|
Post by redstatecap on Oct 26, 2006 11:14:17 GMT -5
One of my favourite Cap eras too. Do you know any details about why those two were forced out (like you put it) of the book, RSCap? Stern departure from the Avengers (ironically due to his objections about making Cap leader again in Monica´s place, among other things) is for me the beginning of the end for the team. I don´t hate Harras Avengers, but until Busiek-Perez it was not the Avengers at all... The story behind Stern/Byrne's departure from Cap goes like this: Jim Shooter, the then-EIC, declared that every issue had to be a self-contained story. Period, starting yesterday. Roger Stern already had a multi-issue arc underway (Cap #256 was to be continued from the end of #254, 255 being an interlude) and apparently had plans for more multi-issue arcs. Stern threated to quit over it and John Byrne did the same to show solidarity. Shooter refused to back down, and Stern and Byrne quit. That's the story and I figure it's pretty much true. It's kinda funny that nowadays the editorial mandate is "no arc under 6 issues." RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Oct 26, 2006 13:36:12 GMT -5
One of my favourite Cap eras too. Do you know any details about why those two were forced out (like you put it) of the book, RSCap? Stern departure from the Avengers (ironically due to his objections about making Cap leader again in Monica´s place, among other things) is for me the beginning of the end for the team. I don´t hate Harras Avengers, but until Busiek-Perez it was not the Avengers at all... The story behind Stern/Byrne's departure from Cap goes like this: Jim Shooter, the then-EIC, declared that every issue had to be a self-contained story. Period, starting yesterday. Roger Stern already had a multi-issue arc underway (Cap #256 was to be continued from the end of #254, 255 being an interlude) and apparently had plans for more multi-issue arcs. Stern threated to quit over it and John Byrne did the same to show solidarity. Shooter refused to back down, and Stern and Byrne quit. That's the story and I figure it's pretty much true. It's kinda funny that nowadays the editorial mandate is "no arc under 6 issues." RSC Thanks! Too many inflated egos that clashed I guess... But it was a Golden Age for the readers... For a nostalgia trip (and to enjoy Byrne´s art when it still looked great): www.artofjohnbyrne.com/sketch-cap/images/Cap1.jpgwww.artofjohnbyrne.com/sketch-cap/images/Cap2.jpgwww.artofjohnbyrne.com/sketch-cap/images/Cap3.jpg
|
|
ozbot
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 103
|
Post by ozbot on Oct 26, 2006 13:55:32 GMT -5
Steed-- I don't know if I was really taking you to task as you say, but it was always my impression that Bryne was stuck with the Thing leaving the FF and made the best of it (and subsequently developing a love with the She-Hulk that seemed to last for the rest of his career at Marvel.) Maybe it was all (or part of) his idea anyway, so you can feel free to hate his run however you'd like As a budding young artist, too, Byrne's stuff was fascinating to me and was very inspirational in making me want to draw for a living. (I even wrote to him a letter for one of those "explore a career" assignments they make you do when you're young. Never heard from him, of course.) So just again explaining my own bias.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Oct 26, 2006 21:00:31 GMT -5
Having grown up on art by Kirby and Buscema- - and then taking a 20+ year hiatus from comics- - when I came across Byrne's art a few years ago , it took some getting used to. I still don't really like it (his faces in particular), but I guess his vaunted reputation is based on the fact that he was a dual threat, writer-artist.
In the past couple of years I've read some of his Marvel work: X-Men, X-Men: The Hidden Years, West Coast Avengers, FF, etc. I thought X-Men: The Hidden Years was a mess and I really couldn't warm up to how he illustrated the FF's main characters (though his version of Alicia, with long hair, was pretty and an homage to how she first appeared in FF #8, drawn by Kirby).
