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.
SER:
I see what you're saying, but couldn't someone justify just about any change to Spiderman by saying "Hey, he's still Peter Parker. He was bitten by a radioactive spider and his Uncle Ben died. The rest is window dressing."
Since it's up to the individual to decide what the "essential" aspects of a character are it becomes a fairly pointless exercise. Which is fine! I'm a comics fan so I'm all about the pointless. Could Thor's hammer break Captain America's shield if it were used by The Hulk--that's the sort of conversation that got me through many a lunch break with Eddy Mueller and Brian Hague when we worked in the salt mines at Mile High Comics.
My problem with John Byrne is that he is very selective about what is or isn't essential and is very dismissive of those creators who disagree. While the rest of us would have much merry fun arguing about these pointless "facts"--"The Blob is unmoveable, the Rhino is unstoppable--they run into each other. What happens? Discuss." there was always some guy who would spoil the fun by insisting that HIS view was correct and get upset--UPSET!-when anyone disagreed. Which just brought home how stupid the whole thing was and made us feel bad that we were having the discussion in the first place.
Anyway, that's the vibe I get at the Byrne boards.
Posted by: enfranklopedia at May 29, 2006 04:46 PM
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.
I used to read JBF with great frequency. The only difference I see between PAD's blog and JB's forum (other than the fact that JB's site sports more graphics, which is unsurprising given that JB is an illustrator and PAD is, to the best of my knowledge, not) is that members can start their own threads on JB's forum. Except you have to do a comprehensive search of the FAQ and any past threads -- because, if you start a thread that duplicates something in the FAQ or a prior thread, JB gets super-pissed and someone locks the thread down. Frankly, I like PAD's blog just fine. He gives us the chance to speak our minds quite freely, even though he's under no obligation to do so.
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.
If you're willing to lump all of the posts on this board, or even the majority of them, into the category of a "pissing match," I would assert that you're not reading them closely enough. Many posters in this thread are arguing their points using logic and facts (and I like to believe I'm one of them).
There's a world of difference between pointing out when someone is being hypocritical and engaging in a "pissing match." Sometimes, if you want to defend logic and the truth, you're going to step on the toes of people who are less committed to those ideals. That's going to create conflict. I'm honestly sorry if that causes you distress, but the only other choice is to roll over and let hypocrisy go unchallenged. I don't think that's the best response.
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.
I agree with you, but that doesn't mean we can avoid conflict -- only that we should avoid "uncivil" conflict.
By the way, I'm only taking PAD's side in this debate because, well, he's right. JB has altered many a character, and it's downright hypocritical for him to condemn PAD for doing the same. PAD's not "my guy." I enjoy many, many creators, and PAD is only one of them. I don't know PAD, and he doesn't know me. I don't feel that I "owe" it to him to side with him in any debate -- unless I believe logic and reason are on his side. And in this case, I do believe he is on the side of the "angels," so to speak.
Can't we talk about the issues on the table without resorting to vitriol?
Many of us are. But disagreement means saying, "No, I think you are wrong." Some people mistake that for vitriol. If you look at the posts in this board, most people aren't resorting to vitriol. In fact, the thread didn't become vitriolic until Mike "can't make up his mind about his handle" O'Brien came in and started insulting everyone left and right.
I'm sorry you find conflict so unpleasant, but it is a fact of life. It's uncivil conflict that bothers me. The mere act of disagreeing is not inherently uncivil, though.
First off, for Bill Myers on the whole your/you're thing, it was 9 in the morning. Second off, no flesh eating bacteria I know would be up at 9 in the morning, and I know a lot of them. I work in TV.
One of the things that I've always liked about Marvel books in general is the way the characters have real personalities, not just HERO MODE and NORMAL MODE. I like to read characters that I LIKE, that I can relate to. Generally, in the books that I read, I can. PAD's books, the Simonsons' Power Pack, Claremont's X-Men, the characters are natural and usually out of their element a little bit. Most of the DC books that I glance through just flat heroes with gimmick of the week bad guys. Writers/creators HAVE to be able to change the characters or they get staler than my pepperoni bread when I leave it out for a week. J. Alexander got it right above. Blandness kills comics. Superman is saving Metropolis again. Look, there's the Kryptonite. Ho-hum. Give me Spider-Man worrying about paying the rent any day.
Say, Mike, you aren't by any chance the fourth member of the Lone Gunmen, are you? Seems like you could be, and if you are, where's the rest of my subscription, damn it?
Now, when I go to a comic shop, I LIKE the people working there to give an opinion. Not everyone likes the same stuff I do, and the fact that I've known the guy that owns the shop I go to since we were in 9th grade helps, but comics are a SHARED medium. Much more enjoyable when you can interact with people about them. Now, if only I had the cash to go see Wade more often...
The whole thing seems to be a do-as-I-write-not-as-I-do ignore the man behind the curtain. Put it another way. If Cecil B. DeMille were alive, and had a blog, and was dissing Speilberg for using special effects, do you think that people would be getting this worked up?
I can see why writers might be criticized for coming in and warping the direction of a series, and yet when I think about examples, it's hard to argue with the commercial and artistic results. I only read a bit of PAD's Hulk, and admit it is not the same Hulk I knew and loved from the Mantlo years, but it was very interesting, exciting and well-done. Other writers that have transformed books include Alan Moore on Swamp Thing and Grant Morrison on Doom Patrol, and in both cases I went from being indifferent about the series to loving it. I'm sure in each example there were fans who felt left behind, like they lost their favorite versions of characters they grew up with, and I feel that's valid, but darned if these new directions don't raise the bar for both the titles in question and comics in general! So I guess my point is that it is a shame when writers feel they have to change characters dramatically from their status quo, but when it works well, it's worth it!
[All material surrounded by "**" was written by Bill Myers. I'm not at all skilled in HTML, sadly.]
**I used to read JBF with great frequency. The only difference I see between PAD's blog and JB's forum [...] is that members can start their own threads on JB's forum. Except you have to do a comprehensive search of the FAQ and any past threads -- because, if you start a thread that duplicates something in the FAQ or a prior thread, JB gets super-pissed and someone locks the thread down.**
I've never run my own web site before, but wouldn't eliminating duplicate threads be part and parcel of ensuring an efficient forum? Also, there are several moderators on the site who seem (given their statements in the forum) to do most of the "locking down", which I imagine is part of their job description. How would you, or I, or anyone else know if JB gets "super-pissed" when this happens? Or if he even knows about every instance?
**Frankly, I like PAD's blog just fine. He gives us the chance to speak our minds quite freely, even though he's under no obligation to do so.**
I never said that I didn't like the format of this site. I stated that I would welcome a message board here, because it would give all of us greater opportunities to interact on a more regular basis. If it doesn't happen, then fine. I'll keep reading, and keep posting when I feel it's appropriate. If you're trying to turn what I said into "Byrne's board is better than this one," then you didn't understand what I wrote.
Speaking of what I wrote, here's what I wrote next: "When things degenerate into the 'PAD fans vs. Byrne fans pissing contest', it gets pretty irritating."
Bill wrote: **If you're willing to lump all of the posts on this board, or even the majority of them, into the category of a "pissing match," I would assert that you're not reading them closely enough.**
I never said anything about how often the
"pissing match" material appears. I didn't lump anything into anything, or suggest a majority or anything of the sort. I said that WHEN it happens, I find it irritating. Talk about not reading closely. Please don't put words into my mouth.
I then wrote: "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."
Bill wrote: **I agree with you, but that doesn't mean we can avoid conflict -- only that we should avoid "uncivil" conflict.**
Bill, seriously, no joke or sarcasm intended here -- did you actually READ what I wrote? You just completely agreed with me. I never said that we should "avoid conflict." I said that we shouldn't allow discussions of issues -- including differences of opinion about the works of the creators in question -- to fall into the gutter and become infantile, insult-laden attacks about the men themselves. When you say that we should avoid "uncivil conflict", you're both absolutely right, and agreeing with what I wrote...and yet, you seem to be suggesting that I made a request that we all avoid ANY conflict of any kind. I didn't, and wouldn't. Why are you pretending I did?
More from Bill: **But disagreement means saying, "No, I think you are wrong." Some people mistake that for vitriol.**
I'm sure some of them do. I'm not one of them. Why do you assume that I am? Were YOU unable to figure out which posts in this thread that a reasonable person would find vitriolic? No, neither was I.
Bill: **If you look at the posts in this board, most people aren't resorting to vitriol. In fact, the thread didn't become vitriolic until Mike "can't make up his mind about his handle" O'Brien came in and started insulting everyone left and right.**
I did look at the posts in this thread, and I know quite well the difference between lively debate and "I shall now piss in your face because your opinion differs from mine". What insight into my discerning abilities do you possess, I wonder, that makes you think that I missed the moment when the problem started?
If my admission that I spend time at the John Byrne Forum has led you to believe that I am on the "wrong" side of some ridiculous "turf war", then you're actually personifying the very problem I was complaining about in the first place.
Let me say it again, for the cheap seats:
I love, love, LOVE both PAD's blog and the JBF. I read both as often as time permits, and post to both as frequently as I find to be appropriate. I enjoy the works of both men, and will continue to do so regardless of what fellow posters seem to think the "battle lines" are supposed to be.
"Know thy enemy" doesn't just direct one to learn everything there is to know about an adversary, Bill. It's also meant to make sure that you know who your adversaries ARE. (Hint: I'm not one of them. I like it here.)
And here's Bill, one last time: **I'm sorry you find conflict so unpleasant, but it is a fact of life. It's uncivil conflict that bothers me. The mere act of disagreeing is not inherently uncivil, though.**
Aaaaand, yet again, I never said that conflict itself is "unpleasant" for me (as, I hope, this post makes clear); nor did I say that "the mere act of disagreeing is [...] inherently uncivil". I honestly don't know where the hell you came up with any of that.
