Sandmark* seem like an effective change that produces good stories, my impression is that he's all for it.
*I mention Cassie Sandmark because she's an example of the two different viewpoints. Byrne believes in the "illusion of change," so that aside from some superficial changes, she should be the same character she was when she was introduced. I don't see that in PAD's work -- there's usually definite growth and change.
"Byrne is very much an "originalist" -- with few exceptions, he thinks the creator got it right, so most of his work that involves sweeping changes is to revert back to original intent. This is not so much a defense of him but to put things in the right perspective."
Except that's not what he does. That's what he SAYS he does. But his run on Hulk preceding mine didn't do that. His treatment of the Vision didn't do that. His work on Superman didn't do that in detail after detail (the visualization of Krypton and Kal-El not even being a baby, but a "matrix"; the tattering cape; the Kents being around into Clark's adulthood). His convoluted elaboration on Spider-Man's origin had nothing to do with authorial intent, and I talked to Stan Lee, and y'know what? He never intended to have Skrulls involved in the Hulk's origin.
Understand, it doesn't bother me that John makes changes. It bothers me that he does it, pretends he doesn't, and condemns others for making far less fundamental changes than he does.
PAD
"Byrne is very much an "originalist" -- with few exceptions, he thinks the creator got it right, so most of his work that involves sweeping changes is to revert back to original intent. This is not so much a defense of him but to put things in the right perspective."
Except that's not what he does. That's what he SAYS he does. But his run on Hulk preceding mine didn't do that.
*************
It was six issues and by all accounts cut short. Based on what he'd stated he'd planned to do in interviews before leaving the title, it looked like he planned to return to the Kirby era of the character.
***************
His treatment of the Vision didn't do that.
*********************
I admittedly have read little of THE AVENGERS from the period in which The Vision debuted. Was he always a Data precursor, who over time became more emotional? Or was he emotional from the start.
*************************
His work on Superman didn't do that in detail after detail (the visualization of Krypton and Kal-El not even being a baby, but a "matrix"; the tattering cape; the Kents being around into Clark's adulthood).
*************************
I believe all of that would be considered "window dressing." Superman was still "rocketed to earth from the doomed planet Krypton and adopted by kindly foster parents and grew up to become a reporter for the Daily Planet."
**********************
His convoluted elaboration on Spider-Man's origin had nothing to do with authorial intent, and I talked to Stan Lee, and y'know what? He never intended to have Skrulls involved in the Hulk's origin.
***********************
Also window dressing. Giving Banner MPD or showing that he communicated with the Hulk prior to the gamma bomb explosion is a real change to the *character*
This is not meant to dance around the issue. Window dressing is a major part of the "illusion of change". If you pointed to FANTASTIC FOUR, which many consider among Byrne's best work, fans and detractors would have to agree that most of the change is just "window dressing" and reversed about as easily as such. Depending on where you fall, this is either a good trait or a bad trait of Byrne's.
I think the changes you have made to the books you've been on have been more lasting than that and can't be dismissed as "window dressing" (from SUPERGIRL to YOUNG JUSTICE to HULK and so on). Again, depending on where you fall, this is either a good trait or a bad trait.
Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David's work.
So...it appears to me that John Byrne, using an alias or an agent, started a thread hours before the sun came up and then responded to it, merely 5 minutes later, to bash Peter David.
Then when Peter responded here, it appears that Byrne sent in the trolls to waste time and space.
I signed up for both this board and John Byrne's board on the same day about three months ago. I post on the JBF a lot more than I do here, primarily because the message board over there encompasses such a wide variety of topics (and add me to the list of folks who'd love to see a message board, PAD!), but I do read just about everything here, and I enjoy most of the discussions.
When things degenerate into the PAD fans vs. Byrne fans pissing contest, it gets pretty irritating. I'd much rather just make the most of the incredible opportunity we all have to communicate directly with the creators of the works that we enjoy so much. I mean, seriously, guys -- we can ask a question of either of these men and have an answer almost instantly. That's an incredibly generous dedication of their time that sometimes just knocks me back on my ass.
We're lucky to have these forums (well, "fora," technically), and when I see them being used for ridiculous "my guy is great and your guy's a dick" commentary, it seems to me both wasteful and juvenile.
Can't we talk about the issues on the table without resorting to vitriol?
