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
• 
“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.
“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 hëll 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 pìššìņg 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 ášš…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 ášš 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 ášš, 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 pìššìņg 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 “pìššìņg 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 ášš, 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 dámņ 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 “pìššìņg 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 pìššìņg 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.
1
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 pìššìņg 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 ášš.
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 dìçk” 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 ášš 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 hëll 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-pìššëd 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 pìššìņg 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 ášš.
If you’re willing to lump all of the posts on this board, or even the majority of them, into the category of a “pìššìņg 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 “pìššìņg 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 dìçk” 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, dámņ 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-pìššëd 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-pìššëd” 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 pìššìņg 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 “pìššìņg match,” I would assert that you’re not reading them closely enough.**
I never said anything about how often the
“pìššìņg 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 dìçk” 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 hëll 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.
“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.
“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 pìššìņg 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 pìššìņg 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 “pìššìņg match,” I would assert that you’re not reading them closely enough.
enfranklopedia: I never said anything about how often the “pìššìņg 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-pìššëd” 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
“pìššìņg 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 hëll 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.
Hëll, 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 bìŧçhìņg 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.