Perhaps it's this kind of mis-reading that leads to uncivil conflict.
"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."
Thank you Jerry but the years not over yet. You may still win it again.
I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though..
Just like Sir Bob Geldoff said many times, "taint nuthin but a laffbook fiasco and I don't like Mondays".
Goodnight.
A few more thoughts just to clarify. First off, Cassie Sandsmark did NOT start dressing like Briitney Spears until Mike Turner got his grubby little hands on her. I personally blame DiDio for it as the person in charge. Secondly, Queen, with great respect I disagree with the concept that Cassie was on her way to being where she is now in TT. In my opinion, Johns and Winick regressed her maturity (mostly Johns). I don't guess he is good enough writer to take her from where she was and progress but had to cut her back to rebuild her how he wanted to.
Finally Luigi. It's always good to have your perspective but I must disagree. Let me quote you fully:
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.
From my POV, I see a flaw in your argument. See, the writer is in charge of what she does and he put her in the position in the first place. That's not to say the murder couldn't be avoided. She had Max in her custody and could've easily used the lasso to render him unconcious instead of killing him. In the history of WW she has never, ever done such a thing as she did in that issue. It went against her past deeds and morals. In fact, the whole idea of WW is to show man the folly of his ways. Yet she was going to do exactly what a knee-jerk cowboy would do? I don't think so.
As for why it caused so much grief, for me it was a few things. She being one of my 3 favorite DC characters (the other 2 being Cassie Sandsmark and Barbara Gordon) and I felt this was the final straw in DiDio's treatment of the female characters. Also it was a cheap ploy. It was a gimmick that had nothing organic about it. It was clear that the murder of Max Lord was just to artificially start a new Crisis. Taking a proud character who, while a warrior was a wise one up until then,and making her into a murderer was no better than it would've been to have a nude cover on the issue to raise sales.
Unfortunately I'll probably have to wait many more years for DC to come to its senses seeing as lots of speculators are buying tons of Crisis and 52 issues.
Michael
Mike O'Brien:
I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though..
That's funny, because I thought they did a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws in Byrne's stance. I mean, they provided some pretty specific examples. Just because you choose not to be convinced doesn't mean they are wrong.
It's not our job to form your opinion for you. If you truly want to find out who is better, then read as much of both PAD's and Byrne's work as you can find. Based on your posts that I read, I have doubts as to whether you've read enough of PAD's work to form an opinion based on first-hand knowledge.
Based on what Byrne has said, and what I know of his work, I'd say he contradicted himself. Nobody's perfect. If you like his writing, keep on reading. The guy doesn't have to be right 100% of the time.
Well said, Stéphane. :-)
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.
Luigi Novi: Forgive me, but I’m not following. Can you explain this passage? What do you mean “sounds like”?
SER: 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.
Luigi Novi: And where do you see that in Byrne and Peter’s statements?
SER: 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*
Luigi Novi: Not really. MPD was part of the Hulk’s premise from issue #1. It was just that the science fiction aspect of the transformations were never explicitly explained in terms of real-life psychological principles. All Peter did by coming out and saying that it was MPD was explaining an already-existing premise, rather than changing one. Communicating with the Hulk prior to the gamma explosion was also a further deepening of the pre-explosion history of Banner’s character, a new revelation that gave greater insight into those gamma-induced transformations, rather than a change. After all, did any issue of the Hulk explicitly preclude the idea that Banner was acquainted with the Hulk personality prior to the explosion?
SER: Alan Coil: 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.
Luigi Novi: I find the first theory plausible, but not the second; Mike O’Brien has hardly taken up that much “space”.
enfranklopedia: Can't we talk about the issues on the table without resorting to vitriol?
Luigi Novi: From what I’ve observed, most of the people here already have.
Kudos to most everyone here. ;-)
enfranklopedia: When things degenerate into the 'PAD fans vs. Byrne fans pissing contest', it gets pretty irritating.
Bill Myers: If you're willing to lump all of the posts on this board, or even the majority of them, into the category of a "pissing match," I would assert that you're not reading them closely enough.
enfranklopedia: I never said anything about how often the "pissing match" material appears. I didn't lump anything into anything, or suggest a majority or anything of the sort. I said that WHEN it happens, I find it irritating. Talk about not reading closely. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Luigi Novi: Where did Bill say anything about how “often” such material appears? All he said was that the vast majority of the material in this thread does not constitute. You respond that you don’t like it “WHEN” it happens, as if to indicate that you weren’t talking about this thread, but then why bring it up?
Mike O'Brien: I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you can’t seem to refute a single one of those posts that clearly called your assertions into question.
michael j Norton: From my POV, I see a flaw in your argument. See, the writer is in charge of what she does and he put her in the position in the first place. That's not to say the murder couldn't be avoided. She had Max in her custody and could've easily used the lasso to render him unconcious instead of killing him.
Luigi Novi: Did the scene establish that rendering him unconscious would cause his control over Superman to cease?
michael j Norton: In the history of WW she has never, ever done such a thing as she did in that issue. It went against her past deeds and morals. In fact, the whole idea of WW is to show man the folly of his ways. Yet she was going to do exactly what a knee-jerk cowboy would do? I don't think so.
Luigi Novi: The fact that such a thing may not have happened before may have been because that specific exact situation, had not been presented to her, which is probably why the writer did so: in order to ponder questions about the character, and challenged those morals; to see when and where and under what circumstances she might do something or another.
I’m not going to quibble with the angle of her being one of your faves, since it’s impossible to do so, nor will I disagree with your assessments of Infinite Crisis, which I thought was the most poorly written story and biggest waste of time of the past several months (I far preferred the various tie-ins related to it). But I thought the Wonder Woman story, and the conflict it caused between her and Superman and Batman was quite organic. I thought Batman and Superman were being too harsh with her, and should get off their high horses. At least, that’s how it felt to me. To each their own. :-)
And thanks for the compliment. :-)
Enfranklopedia, before I respond to your individual points, I'm going to give the same unsolicited advice I gave to Craig Ries: be cool. We're just having a discussion, here.
Posted by enfranklopedia at May 30, 2006 12:31 AM
I've never run my own web site before, but wouldn't eliminating duplicate threads be part and parcel of ensuring an efficient forum?
I guess that depends on who you ask. I wouldn't want to try to start a thread in that forum, because, frankly, I don't have time to do all of that research. But it's JB's forum, and he gets to set the rules.
Also, there are several moderators on the site who seem (given their statements in the forum) to do most of the "locking down", which I imagine is part of their job description.
Right. That's why I said "someone" locks duplicate threads down. The JBF has people devoted to "security" (that's not my term -- that's actually in their JBF signatures).
How would you, or I, or anyone else know if JB gets "super-pissed" when this happens? Or if he even knows about every instance?
I know that JB gets angry about it because he's said so.
I never said that I didn't like the format of this site. I stated that I would welcome a message board here, because it would give all of us greater opportunities to interact on a more regular basis. If it doesn't happen, then fine. I'll keep reading, and keep posting when I feel it's appropriate. If you're trying to turn what I said into "Byrne's board is better than this one," then you didn't understand what I wrote.
Sure, I do. You'd like to see PAD offer a message board, like what's offered on the JBF. That's not on my particular "wish list." I'm not sure where the misundertanding lies.
('Course, it's PAD's blog, so it doesn't matter what is or isn't on my "wish list.")
I never said anything about how often the
"pissing match" material appears. I didn't lump anything into anything, or suggest a majority or anything of the sort. I said that WHEN it happens, I find it irritating. Talk about not reading closely. Please don't put words into my mouth.
Point taken. But you also implored, "Can't we talk about the issues on the table without resorting to vitriol?"
Using the word "we," without narrowing down who that pronoun referred to, led me to believe you were casting a very wide net. It seems I was wrong. I apologize for mis-interpreting you.
In my defense, however, it wouldn't have hurt for you to have been more specific than simply addressing "we." And it wouldn't necessarily involved naming names. You could have said, "To those of you who are degenerating this discourse with vitriol, I ask..." See what I mean? It would have reduced the chances for misunderstanding.
Bill, seriously, no joke or sarcasm intended here -- did you actually READ what I wrote? You just completely agreed with me. I never said that we should "avoid conflict." I said that we shouldn't allow discussions of issues -- including differences of opinion about the works of the creators in question -- to fall into the gutter and become infantile, insult-laden attacks about the men themselves. When you say that we should avoid "uncivil conflict", you're both absolutely right, and agreeing with what I wrote...and yet, you seem to be suggesting that I made a request that we all avoid ANY conflict of any kind. I didn't, and wouldn't. Why are you pretending I did?
It is unfair to assume that I was "pretending" anything. I was interpreting your words to the best of my ability. Again, I apologize for mis-reading your intent.
I'm sure some of them do. I'm not one of them. Why do you assume that I am? Were YOU unable to figure out which posts in this thread that a reasonable person would find vitriolic? No, neither was I.
I didn't "assume" that you were. I was basing my judgment on my interpretation of the content of your post. Again, it seems I misjudged. I apologize.
I did look at the posts in this thread, and I know quite well the difference between lively debate and "I shall now piss in your face because your opinion differs from mine". What insight into my discerning abilities do you possess, I wonder, that makes you think that I missed the moment when the problem started?
Again, it was because of the use of the word "we." Since I already covered that, I won't belabor a dead horse. :)
If my admission that I spend time at the John Byrne Forum has led you to believe that I am on the "wrong" side of some ridiculous "turf war", then you're actually personifying the very problem I was complaining about in the first place.
