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
• 
I didn’t think of you as an adversary or an enemy. Yes, I did mis-interpret your intent. But I believe you are nevertheless overreacting to my post to you.
Reading back, I think you may be right. Sorry about that. I appreciate the fact that you apologized for the mis-interpretation.
Back to business. =)
Mike O’Brien –
I read through every post and nothing was said to make me believe PAD over John Byrne. Nice try though..
I’d like to give you some kudos, O’Brien, as I see you have the title “Official JB Historian” over on Byrne’s site.
I think I can now hear your credibility literally walking out the door. *rofl*
Robert: I found it interesting that those defending Byrne have to use work from more then a decade ago to do so.
Luigi Novi: Quite a few people here have mentioned Lab Rats, Doom Patrol, and Blood of the Demon.
Robert: And PAD, please I beg of you, never work with Byrne. I don’t think its a stain that would wash off easily as he tends to tarnish all that he touches now.
Luigi Novi: Oh please. Peter’s never been that snobbish or pretentious. Byrne provided the rear cover illustration to Peter’s But I Digress collection, and while I wouldn’t presume speak for him, if I were forced to take a wild guess, I’d say that if Byrne called up Peter tomorrow and say that he wanted to work with Peter and/or bury they hatchet, that Peter, under the right circumstances, would say yes.
SER: Metatextually, maybe but not on the page. It certainly wasn’t in the creators’ radar. If you like the MPD angle, then PAD deserves full credit, I think, for inserting it into the storyline. Yes, it makes *sense* with what we see on the page. That’s why it was narratively effective rather than resulting in readers saying, “Huh?”……I guess. Man changing into beast is a longstanding conceit — not just in science fiction but in fantasy (werewolves). Adding the psychological aspect was fairly revolutionary and did take the metaphor in a different direction. It was originally about addiction, I would argue, and also about the character being “cursed” for playing God. The latter element ceases to exist if he was always nuts.
Luigi Novi: Thank you for your responses. I understand and respect your differing interpretations, but then that’s part of the problem that I see with having a discussion on what is the “core” part of a character, what is “window dressing,” and what isn’t. It’s so subjective that someone like Byrne (or his apologists) can escape the hypocrisy accusation by saying that Byrne stayed within the characters’ “cores” and only made “window dressing” changes, while all others did not.
SER: Well, if you want to go that route, it’s hard to argue against that point. However, I think an important element of tragedy is lost if Banner was basically crazy before the explosion.
Luigi Novi: Again, to each their own. 🙂 I get an overall sense of tragedy from Peter’s work on the book in general, so for me, that element was not lost.
Posted by: Peter David at May 30, 2006 08:24 AM
The excuse he’s going to offer, Bill, is that John DOESN’T change the characters. Because when John does it, you see, there’s always some great master plan at work. For instance, the fact that the Vision was green, red and yellow and was so emotional that he was crying by his second appearance, putting him completely at odds with his ostensible back-to-basics approach in John’s hands, will be excused with the same tired wheeze that’s applied to John’s defenstration of decades’ worth of Hulk-characterization: John had a “master plan” at the end of which the charter would be back exactly the way he found him. But, naturally, the forces of evil were arrayed against John in such a way that he was not allowed to complete his master plan.
Oh, believe me, I’m very familiar with the excuses some people choose to make for John. And no, they don’t hold any water with me either. As I said, it would be very, very, very hard to persuade me that John is right, given the facts. On principle, however, I always try to retain an open mind. Open, that is, to well-reasoned arguments backed up by verifiable facts.
I’m not very hopeful that Mike O’Brien will produce such an argument. But I thought I’d give him the benefit of whatever doubt he hasn’t already eliminated with his behavior in your blog.
Wow. Fan debates about who is the better creater, PAD or Byrne like PC vs. Mac debates or any other debates about religion. One side is never going to convince the other that they’re wrong.