Byrne has to be the biggest hypocrite in comics. If he wants to talk about changing characters to suit the writer he should look at himself. How about Namor, when he took over the title he explained away Namor’s temper with some lame ass blood disorder that he cures immediately, then namor becomes a billionaire suit wearing environmentalist. Then Byrne gets rid of the ankle wings and has him fly around on his pet Griffin. What about Spider-man, his revamp was horrible, especially the way he altered the burgalor story so that he followed Spidey or whatever crap that was, and he even said he changed it just because it always bothered him personally. If that isn’t writing for the writer I don’t know what is.
SER,
You overlook some of Byrne's more impacting change for the sake of change type changes while blowing off some of his changes as "window dressing".
Byrne took Vision and Scarlet Witch and wiped out everything that people had spent years creating. He rewrote the origin of the Vision and threw out the origin written by the character's creators, reintroduced the original android torch (a key point that couldn't have happened without a complete origin rewrite), brought back a dead character to explain that their children were just figments of Scarlet Witch's imagination made solid by her powers and gave vision the personality and people skills of a Xerox machine.
"Also window dressing. Giving Banner MPD or showing that he communicated with the Hulk prior to the gamma bomb explosion is a real change to the *character*"
Only if you don't really know the character from the first issues of the Hulk. Have you ever read the first year or so of the Hulk's book? Hulk was an obvious mix of classic monsters but he was most clearly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. MPD is kinda what J&H and the early Hulk was. It was just never explicitly stated until much later in the Hulks run (by Bill Mantlo and not PAD if memory serves).
Plus, look at the early stories of the Hulk and what happened in that run. The Hulk was grey and then became green, was a separate personality from Banner, was controlled by Banner's mind, the Hulk was mindless, Banner changed to Hulk because of nightfall, Banner changed to the Hulk when he wanted to, Banner changed to the Hulk when he got angry and so on. Sound familiar? It should. It's what PAD did with Hulk during much of his run. It seems to me that PAD was being truer to the original creators' visions of The Hulk then anything Byrne has done or has said that he would do if he were writing The Hulk.
"I believe all of that would be considered "window dressing." Superman was still "rocketed to earth from the doomed planet Krypton and adopted by kindly foster parents and grew up to become a reporter for the Daily Planet.""
Yeah. And wiping out the concept of Superboy because he felt that no one cared about a teenage Superman wasn't a permanent change. That wasn't just a result of Crisis. That was something Byrne himself stated that he wanted to do with the character in many interviews at the time.
He also changed the fundamental core of who Superman was. Superman didn't kill. That is a huge difference from Superman will not kill again because he did it once and it made him queasy.
Byrne comes onto a book and changes whatever he wants so that he can write stories he wants to read. That's fine. He writes his stories and his fans like them. But when he or his fans then turn around and bash someone else for doing what Byrne does, often to a greater degree, don't be surprised when he or they get a verbal ball bat in the face by people pointing out how hypocritical and foolish sounding the statements truly are.
Oopsie. How could I misspell Byrne's name? And more than once? Grr.
Maybe I am dyslexic and don't know it. What does the agnostic insomniac dyslexic do? Lie awake at night wondering if there is a dog.
"Yeah. And wiping out the concept of Superboy because he felt that no one cared about a teenage Superman wasn't a permanent change."
Byrne has actually said he regrets that change.
I kinda liked it, but mainly because it also meant that Superbaby was gone, too. I always hated the idea of Superbaby.
I believe all of that would be considered "window dressing." Superman was still "rocketed to earth from the doomed planet Krypton and adopted by kindly foster parents and grew up to become a reporter for the Daily Planet."
You seem like a nice guy, not just someone over here to spout nonsense, but if you consider the changes Byrne made to Superman to be "window dressing"...I don't know, man...
Byrne took Vision and Scarlet Witch and wiped out everything that people had spent years creating.
*******
I've admitted to not knowing much about the Vision as originally created -- however, *if* the core of the character was that he was a Data precursor (possibly striving for humanity but never able to achieve it), then Byrne's changes would be consistent with his back to basics approach.
Also, the Vision is a robot. Any Writer could put him back the way he was within an issue, so the change is what I'd consider "window dressing."
*******************
He rewrote the origin of the Vision and threw out the origin written by the character's creators, reintroduced the original android torch (a key point that couldn't have happened without a complete origin rewrite)
********
Wasn't the origin revealed by a villain, though? Again, I haven't read the issues in question in a long while.
****************
brought back a dead character to explain that their children were just figments of Scarlet Witch's imagination made solid by her powers and gave vision the personality and people skills of a Xerox machine.