Now you're being unfair. I never thought you were on the "wrong" side of any "turf war," and I never said that you were. I've said that I used to spend a lot of time reading the threads in JB's forum. I'd have to be a pretty big hypocrite to think ill of someone for doing what I used to do.
Let me say it again, for the cheap seats:
Now you're being downright insulting, which is something you can't say about my earlier post to you. You've been pretty adamant that we should keep things civil -- and I agree with you. May I suggest that an apology on your part is also in order? Because I think it is.
I love, love, LOVE both PAD's blog and the JBF. I read both as often as time permits, and post to both as frequently as I find to be appropriate. I enjoy the works of both men, and will continue to do so regardless of what fellow posters seem to think the "battle lines" are supposed to be.
Actually, the only "battle line" I see is the debate over whether John Byrne was hypocritical for criticizing Peter David for altering characters. I believe there is a "right" and a "wrong" in that debate, and I believe Peter's stance is the right one.
If you enjoy both forums, and want to participate in both, you won't receive any opposition from me. If you derive pleasure from both, then by all means, enjoy them both.
"Know thy enemy" doesn't just direct one to learn everything there is to know about an adversary, Bill. It's also meant to make sure that you know who your adversaries ARE. (Hint: I'm not one of them. I like it here.)
Good. I like interacting with people here. The more people with whom I get to interact, the more I like it.
I didn't think of you as an adversary or an enemy. Yes, I did mis-interpret your intent. But I believe you are nevertheless overreacting to my post to you.
Aaaaand, yet again, I never said that conflict itself is "unpleasant" for me (as, I hope, this post makes clear); nor did I say that "the mere act of disagreeing is [...] inherently uncivil". I honestly don't know where the hell you came up with any of that.
Already covered that, so I won't cover it again.
Perhaps it's this kind of mis-reading that leads to uncivil conflict.
Is it? I think I've been pretty receptive to you. Sometimes a simple misunderstanding is just that: a simple misunderstanding.
I found it interesting that those defending Byrne have to use work from more then a decade ago to do so. Its a good summary that they can't even point to the here and now to properly defend him.
Frankly Byrne hasn't been a good artist or writer in decades. His style shows zero growth or adaption to how comics have developed since he was in his prime. He is proud of that to, which is his right. He must be doing something right as DC keeps giving him work for reasons I will never understand.
However, when he repeatedly attacks others for doing the very things he has done time and time again, there is no excuse for that level of hypocrisy.
Its not even like this is a one time deal. The man, with the help of his fans, bend over backwards to re-write history. Anytime history needs to be re-written like that, your logic is inherently flawed. The truth doesn't usually require that much effort.
What I don't understand is how fans who pretend to know his work backwards and forwards can't just says "Byrne, love your work, but you have done the same thing. Your having a kettle-pot moment." Nothing wrong with that. If Byrne can't handle it, might be a good indication you need to find a new demi-god to worship.
At the end of the day though, they are so used to rewriting and making excuses that its almost habit now. He has been giving them lots of practice over the years. On the bright side it does make for some very amusing reading.
And PAD, please I beg of you, never work with Byrne. I don't think its a stain that would wash off easily as he tends to tarnish all that he touches now. Way back when, he was a legend, now he has become an old fossil that just doesn't know when to quit.
Mike O'Brien:
"I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though.."
Scott Iskow:
"It's not our job to form your opinion for you. If you truly want to find out who is better, then read as much of both PAD's and Byrne's work as you can find. "
Kinda missing the point of the debate. I'm not going to convince anybody that PAD's work is better then Byrne's work since I'm not arguing that point.
Mike, you like Byrne better. That's fine. That's your personal tastes and opinions. I don't care to change that one way or the other. You can have whatever favorite writer, artist or letterer that you want to have and it won't cause the slightest ripple in my corner of the world.
I, like others here, am addressing the topic of Byrne's blatant hypocrisy. Byrne regularly jumps up and down and condemns other creators for doing things that he finds to be an affront to the comic industry. The problem is that he often shoots his mouth off about others doing what he does whenever he takes over a book. He just doesn't see anything he does as wrong even when it's the exact same action because it's him doing it rather then somebody else.
Hell, I'm not even arguing that changing a book fundamentally is a good or bad thing. I think that needs to be debated on a case by case basis. Green Lantern goes nuts? Bad IMO. Swamp Thing becomes an elemental? Great IMO. I'm just saying that Byrne is a blatant hypocrite.
So far, you have posted nothing to refute that point. All you've done is launch personal attacks from post one and added zilch to the actual debate. That's why you get the Troll of 2006 nomination while SER gets conversation. He addressed points and entered into polite debate. You might actually try that for a change.
Posted by: Mike O'Brien at May 30, 2006 12:50 AM
Thank you Jerry but the years not over yet. You may still win it again.
I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though..
Just like Sir Bob Geldoff said many times, "taint nuthin but a laffbook fiasco and I don't like Mondays".
Goodnight.
Mike, I've read your posts, and you have yet to actually address the core issue: is John Byrne hypocritical for condemning others for altering characters, or is he not? You've simply told others they're wrong, insulted them, and then declared "that's that." That's a bit like taking a swing at someone from behind, running away immediately afterwards, and then patting yourself on the back for bravery.
Do you have a logical argument to support your contention that John's statement was hypocritical? Then let's hear it. It would be very difficult to persuade me that John isn't being a hypocrite, but I never rule anything out, and I'm always open to persuasion. I'd give your argument a fair reading, at the very least.
If you don't have such an argument, then the only honorable thing to do would be to acknowledge that and move on. Your insults are only making you, and, by extension, John Byrne, look bad.
The excuse he's going to offer, Bill, is that John DOESN'T change the characters. Because when John does it, you see, there's always some great master plan at work. For instance, the fact that the Vision was green, red and yellow and was so emotional that he was crying by his second appearance, putting him completely at odds with his ostensible back-to-basics approach in John's hands, will be excused with the same tired wheeze that's applied to John's defenstration of decades' worth of Hulk-characterization: John had a "master plan" at the end of which the charter would be back exactly the way he found him. But, naturally, the forces of evil were arrayed against John in such a way that he was not allowed to complete his master plan.
Meanwhile evil old Peter shows disrespect for authorial intent by going off in other directions...even though the thuggish Mr. Fixit Hulk was on view as far back as "Incredible Hulk #6" and Hulk-with-Banner's-brain was hardly unexplored territory. Except when I left the series, the Hulk was in fact MORE in line with "classic" Hulk than at any point in John's run. He wasn't merged, the Hulk wasn't especially articulate, and to all intents and purposes, he didn't have a wife. Indeed, Joe Casey then marked time for a couple issues at which point John came in and had no trouble writing rampaging Hulk issues, so it's not as if anyone had to make massive changes to the status quo that I'd left.
In other words, I do in fact what John only claims to do: Develop stories that wander from the original concept of long-standing classic characters only to leave them much as I found them.
And I know what you're going to say in response to that: Supergirl. To which I would reply that the end of my run lay the groundwork for the return of Supergirl in the DCU being Kara Zor-El, Superman's cousin...something that John never did.
PAD
SER: Alan Coil: 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.
Luigi Novi: I find the first theory plausible, but not the second; Mike O’Brien has hardly taken up that much “space”.
**********************
The original thread in the Byrne Board that started all this was fairly respectful and not about bashing PAD's work. The original poster who was not a troll or an alias but a real person, as far as I know, respectfully asked if people preferred the "savage" (as he believes "classic") Hulk and asserted why he did. He plainly stated that he liked PAD's run but gave his misgivings about the merged Hulk.
Keep in mind one thing: It's not really possible to have a discussion about the HULK without bringing up PAD. He was on the title for 12 years and aside from Lee and Kirby is the creator most associated with the book in the public's eye. It's not like someone started a SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN thread and then went out of their way to bash PAD's relatively brief run on the title.
Did Byrne post something critical of PAD? Yes. But it wasn't what was originally posted but another comment altogether. (Actually, it was about four days and five pages into the thread before Byrne posted the statement that PAD mentions at the top of this thread.)
Several posters expressed their affection for the PAD run on the title. None of them were banned. None of their posts were deleted.
People have opinions that are crap. If you think Byrne's was crap, that's fine. I just have to disagree with any notion that what was for all intents and purposes a lively debate about the HULK and what version they prefer was really a means to bash a creator because that's what they do at the Byrne board.
If you ignore the three contentious posts that Byrne made in that thread, you would be hard-pressed to say that the rest of the discussion was a bunch of trolls bitching about PAD. Many of them are fans of his work and defended the run or parts of it. Also, there was far less personal venom about PAD than there has been in this thread about Byrne.
But I would ask anyone to at least read the thread in question and make the call.
**********************
SER: 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*
Luigi Novi: Not really. MPD was part of the Hulk’s premise from issue #1.
********************
Metatextually, maybe but not on the page. It certainly wasn't in the creators' radar. If you like the MPD angle, then PAD deserves full credit, I think, for inserting it into the storyline. Yes, it makes *sense* with what we see on the page. That's why it was narratively effective rather than resulting in readers saying, "Huh?"
*********************
It was just that the science fiction aspect of the transformations were never explicitly explained in terms of real-life psychological principles. All Peter did by coming out and saying that it was MPD was explaining an already-existing premise, rather than changing one.
**************************
I guess. Man changing into beast is a longstanding conceit -- not just in science fiction but in fantasy (werewolves). Adding the psychological aspect was fairly revolutionary and did take the metaphor in a different direction. It was originally about addiction, I would argue, and also about the character being "cursed" for playing God. The latter element ceases to exist if he was always nuts.