If I may, I’d like to comment on a statement made near the beginning of this thread:
I’d not use Byrne’s Superman revamp as a counterexample, as everything that changed was either dictated by or approved directly by The Powers That Were before they went ahead. It certainly wasn’t just Byrne’s revamp – the new Lex Luthor was Marv Wolfman’s idea, or so I keep getting told.
First of all, any change by any creator in a work-for-hire environment has to be approved by the owners of the characters, so simply saying that the changes were approved doesn’t mean that you can’t use them as an example of changing a character. All of his changes in Hulk, Spider-man, Wonder Woman, etc, etc were also approved by the PTB.
As for the changes being dictated, it’s true that the details of the Superman revamp were in by committee, it’s also true that as the writer of the mini, Byrne was involved in those changes from day one and has taken credit for many of the ideas such as the elimination of Superboy, keeping the Kents alive, and the birthing matrix. As the writer of the ultimate product, he is still responsible for not only his presentation of the changes, but for his contributions. To then turn around and complain say that he was just bringing them back to the creator’s “original intent”, as others have suggested, is just plain wrong. Many of those changes went far beyond what Seigel and Schuster did (Superboy was in fact a retroactive addition by Seigel).
And, as PAD pointed out, the original intent of the Vision wasn’t to be an emotionless appliance, but a living being with feelings. In fact, until Byrne got áhøld of him, the Vision was actually an android, but a “synthezoid”, a being with very humanlike internal organs made out of synthetic materials.
So excuse me when I laugh when Byrne criticizes others for just making changes for the sake of change.
Linda Danvers >> Kara Zor-El.
‘Nuff Said.
“Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David’s work.”
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD’s work. And guess what? I’ve never been banned or even been threatened with it. I’ve had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because I don’t threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don’t go over and ask him “why do you suck” or “why haven’t you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?” only in more innocent language. I’ve seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, “It’s about time they banned that guy.” I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned “just because I disagreed with Byrne’s opinion.” That’s crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD’s work. And guess what? I’ve never been banned or even been threatened with it. I’ve had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because I don’t threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don’t go over and ask him “why do you suck” or “why haven’t you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?” only in more innocent language. I’ve seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, “It’s about time they banned that guy.” I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned “just because I disagreed with Byrne’s opinion.” That’s crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here’s a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when “Byrne Robotics Investor” Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member’s “ignore” lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light.
Here’s the link:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1796
Notice that it doesn’t work? It did at one time. I know: I tried it when it was relatively new and the whole thread. I’m willing to bet it was deleted, likely because it made John look bad.
So, y’know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward as they may appear on the surface.
RIGHT! So, they should keep their yaps shut when someone walks to the counter with a JB book, and not bash Byrne cuz THEY don’t like him. I sell for AT&T. I’d be FIRED if I said to a customer: “You shouldn’t get our DSL, I think it stinks and you should go with cable!”
Um…as a former comic store employee who worked during the time all these new Byrne classics were being released I can honestly say this never happened. Mainly because customers hardly ever walked up with any of Byrne’s books. But when they did? We never suggested that they not buy it. And admittedly, we low ordered his Doom Patrol and Blood of the Demon (as well as other DC books he was working on), because most of them sat on the shelf. Aside from an Infinite Crisis tie-in, his works were neither sold out nor requested.
As for the changes being dictated, it’s true that the details of the Superman revamp were in by committee, it’s also true that as the writer of the mini, Byrne was involved in those changes from day one and has taken credit for many of the ideas such as the elimination of Superboy, keeping the Kents alive, and the birthing matrix. As the writer of the ultimate product, he is still responsible for not only his presentation of the changes, but for his contributions. To then turn around and complain say that he was just bringing them back to the creator’s “original intent”, as others have suggested, is just plain wrong. Many of those changes went far beyond what Seigel and Schuster did (Superboy was in fact a retroactive addition by Seigel).