*****************
Doesn't that qualify as "bad things happen to characters"? Is that really change that destroys the core of the character? Unless Scarlet Witch being a mother is the core of her character.
*******************
Have you ever read the first year or so of the Hulk's book?
**********************
Yes.
******************************
Hulk was an obvious mix of classic monsters but he was most clearly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. MPD is kinda what J&H and the early Hulk was.
****************
If you choose to view J&H as being about MPD, which I doubt the author would have even been aware of. I tended to view it as a story about addiction, and there is a great deal of that in the early Hulk stories (Banner being subtly seduced by the power of the Hulk but hating himself for it).
********************
(MPD) was just never explicitly stated until much later in the Hulks run (by Bill Mantlo and not PAD if memory serves).
****************
Credit where credit is due: I think PAD took what was written as metaphorical and made it a concrete diagnosis, per Doc Samson.
******************************
Plus, look at the early stories of the Hulk and what happened in that run. The Hulk was grey and then became green, was a separate personality from Banner, was controlled by Banner's mind, the Hulk was mindless, Banner changed to Hulk because of nightfall, Banner changed to the Hulk when he wanted to, Banner changed to the Hulk when he got angry and so on. Sound familiar? It should. It's what PAD did with Hulk during much of his run. It seems to me that PAD was being truer to the original creators' visions of The Hulk then anything Byrne has done or has said that he would do if he were writing The Hulk.
**********************
That's a good point and one I haven't overtly disputed. I think that PAD is correct when he once stated that the essence of the character is change. I just didn't care for the "merged Hulk" change -- different strokes. I think the man vs monster battle must be more overt and less subtle than it was during that period.
It is worth pointing out that there was so much change during the first year of so of the Hulk that it arguably led to the book's cancellation. If there is no real "model" for a character, it becomes a problem.
*********************
Yeah. And wiping out the concept of Superboy because he felt that no one cared about a teenage Superman wasn't a permanent change. That wasn't just a result of Crisis. That was something Byrne himself stated that he wanted to do with the character in many interviews at the time.
****************************
Again, this is one of many changes Byrne has made that is intended to take a character back to what Byrne believes are its roots -- there was no Superboy originally, so there wasn't one in his version. Conversely, PAD and other creators (Morrison, Moore) make changes more for the sake of going forward than going back. It's up to the reader to decide which he prefers (I know in my case it's often a case by case basis).
*******************
He also changed the fundamental core of who Superman was. Superman didn't kill. That is a huge difference from Superman will not kill again because he did it once and it made him queasy.
********************
Back to basics again: The early Superman *did* kill.
**************************
Byrne comes onto a book and changes whatever he wants so that he can write stories he wants to read. That's fine. He writes his stories and his fans like them. But when he or his fans then turn around and bash someone else for doing what Byrne does, often to a greater degree, don't be surprised when he or they get a verbal ball bat in the face by people pointing out how hypocritical and foolish sounding the statements truly are.
************************
It's fun to talk about these things. I'd rather it wouldn't have to be "verbal ball bats". If PAD felt "bashed" rather than gamely criticized, then I apologize if any statements I made might be consider the former rather than the latter -- which was always the intent. As R. Crumb said, it's just lines on paper. No need to go for the jugular.
I believe all of that would be considered "window dressing." Superman was still "rocketed to earth from the doomed planet Krypton and adopted by kindly foster parents and grew up to become a reporter for the Daily Planet."
You seem like a nice guy, not just someone over here to spout nonsense, but if you consider the changes Byrne made to Superman to be "window dressing"...I don't know, man...
**************************
Bill, the Superman of the Silver Age (probably the most popular), the Superman of the Reeve films, the Superman of the Reeves TV show, the Superman of the Byrne era, the Timm/Dini Superman, even the guy in SMALLVILLE are all vastly different -- in ways that you and I, as fans, can easily discuss for hours. However, if someone exposed to just one of them was asked what Superman was, they'd answer pretty much the same thing. The character is still, generally speaking, the same.
Spider-Man and the Hulk are characters who have changed enough that it would be hard to say that about someone who last read their comics twenty years ago or encountered them in cartoons.
That's what I mean by window dressing. Krypton is Krypton. Is it really altered irrevocably if it's the Byrne, Donner, or Waid version of the planet?
I'd be crazy to say that the Byrne Superman is not vastly different in many ways from the Silver Age version but it's still "on model" and still recognizably Superman.