*******************
Communicating with the Hulk prior to the gamma explosion was also a further deepening of the pre-explosion history of Banner’s character, a new revelation that gave greater insight into those gamma-induced transformations, rather than a change. After all, did any issue of the Hulk explicitly preclude the idea that Banner was acquainted with the Hulk personality prior to the explosion?
**********************
Well, if you want to go that route, it's hard to argue against that point. However, I think an important element of tragedy is lost if Banner was basically crazy before the explosion. A perfectly normal and successful man doomed because of a noble act is tragic. A loon who becomes more of a loon because of a potentially suicidal act* is less tragic in my mind. Is the latter an uninteresting, non-compelling character? No, I wouldn't say that. I just prefer the former.
*Wikipedia's entry on the HULK states that Banner was basically attempting to kill himself when he rushed to save Rick Jones in HULK #1. Wikipedia being Wikipedia, I don't know if this was ever stated in an actual comic or is just nonsense but it is a disturbing view of the character.
Aren´t comics all about illusion of change? All serial fiction has the problem that you can´t write a story with a proper ending. Because basically the story ends there.
And a kind of definite ending in a creator´s work can kill any interest in picking up the book again if it is relaunched. Of course I can only speak for myself, but DOOM PATROL is a good example of this. I loved Morrisons take on the book, and as he wrote kind of an ending I frankly was and am not interested in seeing another take on the characters. Game over. So I didn´t buy the "new" volumes. Which can´t make the company happy. Of course this is in comicbookland an extreme example, because the book was so divorced from the mainstream superhero stuff that it didn´t made any creative sense to make a re-launch in the first place. So there never was a question for me to give Byrne´s DOOM PATROL a chance. I just didn´t care. Of course don´t enjoying his current stuff was also a point of not buying this.
On the other hand, in this day and age the idea of "honouring" the work of the last creator on any given book is not more than a myth. There are so many crass examples of clearing the house after a change. Only it seems bad manners to openly badmouth the work of a creator.
I didn't think of you as an adversary or an enemy. Yes, I did mis-interpret your intent. But I believe you are nevertheless overreacting to my post to you.
Reading back, I think you may be right. Sorry about that. I appreciate the fact that you apologized for the mis-interpretation.
Back to business. =)
Mike O'Brien -
I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though..
I'd like to give you some kudos, O'Brien, as I see you have the title "Official JB Historian" over on Byrne's site.
I think I can now hear your credibility literally walking out the door. *rofl*
Robert: I found it interesting that those defending Byrne have to use work from more then a decade ago to do so.
Luigi Novi: Quite a few people here have mentioned Lab Rats, Doom Patrol, and Blood of the Demon.
Robert: And PAD, please I beg of you, never work with Byrne. I don't think its a stain that would wash off easily as he tends to tarnish all that he touches now.
Luigi Novi: Oh please. Peter’s never been that snobbish or pretentious. Byrne provided the rear cover illustration to Peter’s But I Digress collection, and while I wouldn’t presume speak for him, if I were forced to take a wild guess, I’d say that if Byrne called up Peter tomorrow and say that he wanted to work with Peter and/or bury they hatchet, that Peter, under the right circumstances, would say yes.
SER: Metatextually, maybe but not on the page. It certainly wasn't in the creators' radar. If you like the MPD angle, then PAD deserves full credit, I think, for inserting it into the storyline. Yes, it makes *sense* with what we see on the page. That's why it was narratively effective rather than resulting in readers saying, "Huh?"……I guess. Man changing into beast is a longstanding conceit -- not just in science fiction but in fantasy (werewolves). Adding the psychological aspect was fairly revolutionary and did take the metaphor in a different direction. It was originally about addiction, I would argue, and also about the character being "cursed" for playing God. The latter element ceases to exist if he was always nuts.
Luigi Novi: Thank you for your responses. I understand and respect your differing interpretations, but then that’s part of the problem that I see with having a discussion on what is the “core” part of a character, what is “window dressing,” and what isn’t. It’s so subjective that someone like Byrne (or his apologists) can escape the hypocrisy accusation by saying that Byrne stayed within the characters’ “cores” and only made “window dressing” changes, while all others did not.
SER: Well, if you want to go that route, it's hard to argue against that point. However, I think an important element of tragedy is lost if Banner was basically crazy before the explosion.
Luigi Novi: Again, to each their own. :-) I get an overall sense of tragedy from Peter’s work on the book in general, so for me, that element was not lost.
Posted by: Peter David at May 30, 2006 08:24 AM
The excuse he's going to offer, Bill, is that John DOESN'T change the characters. Because when John does it, you see, there's always some great master plan at work. For instance, the fact that the Vision was green, red and yellow and was so emotional that he was crying by his second appearance, putting him completely at odds with his ostensible back-to-basics approach in John's hands, will be excused with the same tired wheeze that's applied to John's defenstration of decades' worth of Hulk-characterization: John had a "master plan" at the end of which the charter would be back exactly the way he found him. But, naturally, the forces of evil were arrayed against John in such a way that he was not allowed to complete his master plan.
Oh, believe me, I'm very familiar with the excuses some people choose to make for John. And no, they don't hold any water with me either. As I said, it would be very, very, very hard to persuade me that John is right, given the facts. On principle, however, I always try to retain an open mind. Open, that is, to well-reasoned arguments backed up by verifiable facts.
I'm not very hopeful that Mike O'Brien will produce such an argument. But I thought I'd give him the benefit of whatever doubt he hasn't already eliminated with his behavior in your blog.
Wow. Fan debates about who is the better creater, PAD or Byrne like PC vs. Mac debates or any other debates about religion. One side is never going to convince the other that they're wrong.
If I may, I'd like to comment on a statement made near the beginning of this thread:
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.
First of all, any change by any creator in a work-for-hire environment has to be approved by the owners of the characters, so simply saying that the changes were approved doesn't mean that you can't use them as an example of changing a character. All of his changes in Hulk, Spider-man, Wonder Woman, etc, etc were also approved by the PTB.
As for the changes being dictated, it's true that the details of the Superman revamp were in by committee, it's also true that as the writer of the mini, Byrne was involved in those changes from day one and has taken credit for many of the ideas such as the elimination of Superboy, keeping the Kents alive, and the birthing matrix. As the writer of the ultimate product, he is still responsible for not only his presentation of the changes, but for his contributions. To then turn around and complain say that he was just bringing them back to the creator's "original intent", as others have suggested, is just plain wrong. Many of those changes went far beyond what Seigel and Schuster did (Superboy was in fact a retroactive addition by Seigel).
And, as PAD pointed out, the original intent of the Vision wasn't to be an emotionless appliance, but a living being with feelings. In fact, until Byrne got ahold of him, the Vision was actually an android, but a "synthezoid", a being with very humanlike internal organs made out of synthetic materials.
So excuse me when I laugh when Byrne criticizes others for just making changes for the sake of change.
"Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David's work."
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD's work. And guess what? I've never been banned or even been threatened with it. I've had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because I don't threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don't go over and ask him "why do you suck" or "why haven't you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?" only in more innocent language. I've seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, "It’s about time they banned that guy." I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned "just because I disagreed with Byrne's opinion." That's crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD's work. And guess what? I've never been banned or even been threatened with it. I've had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because I don't threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don't go over and ask him "why do you suck" or "why haven't you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?" only in more innocent language. I've seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, "It’s about time they banned that guy." I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned "just because I disagreed with Byrne's opinion." That's crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here's a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when "Byrne Robotics Investor" Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member's "ignore" lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light.
Here's the link:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1796
Notice that it doesn't work? It did at one time. I know: I tried it when it was relatively new and the whole thread. I'm willing to bet it was deleted, likely because it made John look bad.
So, y'know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward as they may appear on the surface.
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!"
Um...as a former comic store employee who worked during the time all these new Byrne classics were being released I can honestly say this never happened. Mainly because customers hardly ever walked up with any of Byrne's books. But when they did? We never suggested that they not buy it. And admittedly, we low ordered his Doom Patrol and Blood of the Demon (as well as other DC books he was working on), because most of them sat on the shelf. Aside from an Infinite Crisis tie-in, his works were neither sold out nor requested.
As for the changes being dictated, it's true that the details of the Superman revamp were in by committee, it's also true that as the writer of the mini, Byrne was involved in those changes from day one and has taken credit for many of the ideas such as the elimination of Superboy, keeping the Kents alive, and the birthing matrix. As the writer of the ultimate product, he is still responsible for not only his presentation of the changes, but for his contributions. To then turn around and complain say that he was just bringing them back to the creator's "original intent", as others have suggested, is just plain wrong. Many of those changes went far beyond what Seigel and Schuster did (Superboy was in fact a retroactive addition by Seigel).
******************************
I don’t think anyone – least of all Byrne – stated that the changes to Superman were about restoring “original intent”. I believe it was more a “back to basics” approach, a scrubbing off the barnacles and “de-uniquing” elements (another big thing with Byrne) that had accumulated on the character.
I’ve learned to agree to disagree with people about Superman, though. I think that Byrne’s changes to the origin are superficial – the same as Donner’s changes in the Superman film or Timm/Dini’s changes in the cartoon. Each version is still recognizably Superman. How Krypton is depicted does not ultimately change the character. Even the less overtly benign Jor-El of SMALLVILLE does not change the character of Superman.
Electro-Devo Superman was a bad idea precisely because it wasn’t recognizably Superman anymore (in my view).
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD's work. And guess what? I've never been banned or even been threatened with it. I've had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because I don't threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don't go over and ask him "why do you suck" or "why haven't you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?" only in more innocent language. I've seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, "It’s about time they banned that guy." I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned "just because I disagreed with Byrne's opinion." That's crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here's a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when "Byrne Robotics Investor" Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member's "ignore" lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light.