But I did like Byrne's work in the "Vision Quest" storyline in the West Coast Avengers. That opening shot of Wanda's face (in WCA #42) was the heartbreaking prelude to a truly stunning tale. And the scenes in later issues where she is clinging to the hope (or the delusion) that the reassembled Vision is still the husband she knew and loved were very powerful. Some of the scenes and dialogue were silly (such as the Wasp's speech to Wonder Man above love), but overall it was a solid, affecting piece of work.
I read these WCA issues many years after their publication and was moved; I can just imagine how shocking and controversial this storyline must have been in the 80s. Does anyone know, did Byrne have carte blanche for this story? I mean, changing the essence of an established character like the Vision takes some guts. Yes, I know he basically returned the Vision to closer to what he'd (Viz) been when he first appeared; but did readers see this coming in '89? Was there any foreshadowing?
Needless to say, I voted for Byrne's WCA (or AWC) work.
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Oct 26, 2006 21:33:09 GMT -5
I hate Byrne to this day for what he did to the Vision. He did not return the Vision to his first appearance, he made him into a bleached Data from Star Tek tng. The Vision was always a dark and brooding character. Ultron did not make him souless and unemotional.
While I loved Byrne's early artwork, I never liked his writing at all.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Oct 26, 2006 22:20:22 GMT -5
uberwolf, you're right, of course. I know Byrne has stated in various interviews that he "returned" the Vision to his (Vis') original conception; but from his first appearance, the Vision was always shown to be struggling with emotions (ex. Avengers #58!). He was certainly never the zombie Byrne made him into.
That is what was so shocking about this arc. To take an established character, and just erase the personality and character traits that had evolved over the years... as I said, Byrne had guts.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 26, 2006 23:59:39 GMT -5
So, sharkar, do you draw any parallels between Byrne then & Bendis in Avengers Disassembled...?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 27, 2006 10:09:30 GMT -5
To take an established character, and just erase the personality and character traits that had evolved over the years... as I said, Byrne had guts. He did the very same thing to the Sandman in the Spidey books. Years as a reformed hero and then, all of a sudden, back to villain, only to nearly die within a few issues. Of course Sandman is not nearly as important as the Vision, but I hated Byrne since
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 27, 2006 10:32:46 GMT -5
I agree that after his 80's popularity, and the magnitude of the positive changes he'd made across both Marvel and DC, he got a little big for his britches. As I've said, I think he really just puts people off these days. Too bad, because he really did control a substantial period of comics history.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Oct 27, 2006 11:18:12 GMT -5
So, sharkar, do you draw any parallels between Byrne then & Bendis in Avengers Disassembled...? ua2, Great question...I just wish I could give you an equally intelligent, thought-provoking answer...but I'm not knowledgeable enough about either Byrne or Bendis. I still have a lot to catch up on in terms of post-Silver Age comics (this site has been a great resource), but I have read Diassembled and even I can see that it plays upon events that began in that Vision Quest story. So, yes, there is a parallel. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. In terms of Byrne and Bendis' tendencies to bend events/characters to suit their vision (sorry...) or a seeming desire to push the envelop, even if it disregard is shown for history/characters....yes, I would say there's a similarity between their approaches. shar
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Oct 27, 2006 13:03:22 GMT -5
In terms of Byrne and Bendis' tendencies to bend events/characters to suit their vision (sorry...) or a seeming desire to push the envelop, even if it disregard is shown for history/characters....yes, I would say there's a similarity between their approaches. shar Guess I´m going have to disagree with you here. Like it or not (I really enjoyed Vision Quest, but I can understand why many readers hate it) Byrne did some research in order to write the story, everything is 'in continuity', it is not like A:D where BENDIS! just ignores many stories. In fact, according to Byrne he had the idea of bringing the Human Torch (I) back only after discovering of his funeral. And until the Celestial Madonna Saga it was implied that Ultron had created the Vision, and not just used Jim Hammond´s body.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Oct 27, 2006 18:28:23 GMT -5
vonbek, that's what I get for sneaking off to this forum and posting while at work. My preciseness is somewhat lacking. I agree with you. I should have written something more like "disregard is shown for history or characters..." As you state, Byrne did indeed make effective use of history in Vision Quest (unlike Bendis with Diassembled who seemed to ignore or change some key aspects of the past to fit his story). For Byrne, I was referring to his radical treatment of characters, in this case the Vision: a fairly popular, prominent character's established personality completely wiped away. Not that it didn't result in many years' worth of stories, but wow...the Vizh we all know and love, here one issue (WCA #40, not sure if he was in #41) and gone the next (WCA #42). BTW, Shiryu, thanks for the info on the Sandman, I didn't know any of that.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 16, 2006 12:29:33 GMT -5
An update: Not having read a lot of Byrne's FF work before, I am plowing through the Byrne FF Visionaries tpbs. To my surpise, I find I can't put them down! I admit I am impressed by Byrne's work here (especially his scripting), for the same reasons already stated by Yellowjacket and Engage: Negative Zone, Doom, sideways issue, etc. The characterizations are compelling and I love the dialogue too, especially Reed's.