The Silver Age Superman was just as much a change as the one previous -- both in powers and tone and such. However, most of the tweaks were subtle and comics just didn't get the kind of press that they did when Byrne redid Superman.
"I've admitted to not knowing much about the Vision as originally created -- however, *if* the core of the character was that he was a Data precursor (possibly striving for humanity but never able to achieve it),"
That's way too short a description to cover Vision. That's not much better than describing Batman as "a man with a tragic past". Sure, it's accurate, but it also describes a million other characters in human history.
"Doesn't that qualify as "bad things happen to characters"?"
That argument just means that Byrne has no leg to stand on. Every change to every charecter can be blown off with that line. Anything Byrne doesn't like about a change by another creator is just bad things happening to characters.
"If you choose to view J&H as being about MPD...."
Not about as much about as in that general area. That's how I always saw part of the story and that's how many people I have met took part of the story. Hulk's too.
"Wasn't the origin revealed by a villain, though?"
Yes. Doesn't matter in the context of this debate. Byrne rebooted the entire origin of the charecter because he didn't like it. He decided to sing same old song -- the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters. He didn't like it and he was gonna change it to suit his tastes. Just what he's often chastising others for.
"Also, the Vision is a robot. Any Writer could put him back the way he was within an issue, so the change is what I'd consider "window dressing.""
No, he was an android. Plus, Byrne worked really hard to make it harder then hell for anyone to write a convincing one, two or ten issue fix.
Your point here also brings up another point that, by your own argument, undercuts Byrne's stance. Any change can be changed back in comics. Even death gets undone to the point of having no meaning. To defend Byrne's POV by calling any and all of his changes window dressing that can be changed back in one issue by another creator means that all the changes that are the targets of his wrath can likewise be changed as they are simple window dressing.
"It is worth pointing out that there was so much change during the first year of so of the Hulk that it arguably led to the book's cancellation. If there is no real "model" for a character, it becomes a problem."
Not a great POV to defend Byrne's argument. No real model for the charecter? Then what origin was there for PAD to change or move away from if there was no model in Hulk's origin years? What origin is Byrne often talking about bringing the charecter back to? How can a character be substantially changed from its origin if the only constant from its origin years was constant change?
Again, an argument that only undercuts any defense of Byrne's position on the matter.
"I'd rather it wouldn't have to be "verbal ball bats"."
Sorry. I often forget how much some lines read when you can't hear a voice with them. That line was thought with a lighter, albeit massively sarcastic, tone. It wasn't meant as going for the jugular.
You have to understand something here. I'm not saying the changes the JB made were all bad any more then I'm saying every change that PAD ever made is good. I like much of what both guys have done over the years and have a few points of discontent with each guys work as well.
The only thing that I'm really commenting on is Byrne's constant postings and interviews were he slams other people for doing nothing more then what he often does himself. Glass houses and all that stuff.
"Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David's work."
Then here's another person from the Byrne board to add as a potential target. I post there fairly regularily. As recently as today. I'm a fan of John Byrne's from his West Coast Avengers days. Back when the Vision and Scarlet Witch were changed. Not that they weren't changed before that. And since.
I am also a fan of Peter David's. I started regularily following his work back during the first Hulk run. When Jeff Purves started on the book I began buying it. Just picked it up one day and went from there. I went through the Grey mobster Hulk to the merged Hulk to the Pantheon Hulk and left around the early 400's. I'm currently enjoying his X Factor. I read his old X Factor as well. Both are great.
So I walk both worlds. I post to the Byrne board and I read Peter's page on a fairly regular basis. These little wars of words interest me mostly because it seems like they talk around each other and not to each other.
In some ways I'd like to see a professional only board or some outlet where we can see these little discussions get carried out. If something could be resolved it'd be great. But when I see comics professionals, Peter David & John Byrne included, sniping at each other I figure it's a huge waste.
I think John Byrne has made some very valid points regarding the nature of comics over the years. In the midst of that he's undoubtedly made some comments that have tarnished his reputation. I don't agree with every statement he's made. Nor do I agree with every thing Peter David has said. It's just as likely I would disagree on topics with people who post here and the Byrne Forum. That's the way it goes. The main thing is to get a dialogue going. If there is respect on all sides we are all more likely to find some sort of consensus. It's difficult but not impossible.
So here you go. Another potential target for banning. I seriously doubt it will happen. Just figured I'd throw my two cents in. Take it for what you will.