Here's the link:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1796
Notice that it doesn't work? It did at one time. I know: I tried it when it was relatively new and the whole thread. I'm willing to bet it was deleted, likely because it made John look bad.
So, y'know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward as they may appear on the surface.
I don’t think anyone – least of all Byrne – stated that the changes to Superman were about restoring “original intent”.
Actually, a number of people have, including some right here. I've seen other people in other forums make the same claim. Perhaps the most infamous, though, is the message board troll known as "Man of the Atom."
Electro-Devo Superman was a bad idea precisely because it wasn’t recognizably Superman anymore (in my view).
Had there been any intent to make that a permanent change, I would agree, but as a temporary measure for a single story arc, it wasn't a bad idea per se, but it was a horribly executed one because: 1) There was absolutely no effort by the creative team to explain either what caused the transformation or what reversed it* and 2) DC at the time was operating under a ridiculous mandate that all Superman storyarcs had to run 52 issues long.
*I realize that Ron Marz tried a half-hearted ex post facto explanation, but that was after the fact. In the context of the original storyarc, nothing was explained.
Posted by PAD:
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...
Aw, man - - even the author himself doesn't mention the Psi-Man series... Excuse me, I'm gonna go bury my depression in a gallon of Choco-Chip Mint... :-(
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD's work. And guess what? I've never been banned or even been threatened with it. I've had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because I don't threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don't go over and ask him "why do you suck" or "why haven't you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?" only in more innocent language. I've seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, "It’s about time they banned that guy." I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned "just because I disagreed with Byrne's opinion." That's crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here's a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when "Byrne Robotics Investor" Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member's "ignore" lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light. The topic came up in a blog entry here on Peterdavid.net; the main entry was posted on October 26, 2004. You can check out the archives if you don't believe me.
You'll note, however, that you cannot find that particular thread at Byrne Robotics anymore. It appears to have been deleted, perhaps John's own posts in that thread cast him in a very bad light.
So, y'know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward nor as aboveboard as they may appear on the surface.
Yogzilla-
Psi-Man? Weren't those written by David Peters?;)
*grin*
Kath the Wife
"Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David's work."
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here."
Boy, then you haven't been reading stuff at this site for very long. There's TONS dumber things than that in our history.
And I didn't mention Psi-Man because I didn't create Psi-Man. I did a lot of work in building his world and many ancillary characters, but the basic concept was dreamt up by an editor at Ace. I was a hired gun on that.
PAD
"Boy, then you haven't been reading stuff at this site for very long."
I didn't mean in the history of this site, I meant this topic. Sorry for not being more clear.
As for the Neal Adams thing I read it when it first was up and I don't think it cast Neal Adams in a bad light at all. And JB never meant it in a bad light and he said as much after other people made a stink.
And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll. But I wouldn't have done it that way. I would have banned him.
Richard
Uhm, oops.
I tried to post something about some of the nonsense that goes on at Byrne Robotics, only to get a message that my post would be reviewed later prior to posting.
Then I tried to post in another thread in PAD's blog and my post got through instantly. So I figured, perhaps wrongly, that I should post again in this thread. So I edited my post a bit, and then hit "Post," and it got through instantly.
Except that I just noticed that my earlier post got through, too. So I have two posts on this thread that are nearly, but not quite identical. And that's why.
Just so you all don't think I'm crazier than I truly am.
I got into reading comics because of the Claremont/Byrne X-Men and I think he has a terrific flair for drawing. I have many of his portfolios (most signed) and such. What I find hard to believe is that Byrne attacks other writers (from what I can see here) and yet doesn't try to compare himself to other artists.
What's with the Apples to Oranges; can someone explain Byrne's hatred? On top of that, why can't he let people appreciate the differing styles of our favourite workers in the industry without trying to pull others down (on one hand, Byrne's no Dave McKean nor is he a Peter David... then again, Peter David is no Micheal Ondaatje, nor should any of the above be like another) Different approaches aren't a bad thing.
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 04:04 PM
As for the Neal Adams thing I read it when it first was up and I don't think it cast Neal Adams in a bad light at all. And JB never meant it in a bad light and he said as much after other people made a stink.
Just because John believes he didn't do anything wrong, and says he didn't do anything wrong, doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong.
And it wasn't just "other people" that "made a stink." Neal Adams himself "made a stink." Neal was upset that John would publicly repeat something Tom Palmer told him in private. Neal was also upset because of what John claimed Tom had said: that Neal was handing in layouts but getting paid for fully finished pencils. I think he had a right to be upset.
And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll. But I wouldn't have done it that way. I would have banned him.
It doesn't matter whether "the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll." The fact is, someone was manipulating the preferences of members, without their knowledge, to manipulate their perception of reality. That may, for all I know, have been perfectly legal, but it is nevertheless an unethical and shitty thing to do.
Weren't both Byrne's Hulk and West Coast Avenger's runs cut short by him abrputly leaving the titles? Not that I'm coming to Byrne's defense or anything like that, but it is possible he intended at some point to restore things to the status quo had he stayed on the books for any length of time. Or not. Just speculating.
That still doesn't excuse Crapter One or anything else he's done over the past 15 years that sucks. Or his assclown attitude.
"And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll."
No, he wasn't. I remember, because I was one of the first people on the Byrne board to post a question and say, "Hey, why am I not seeing so-and-so's" posts? I finally figured out I had the guy on "Ignore," which was odd, because I knew I hadn't put him there.
If he had been a troll, he would have been banned. But he wasn't; he was just a guy who some of the mods were finding annoying, so somebody put him on everybody's "Ignore" list (I don't believe it was Dave Pruitt).
The company line was that it was just a funny prank. Most people who had their personal settings tampered with in order to be unknowingly complicit in said "prank" weren't too terribly amused. (Kurt Busiek was one of the people who were vocal about their finding it uncool.)
Jason
This stuff about the Hulk, and The Vision, etc., is all very interesting, but isn't anyone besides me interested in the important, stuff? Focus, people, focus! PAD wrote "My work has appeared on the Op-Ed page of 'The New York Times'."
When did the op-ed appear? I want to read it on microfilm next time I can get to a good library!
Mike O'Brien,
I am a fan of much of John Byrne's work, started reading it with Rog 2000 back at Charlton. Some of my favorite comics are John Byrne books.
I also ran a brick and mortar comics shop for 21 years.
I never, EVER refused to order a comic by any creator just because I didn't like it. If a customer wanted it, I brought it in.
With John Byrne's later work (Lab Rats, Next Men, Babe, Blood of the Demon), I found myself ordering fewer copies for the shelf because they'd just sit there and not sell.
I never made fun of the writing or the art, I never hid them behind other comics, and I always followed up on any special orders that customers would make.
At the end of the day, the number of subscribers Byrne could generate were fewer and fewer and fewer. By the time I closed my doors (due to a family crisis, not because my customer base was shrinking), I was bringing in one copy of Blood of the Demon for a subscriber, and one for the shelf.
And I ended up with ten consecutive issues of Blood of the Demon on my shelf. That meant that for ten months, NOBODY but the one guy who subscribed to it bought that book.
The exact same thing happened with his Doom Patrol. If I'd ever sold that one shelf copy, I'd have reordered, honestly. But I was never given the chance to, because nobody but his one fan wanted them.
It wasn't a conspiracy...Mr. Byrne's comics had the same chance that everyone else's did. And unfortunately, they stiffed.
It wasn't my job to promote John Byrne (or Peter David, for that matter)...it was my job to make sure that my customers got what they wanted.
Unfortunately, in the Practical Laboratory that is the sales floor, nobody wanted John Byrne's new stuff.
I'm a big fan of creators being free to produce the work that they think will sell. Mr. Byrne has had unprecedented freedom to do just that. Unfortunately, as time has passed, his misses far outnumber his hits.
Batman/Captain America and the first two Generations series showed what he can still summon when he's truly inspired. Those were fun books!
Unfortunately, they're the exception rather than the rule.
Would that it weren't so, but it is. Nobody's sadder than I am not to feel a thrill at the arrival of a new John Byrne book. Unfortunately, I don't.
And I'm not alone.
No conspiracy...just people voting with their wallets.
Richard Fisher, here is "the dumbest thing I have ever read here" : Bush is a good president.
:)
Recent Byrne work:
Lab Rats---good premise, not so good execution.
Doom Patrol---I tried the first 3 or 4 issues, felt it was going nowhere.
Blood of the Demon---didn't even bother to try it. Why? Byrne has proven to me that his work no longer appeals to me. Do the words that have come out of his mouth in the past few months had an effect on that decision? Yes. He sounds as if he is completely divorced from reality.
I can still enjoy a comic book that has his artwork, but his writing has really gone downhill.
He has a lot of gall considering all the shit that was piled on him for his Superman revamp (which I thoroughly enjoyed).
One of my biggest criticisms of comics is that once something is done, that's almost how it is forever. I don't mean that the past stays the past, I mean that even in revamps and retellings, there's this pressure put on the writers by the readers or by themselves, to adhere to a vague history that's already been told. This is true for the Marvel Ultimate universe in many ways. I'm not saying the Ultimate books don't tell good stories, but things like Gwen Stacy being fated to die...
People are very scared of change... but I'm scared of things not changing, so when a new writer comes to a book and wants to try something different, I applaud. Maybe most of the time it doesn't work out, but if there's a real creative purpose behind it, there's nothing wrong with the attempt.
I believe in a sense of status quo with characters (isn't that what all story arcs really are? something interrupts the flow and the resolution is a restoration of balance?), but I don't believe in some kind of *static* quo.
John Byrne would never want to work in someone else's shadow, and he shouldn't expect other people to want to work in his.