Byrne's artwork is still not my favorite, but there's so much going on in these issues, it's like reading a good novel.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Nov 23, 2006 8:36:54 GMT -5
|
|
ozbot
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 103
|
Post by ozbot on Nov 24, 2006 14:42:20 GMT -5
Ug. That was horribly written. What's bad is that the writer mistakes it for some of the best writing he's ever done. He says an editor rejected it only half-read. Yeah, buddy, because you only have to read half of it to understand how weak your rhetorical diatribe really is. (Ironically, one of his remakrs is that Byrne lacked editorial direction ...)
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Nov 24, 2006 15:11:50 GMT -5
He does have a point though. Byrne as an artist, back in the 70's anyway, was THE man. He was the artist I aspired to be( of course you need somekind of artistic talent which I lack in spades). However, there are some people who should never be allowed to write.. anything... let alone comics *coughBendiscough*. I looked forward to Byrne taking over the FF and didn't care for the direction he took it. I was completely neutral on She-Hulk till she became Byrne's fantasy girl and FF member. From that point on I've hated her, including her membership in the Avengers. I will say he's a better writer than some *coughBendiscough* at least he put some action in his work.
If I could have 3 wishes I think one of them would be to as good an artist as Byrne in his prime.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 24, 2006 15:41:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Vonbek. Very interesting article. "Johnny Redbeard"- -hahahaahaaha! Gotta love that. Even acknowledging Byre's shortcomings as a writer, I still think his handling of the FF's exploits in the Negative Zone was wildly imaginative. As mentioned, his artwork is not to my liking, with those weird elongated bodies. For comics, I still prefer the more graphic, cartoony style of the 60s Kirby/Romita, the classicism of J. Buscema or the realism of Adams.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 25, 2006 16:19:52 GMT -5
Interesting article, and I agree with some of its points (Vision, She Hulk, Spidey etc), but the whole thing looks more like a personal rant (and a very long one) than like a proper article. I can see why publishers reject it...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Dec 9, 2006 15:42:01 GMT -5
To be fair, IIRC the reason Thing was written out was an editorial mandate because the Thing was going to get his own series after the first Secret War. I just noticed a factual error that apparently wasn’t addressed. I don’t know what role (if any) editorial mandates played in the Thing’s departure from Byrne’s FF, but the reason given above (the Thing’s getting his own series after Secret Wars) cannot be correct, for Secret Wars #1 came out the same month as The Thing #11 (both issues dated May 1984).
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Dec 16, 2006 19:17:29 GMT -5
Well, as far as I know, it's not that SW gave him a new series, but that it moved him away from the usual places and peers, putting him in a completely new environment. I even remember a cover saying "The Thing Space Ranger" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Dec 17, 2006 11:20:36 GMT -5
I even remember a cover saying "The Thing Space Ranger" or something like that. “Rocky Grimm, Space Ranger”!
|
|