Bill Myers- I can't defend the "Ignoregate" fiasco. It was totally the wrong thing to do and it has cast a dark shadow over the board to this day. Nobody actually confessed to it but I don't believe it was Dave Pruitt.
The Neal Adams comment was another huge mistake on the part of JB. I think he meant to say that back in the 60's and early 70's artists just didn't pencil as tightly as they do today and he used the wrong artist as an example. If he would have just apologized instead of shifting the blame to Tom Palmer, it would have been no big thing.
The reason that thread may be gone is because the board is set to erase threads after a year. I think that's a good thing because we all use our real names and stuff from there comes up on Google and some members don't like that.
The thing about members being banned is just something that goes with the territory. At any time Byrne or one of the mods will just ban someone for whatever reason and that's that. Byrne's house, Byrne's rule. I can roll with it. No big thing.
Is Byrne hypocritcal for taking others to task for making changes to characters, since he also does it himself? Good question. If you feel he makes the kind of changes to characters that PAD makes, personality changes, changes in motivations, morality changes and major changes in the staus quo of a particular title then yes, Byrne would be hypcocritical.
I don't feel that way myself. I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I'm willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD. Both bring a lot of themselves to whatever they are writing which is why they both have such loyal fans.
I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows.
"Not that I'm coming to Byrne's defense or anything like that, but it is possible he intended at some point to restore things to the status quo had he stayed on the books for any length of time. Or not. Just speculating."
It's entirely possible. But he quits the work and leaves it behind. I, on the other hand, see the work through and, by the end of the run (in Hulk, which is what triggered the discussion) the status quo had been restored...restored, in fact, to what the Hulk was BEFORE BYRNE'S RUN. So basically I did what he failed to do...and he continues to bitch about me.
"I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I'm willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD."
I appreciate the admission since the reality of our respective track records doesn't match up with your perception. Hulk? At no time during my run of Hulk did I ever deemphasize or eliminate the emotional struggle of a man trying to deal with his inner demons. Even as the merged Hulk, the conflict was still there--just internalized rather than externalized. John elimianted that struggle IMMEDIATELY. Spider-Man? Any "changes" made to Spider-Man (such as the stinger) were made by other writers. X-Factor? Aside from giving Multiple Man's multiples some additional personality, no changes there. Aquaman? You'll appreciate this: I had an entire storyline planned that would "kill" Aquaman off, let people think he was dead, then bring him and eventually restore him to two-handedness and much of his original appearance (personally I never liked the semi-armored, bare-chested costume; I objected strenuously but was overruled by the editor). The storyline was rejected, I left the title, and eventually DC did the storyline I proposed--with some changes, but similarities as well. I seem to recall John claiming that he departed Hulk and his proposed storylines were supposedly then appropriated. True? Yet in the world of John, his stories are pure and mine are tainted.
"I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows."
Believe me when I say...lots of people know.
PAD
Posted by Kath the Wife:
Psi-Man? Weren't those written by David Peters?;)
*grin*
I stand corrected. Funny thing, tho - - you never see Mr Peters and PAD in the same place at the same time. Mmmmm... :-)
Posted by PAD:
And I didn't mention Psi-Man because I didn't create Psi-Man. I did a lot of work in building his world and many ancillary characters, but the basic concept was dreamt up by an editor at Ace. I was a hired gun on that.
Huh; ok. That definitely gets chalked up to the "learn something new every day" category. Thanks for the info. Still loved the series, btw.
Ah, the old PAD/JB feuds. How I miss teh AOL days :-D.
Seriously, I like it when writers change characters. In the end, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Altough John went far away from what the Original Vision felt like (he was VERY emotional even in his first issue), I liked that particular storyline, it worked for me. Same with the new Post-Crisis-Superman. It never felt «back to basics» to me, mor like a Marvel-ization of Supes, actually a step forward at the time. Great art, good stories. I loved the Hulk, at least prior to the Onslaught/Heroes-Reborn-Phase, when the book took a turn for the worse.
The idea, imo, is to keep a character recognizable (always was that way with Hulk as well as with Superman) and try to move things forward. Sometimes, as I said, it works... sometimes it doesn't. Aquaman and Chapter One did not work for me.
The point of the debate, however, is that JB attacks other writers for something he himself has done time and again. JB has changed characters to the point of them becoming unrecognizable to their former selves – at a whim. He prided himself on being able to revive dead characters «in a single panel». Which is okay when he's hired to do so... but jeez, you don't piss on another creator doing JUST that. Its not even a question of the quality of writing, just of perspective.
The last good John Bryne story I read was Next Men, and I read his Generations trilogy and his run on Wonder Woman and quite frankly was bored to tears about it.
I had a problem keeping up with who's who in The Generations trilogy.
I read Peter David's run on the Hulk from #377-to the end of it, I bought the first issue of Bryne's Hulk and have never read the Hulk again.
When I moved and a lot of my comics were sold the ones I kept were the complete PAD runs on
Supergirl
Aquaman
Captain Marvel
The Fallen Angel
Dreadstar
and as many issues of The Incrediable Hulk and
Spider-Man 2099 (but due to the speed that I moved I did sell some of PAD issues by accident.)
Whereas with the full run of John Brynes's books that I kept were:
Next Men.
The only other creators that I went out of my way to keep their all my issues and tpbs, and hardcovers are: Jim Starlin and Alan Moore.
****Posted by Marc Grant at May 30, 2006 04:38 PM
What's with the Apples to Oranges; can someone explain Byrne's hatred? ****
Of the PADguy? There's a post from a couple of years ago about this on the alt.fan.peterdavid newsgroup. Short short version is this: Back when the PADguy was just a Marvel sales rep (instead of a writer like he is now), he was asked by a Marvel editor to drum up support for Byrne's Alpha Flight (back when it was numbered in single digits) among some comic retailers at a convention. The pages he was given to show the retailers were of the death of Guardian, though minus the word ballons the scene was interpreted as 'Heather having a bad dream after eating too many burritos before bedtime' rather than 'Guardian just bit the Big One'. Byrne comes into the room, and realized what was being passed around was a major spoiler from his run. Instead of quietly asking PAD to gather the pages from the retailers, he raised a big stink about how PAD had just spoiled the death of Guardian for him, and angrily grabs the pages from the retailers and leaves the room, leaving a bunch of retailers to discuss the spoiler that Byrne just dropped on them. Apparently Byrne's been mad about it ever since.
Hope this helps.
Chris
There's one thing about Byrne that bothered me even back when I was a big fan of his back in the `80's. In an interview with Marvel's in-house fanzine (I can't recall the name of it but it was thin and cheap, like 25 cents. Was it called Marvel Fanfare? Or am I thinking of something else?), Byrne was discussing how he came about to choosing The Incredible Hulk as his next project. Byrne was mulling what popular Marvel title to do now that he revitalized the Fantastic Four. He said, and I can't remember the words per se, that he thought about doing Thor but since Walt Simonson was doing a good job he decided to seek another title.
Boy, talk about arrogance. He could've picked Thor but his Grand Excellency decided to spare Walt Simonson getting bumped off the Thor book. That sure is the height of pompous entitlement.
Joe,
I could give Byrne a pass on that one--the statement could easily be interpreted as "I wanted to take on a comic that needed improvement but since Walt had already improved Thor there was no point." I'd take it as a compliment.
Elf with a gun--if accurate that's a pretty foolish way to act. Even worse if it's a grudge that he still carries. I can only imagine how PAD would have felt. I have little respect for people who treat people they feel (rightly or worngly) are "underneath" them in a company as though they are subordinates. The irony that PAD would one day surpass Byrne as a fan favorite is worth savoring.
"All of his changes in Hulk, Spider-man, Wonder Woman, etc, etc were also approved by the PTB."
I read this line, and had this mental image of John Byrne having visions a la Cordelia. "I saw...Hulk! And he was split into two people! And he'd assembled new Hulkbusters!" And then racing to his drawing board, filled with his new purpose.
I could just be insane.
Joe Cortazzi: "In an interview with Marvel's in-house fanzine (I can't recall the name of it but it was thin and cheap, like 25 cents. Was it called Marvel Fanfare? Or am I thinking of something else?)"
I think Marvel Age is what you're thinking of. Marvel Fanfare came out back then too, but it was a slick paper comic featuring stories and pin-ups by fan-favorites on various Marvel characters they didn't normally do (aka inventory stories...)
PS: The name[i]elf with a gun[/i]reminds me of something. I was just going through my Marvel Fanfare back issues last week, in order to select some to send to a friend's children, and dame across a 4-issue story in issues 56 - 59 in which Steve Gerber finishes off a Shanna the She-Devil storyline he'd begun years earlier. Unfortunately he had forgotten the details of the story he'd intended to write, so the conclusion isn't quite as satisfying to the completist in me as seeing the story he would have written originally would have been. (But even so, I set those 4 issues aside to re-read before giving away.) Seeing those issues got me to thinking -- Gee, I wish he'd been able to finish off the old Defenders elf-with-a-gun storyline too.
Never having gotten to read what Gerber would have done with that if he'd been able to stay on the Defenders book is one of the things I regret most about the '70s. If I had a time machine and could fix things that went wrong in the past, Gerber's premature departure from several series is one of the things I'd fix first.
Hmmm... Peter, you've got some of the same wickedly warped sensibilities that Gerber did. I don't suppose there's any chance of you revisiting some of his mis-finished stories, say in X-Factor (the elf and Omega being two of the most pressing in my mind) and re-finishing them? A lot of his ideas would mesh really well with a lot of yours.
I know this thread has played out and is getting ready to drop off the front page, but I thought I'd drop in this little link, which might actually eke out some sympathy for Mr. Byrne from even his most staunch detractors: http://rodlovesjb.blogspot.com/
And that page eke out sympathy for Byrne.........how?
"I'm pretty sure one long-time poster was totally banned from the site because he disagreed with Byrne too much. "
-I think that would be me, but more specifically for being an "auto contrarian" which I can't say there isn't a grain of truth to. I had a minor run in with PAD as well on newsarama (I rarely post there but having been banned, I did a few times).
I don't think it serves any purposes to attack the work of PAD or JB. They've both created good work in the past (Incredible Hulk, Spide 2099 and others for PAD, X-men, Avengers West Coast, Namor and others for JB) and in the present (Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man is very good, though I wish it could have been not a part of everything going on. I also think Blood of the Demon is quite good). If you don't like it, you don't like it. THere is always nitpicking to do and things rarely affect you the same way as when you were young
I started reading Hulk around Mr. Fixit time, and I do believe it was pretty different than "classic Hulk". Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps it went on too long post-Pantheon. But it was usually good. I also think JB's Hulk run had loads of potential but we'll never know.
I think there is some truth to keeping some core characteristics the same with characters-yeah things can change a bit, but a reversion eventually is usually in order. We should hope there are new and young readers who deserve to read about the core character (as well as have their own differences).
I personally feel Man of Steel was very good-Superman was a special case because I do think he was essentially broken.
Personally, I have found JB and PAD both a bit abrasive over the net at times, and yet they also give a lot of their time to their fans, so that says something too.
As for the vision, I thought Visionquest was great, but then....nothing. For years nothing was done with the Vision. I don't understand why Marvel tore him down, and then did nothing to build him back up again. It was clear JB's storyline was aborted early, and then no one seemed to want to touch the Vision after that to do anything with or change him. Eventually, but even that was half hearted, his emotions were touched on again.,
I too liked it better when I didn't "know" the creators. Maybe the name and style. But when all you knew was STan was the man, and Jack the King, when your glimpse into Mark was in his remarks, when Ralph macchio was just the guy being made fun of in the Spider-nman letters pages (and maybe just maybe you imagined he was the Karate Kid guy) it was better. Creators wars, everybody getting mad at some dumb thing another guy posted, and all that have taken away some of the fun.
It was better to me when I didn't get to peak behind the curtain much.
Hey, Rob. If you're not already a member, you ought to swing by IMWAN.com. Lots of familiar faces for a former Byrne Board poster and a generally silly attitude.
spiderrob8: I don't think it serves any purposes to attack the work of PAD or JB. They've both created good work in the past....
Luigi Novi: I don't see what one has to do with the other. If one has constructive criticism about a work, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with offering it. I have a feeling that Peter doesn't start those "Whadja Think?" threads just to have everyone saying they love every single thing he does. The problem with Byrne is that he does not tolerate any sort of criticism or disagreement at all, no matter how polite it is, regardless of whether it constitutes an "attack."
spiderrob8: Personally, I have found JB and PAD both a bit abrasive over the net at times, and yet they also give a lot of their time to their fans, so that says something too.
Luigi Novi: I can't recall Peter ever being this way with his fans.
****Posted by Bill Mulligan at June 3, 2006 08:22 PM
Elf with a gun--if accurate that's a pretty foolish way to act. Even worse if it's a grudge that he still carries. I can only imagine how PAD would have felt. I have little respect for people who treat people they feel (rightly or worngly) are "underneath" them in a company as though they are subordinates. The irony that PAD would one day surpass Byrne as a fan favorite is worth savoring.***
I tried to find the original Usenet post that had that, but came up empty, so I'm not sure where I did read that orignally. It's possible that it was in a different Usenet group before PAD all but left them behind a few years ago, or I could have read that story here. But I do know someone asked PAD about that incident, and that was the story he gave. How true the story is, or if my memory remembered it accurately, or if Byrne really does (or would) carry a grudge that long, I leave to someelse to decide.
Chris
First off, the reason why the Vision acted robotic in Brne's WCA is because Wonder Man hadn't allowed Pym to add his brainwave patterns to the Vision. That was the whole crux of the story. Had Byrne stayed on he would have resolved that issue. He was just adding a little drama to the book. Just like PAD didn't leave the Hulk as that godawful Mr. Fixit character forever.
One other thing, Byrne didn't need PAD to drum up support for Alpha Flight. It was in Marvel's top five since it started. PAD was just giving first looks of certain Marvel books and Alpha Flight was one of them.
Did Byrne over react, of course. Byrne is the biggest prima donna baby to ever have worked in the industry. He doesn't work well with others. he makes unreasonable demands, he takes over characters just to get back at comic pros he hates by undoing their work, he walks off books at the drop of a hat leaving storylines unfinished, he holds grudges like an eight year old child, he hates criticism of his own work but loves to bash other peoples, he runs his board like a tyrant, he doesn't like indepenent thought, he hates free speech unless it's for himself and other people at his level, he holds others to standards he doesn't keep, he hates comic fans, he hates comic retailers, he believes in the I'm the artist you're the fan, I outrank you thing, he hates cutesy names for characters like Supes and Bats.
The only thing he loves are his life size robots.
I'm sure PAD has a few faults but I can't think of any right now.
Well, according to some posters (who usually say "I am never buying your work again! You don't like the President!!!), Peter's main fault is he has opinions. Damn uppity comic book writers thinking they have the right to an opinion-and to express it no less.
You know, Rod, I could overlook all of Byrne's peronsal faults if he produced some good work from time to time. To be honest, I don't think much of Alan Moore as a person, but he does know how to write.
I haven't really enjoyed any of Byrne's work since his Fantastic Four days. Part of it is his need to spend most of his time on a book undoing other's works, and then leaving in a huff before resolving anything. If he had stayed on West Coast Avengers and finished his Vision plot, maybe it would have redeemed itself.
But the fact is, he didn't.
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions which can be frustrating to wade through (then again no one is forcing me to wade through) since he frequently makes an assumption that I often believe is not based on the facts (often simply his own guess given his predisposed opinion), and then makes a conclusion based on that assumption which I can't possibly agree with since I did not agree with his assumptions, or if I do agree, I don't agree on the way he got there. Sometimes that comes off as a bit obnoxious. and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, from time to time, here and there. But not too much.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 6, 2006 12:01 PM
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions which can be frustrating to wade through (then again no one is forcing me to wade through) since he frequently makes an assumption that I often believe is not based on the facts (often simply his own guess given his predisposed opinion), and then makes a conclusion based on that assumption which I can't possibly agree with since I did not agree with his assumptions, or if I do agree, I don't agree on the way he got there.
I'm curious: why do you "believe" that his opinions are not based on "the facts?" I ask because in the age of the Internet, it's easy to fact-check. Just look for credible sources (for example, a major newspaper is probably more credible than Joe's Inflammatory Rantings Blog).
Sometimes that comes off as a bit obnoxious.
To be fair, if you're the same spiderrob8 who posts in Newsarama, you've done the same thing you've accused Peter of doing. For instance, in a recent thread regarding Joanne Siegel's "open letter," you referred to Newsarama as an "obscure Web site." Matt Brady had to explain to you twice that Newsarama is not "obscure" to those involved in the story surrounding Jerome Siegel's family.
Also, remember the recent Gordon Lee/CBLDF thread you and I participated in? You asserted that the law makes a general presumption that nudity is harmful, even though the laws under which Gordon has been charged provide a definition of instances in which nudity may be considered "harmful to minors," which to me implies that the laws do not presume all nudity to be harmful. (That said, I think the laws are nevertheless overbroad and vague. Kudos to the CBLDF for going on the offensive.)
Of course, I got obnoxious in that thread as well. I went from pointing out facts to being condescending, combative and downright arrogant.
My point? We all have our flaws. Sometimes it's better to try to improve oneself than it is to criticize others. Trust me, I oughtta know. Every time I criticize someone else, I find myself realizing that I need improvement more than they do.
And it does affect my enjoyment of his work, from time to time, here and there. But not too much.
I must confess, I don't understand why. Unless he's expressing "obnoxious opinions" in his work, why would you allow that to affect your enjoyment? I think John Byrne is a rotten guy, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying much of his work.
The guy who has been posting as RodOdom is not the same guy on Newsarama. He has a habit of taking the names of Byrnerobotics members and posing as them.
The guy who has just posted as Rod Odom is not the same guy who posts on Newsarama.
He has a habit of posting as me on other boards. Only Zhang knows why.
RE: Byrne's Burn with PAD
Curious. I could have sworn I read recently that the reason for JB's antipathy (according to PAD) was that PAD disgraced the character of She-Hulk. Namely, through a PADesque gag of having Shulkie trying and failing to shave her legs (the razors breaking instead).
Sasha-That was done by Dwayne McDuffie, another enemy of Byrne.
Den- Trust me, he's the imposter.
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions
Strong opinions yes (although no stronger than most anyone with a strong interest in world affairs) but extreme? The only position he holds that I would consider remotely extreme is his near-absolute belief in free speech. What of PAD's opinions do you consider extreme?
I must confess, I don't understand why. Unless he's expressing "obnoxious opinions" in his work, why would you allow that to affect your enjoyment?
****
Bill, I don't think you categorized my comments at newsarama quite fairly, but that thread is that thread so I won't rehash it here.
As for the above, it is the same reason why reading Stan's Soapboxes and hearing him talk about the brotherhood of man, and being "Uncle Stan" makes Stan Lee's stories that much more enjoyable than they would have been in a vaccuum but in reverse. When someone makes you feel warm and fuzzy, or laugh, or be happy, you want to like their stories. When someone does the reverse, at best your neutral, at worse you start off with a "Oh this guy" sort of vibe. I'm not saying PAD (always) does the reverse. But, it does happen for me, and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, or even my willingness to seek out his work at times. Depends on what his rants are this time. Then there are some people who can rant and somehow that fact is a bit endearing, the way they do it. Like you forgive an old whacky grandpa
The real Rod posted on Newsarama about this.
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2060313&posted=1#post2060313
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 6, 2006 05:43 PM
Bill, I don't think you categorized my comments at newsarama quite fairly, but that thread is that thread so I won't rehash it here.
You may well be correct that my summaries were unfair. I think, however, that that serves to further underscore my point. It's all about perception. You perceive that my characterization of some things you've written is unfair. Peter may well perceive that your characterization of his opinions is unfair. I've learned that rather than being combative (and as you yourself saw in a recent Newsarama thread not more than a few weeks ago, I can be very, very, very combative), it's better to try to give other people the same latitude you'd like for yourself.
If I had kept that in mind while posting on Newsarama, there wouldn't be so many threads where I look like such a fucking troll.
As for the above, it is the same reason why reading Stan's Soapboxes and hearing him talk about the brotherhood of man, and being "Uncle Stan" makes Stan Lee's stories that much more enjoyable than they would have been in a vaccuum but in reverse. When someone makes you feel warm and fuzzy, or laugh, or be happy, you want to like their stories. When someone does the reverse, at best your neutral, at worse you start off with a "Oh this guy" sort of vibe. I'm not saying PAD (always) does the reverse. But, it does happen for me, and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, or even my willingness to seek out his work at times. Depends on what his rants are this time. Then there are some people who can rant and somehow that fact is a bit endearing, the way they do it. Like you forgive an old whacky grandpa
Different strokes, I guess. Fortunately, it's a big enough world for all of us.
Well, I was too combative there as well. Also, I was posting very, very quickly, and not being clear about what I was saying.
Some of the fans complaints about JB are unwarranted. For instance, I see it as BS that Byrne "can't draw", like some people start complaining about.
I think the big problem Byrne has right now in fandom is not so much his opinions, but rather his lack of politeness and lack of ability to compromise.
I agree with about 25%-33% of what Byrne says. I'm not so offended by what he says as much as how arrogant he comes across as. He alienates himself from fandom and doesn't appear to be willing to accept most of what other writers add to the canon.
People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility. You don't get that with Byrne.
As an example, Byrne talks a LOT about his battles with writer Chris Claremont, but Chris is very polite and cordial, and doesn't wish to get into that history. Byrne speaks a lot about his battles with editors, other writers, etc. From what I can tell, he dislikes most other writers even as early as the 70's crop of writers (Roy Thomas, Steve Gerber, Marv Wolfman and Steve Englehart). And he is very critical of fandom right now, dismissing a lot of his critics.
His behavior even borders on the unprofessional--when Marvel cancelled hidden years, he stated he will never work for Marvel again. Now, I know PAD had a problem with the whole U-Decide thing, but you don't see him burning bridges (if you'll pardon the pun). Some fans like to complain about Chris Claremont being a "tired old hack" (which I think is foolish), but he doesn't complain about what happened in the past with X-Men, tries to adapt to the current environment, and is still working for Marvel.
I think what has happened is that Byrne has really begun to alienate himself. His purist approach has irritated other professionals and fans, and he's not as willing to adapt to the current marketplace.
I think if he stopped writing or dwelling on past conflicts and stopped ranting against the state of the industry (and discouraged his fan base from doing so), and focused on improving his image and gaining some humility, he wouldn't have the fan backlash he seems to be getting nowadays.
JRT: People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I've never read any self-deprecating comments by Larsen, comparing his "strong opinions" to Peter's is like comparing the work of Joseph Goebbels to Edward R. Murrow. Larsen, as seen in his last rant over creators who do work for hire, and his little tirade in his Savage Dragon letters page years ago, is intellectually dishonest, uses argumentative smoke and mirrors in his dealings with Peter, backpedals after saying stupid things, and similarly accuses others of saying things they never did.
Luigi, are the the Rod Odom of the Peter David blog ;)
The guy makes a whole post and you focus on one thing that, really, is tangential to his main point.
Which Rod? The one who spends all his precious time posing as Byrne fans, or the one wasting his time on PAD's ... oh nevermind.
Which Rod? The one who spends all his precious time posing as Byrne fans, or the one who wastes it ... oh nevermind.
On the Byrneboard there is an interesting discussion about the Vision. The regular byrnebots are defending Byrne's destruction of the character as being ok because the Vision was just a toaster.
Then someone went to the trouble of scanning in the panel where Hank Pym examines the Vision and declares him an artificial human, NOT ROBOT!
Roy Thomas created the Vision and that may be the problem Byrne doesn't like Thomas and the destroying of one of his characters is something Byrne might get a kick out of doing.
Notice that the original Human Torch is also a toaster but Byrne didn't tear him apart but instead fixed him up with Toro's ex-wife. Hmmmm...........
Something else Byrne said that was funny.
He thought Wolverine wore flesh covered fabric to cover his arms! HA!!
Here's an example of John Byrne's view of "The Problem With Comic Books," in this case his answer to the Byrnebot-featured question "Was 'Crisis On Infinite Earths Really Necessary?'":
[quote]*I see "event mentality" has become so pervasive even the "easy solution" is thought of in terms of an event.
Let's think about CRISIS. What was it all about? The main excuse was that all those extraneous Earths were "confusing". Confusing mostly to anal fanboys who wanted to be able to draw up exact timelines, so needed to know precisely when Earth 1 "started". The first and biggest mistake DC made was trying to answer any of those idiotic questions. At least with anything more than "it's FICTION, you morons!"
So, it was all "too complex" and "too confusing" and something had to be done -------- So why not just ignore it? How many references have there been to Bruce Wayne's insane older brother since he made his debut? If something doesn't work anymore, simply stop making references to it. Stop doing Earth2 stories. Letters of complaint? Don't print 'em. (You might not be all that surprised to learn this was the most often used solution to fan complaints, back in the days before the internet, before organized fandom. If a book got 500 letters in a month and 20 of them were grousing about something, the editor knew those 20 people were not likely to be in touch with each other. If none of the letters were printed, the writers would assume each of them was the only one to complain about that point. Not the case today, of course One complain spawns a hundred others, all eager to jump into the circle-jerk.)
Just Don't Do It Any More is the simplest, most elegant solution to anything that no longer works. Unfortunately, when you have an industry that is infested with fanboys on both sides of the table, this becomes almost impossible. Serving the characters is far less important than some fan-turned-pro showing off for his fan buddies.*[/quote]
There you have it, folks!
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are 'fanboys showing off for their buddies!'
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to "just ignore them!"
If you get any continuity complaints from "the fanboys," just yell "it's FICTION, you morons!"
Apparently, Mr. Byrne is incapable of accepting the possibility that concepts like "The Suspension of Disbelief" and "Playing Fair With Your Audience" is what's responsible for him having a job!
While I can respect the past work of the writer/artist John Byrne, I'll keep my distance from the bubble-headed scriblings of "The Blog Columnist that Gnaws on The Hands that Feed Him!"
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are 'fanboys showing off for their buddies!'
**************
Where do you get that idea?
**************************
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to "just ignore them!"
***********************
Yes, I haven't been convinced that that's not the best way to handle it. At least this way, you can always use them again later.
Ser wrote:
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are 'fanboys showing off for their buddies!'
**************
Where do you get that idea?
**************************
It wasn't MY idea, but The Great John Byrne! Read his last paragraph again! While most people were hypothesizing about the origin of the JB vs PAD feud, a recent Byrnebot thread had the solution all along, unless you have a DIFFERENT definition of "infestation!"
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to "just ignore them!"
***********************
Yes, I haven't been convinced that that's not the best way to handle it. At least this way, you can always use them again later.
Ignoring a single storyline that doesn't work (Bruce Wayne's demented brother Thomas) is one thing. Ignoring 50 years of product acquisitions (Earth S= Fawcett Superheroes, Earth X= Quality Superheroes, Earth C= Charlton Superheroes) and Julius Schwartz's Silver Age Landmark Period (Earth 2= Golden-Age DC Superheroes and their progeny) is not only unrealistic but a major reason why a company that DOESN'T insult the intelligence of the readership has been more popular than one that has had a history of doing this for over 25 years until members of The Competition "switched sides!"
JRT: People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I've never read any self-deprecating comments by Larsen, comparing his "strong opinions" to Peter's is like comparing the work of Joseph Goebbels to Edward R. Murrow. Larsen, as seen in his last rant over creators who do work for hire, and his little tirade in his Savage Dragon letters page years ago, is intellectually dishonest, uses argumentative smoke and mirrors in his dealings with Peter, backpedals after saying stupid things, and similarly accuses others of saying things they never did.
Apparently, Mr. Larsen isn't the only one guilty of doing this if this Byrnebot excerpt is an example of the treasures to be found in Mr. Byrne's blog! No wonder he was on Peter's side when BID revealed Erik for the hypocrite that HE is!
The person posting as "Mike O'Brien" here is clearly a parody of the real Mike O'Brien who posts at byrnerobotics.com
The parody has been over-the-top, but he has nailed some of the real Mike's nonsense. Mike works himself into a lather very often, and very often rants about his favorite music.
There is no 'real' Rod Odom.
'Rod Odom' is an anagram for "Dr Doom" with an extra 'o.'
He has also posted as "Gabe Chodu," an anagram for "Douche Bag"
He wants us to believe his real name is "Joe Zhang," but I haven't figured out what that is an anagram for.
I just read the Modern Masters paperback, which collects tons of Byrne interview material. It has given much new insight on John Byrne and reminded me of why I am in total awe of his artistic skills. If you have any interest, inclination or curiosity, I'd recommend it as worth every penny.
Fred