******************************
I don’t think anyone – least of all Byrne – stated that the changes to Superman were about restoring “original intent”. I believe it was more a “back to basics” approach, a scrubbing off the barnacles and “de-uniquing” elements (another big thing with Byrne) that had accumulated on the character.
I’ve learned to agree to disagree with people about Superman, though. I think that Byrne’s changes to the origin are superficial – the same as Donner’s changes in the Superman film or Timm/Dini’s changes in the cartoon. Each version is still recognizably Superman. How Krypton is depicted does not ultimately change the character. Even the less overtly benign Jor-El of SMALLVILLE does not change the character of Superman.
Electro-Devo Superman was a bad idea precisely because it wasn’t recognizably Superman anymore (in my view).
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD’s work. And guess what? I’ve never been banned or even been threatened with it. I’ve had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because I don’t threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don’t go over and ask him “why do you suck” or “why haven’t you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?” only in more innocent language. I’ve seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, “It’s about time they banned that guy.” I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned “just because I disagreed with Byrne’s opinion.” That’s crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here’s a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when “Byrne Robotics Investor” Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member’s “ignore” lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light.
Here’s the link:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1796
Notice that it doesn’t work? It did at one time. I know: I tried it when it was relatively new and the whole thread. I’m willing to bet it was deleted, likely because it made John look bad.
So, y’know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward as they may appear on the surface.
I don’t think anyone – least of all Byrne – stated that the changes to Superman were about restoring “original intent”.
Actually, a number of people have, including some right here. I’ve seen other people in other forums make the same claim. Perhaps the most infamous, though, is the message board troll known as “Man of the Atom.”
Electro-Devo Superman was a bad idea precisely because it wasn’t recognizably Superman anymore (in my view).
Had there been any intent to make that a permanent change, I would agree, but as a temporary measure for a single story arc, it wasn’t a bad idea per se, but it was a horribly executed one because: 1) There was absolutely no effort by the creative team to explain either what caused the transformation or what reversed it* and 2) DC at the time was operating under a ridiculous mandate that all Superman storyarcs had to run 52 issues long.
*I realize that Ron Marz tried a half-hearted ex post facto explanation, but that was after the fact. In the context of the original storyarc, nothing was explained.
Posted by PAD:
And yes, John’s done more “original” titles than I. Then again, “Soulsearchers and Company” has run far longer than any of John’s original titles, and then there’s “Sachs & Violens” and “Fallen Angel,” not to mention novel series such as “Sir Apropos of Nothing,” the King Arthur trilogy, and the upcoming “Hidden Earth” series, so…
Aw, man – – even the author himself doesn’t mention the Psi-Man series… Excuse me, I’m gonna go bury my depression in a gallon of Choco-Chip Mint… 🙁
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 10:54 AM
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here. I have posted here quite a few times and have posted on the JBF a few hundred times (only because there is a much wider variety of topics to post on) and I have never made a secret of my like of PAD’s work. And guess what? I’ve never been banned or even been threatened with it. I’ve had quite a few conversations with Byrne and he has never said anything bad to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because I don’t threat him like crap when I talk to him? I don’t go over and ask him “why do you suck” or “why haven’t you done anything good for the past 10, 20 years?” only in more innocent language. I’ve seen people banned over there and each time I said to myself, “It’s about time they banned that guy.” I have never seen anybody banned without reason, or banned “just because I disagreed with Byrne’s opinion.” That’s crap. If you get banned, you deserve it. Live with it and move on.
Richard
Here’s a link to a story that surfaced in 2004, when “Byrne Robotics Investor” Dave Pruitt added a certain poster to member’s “ignore” lists, without their knowledge or consent:
http://post-crisis.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_post-crisis_archive.html
Also, in 2004 Neal Adams took John Byrne to task for repeating a private conversation with Tom Palmer, which, when interpreted by Byrne, cast Adams in a bad light. The topic came up in a blog entry here on Peterdavid.net; the main entry was posted on October 26, 2004. You can check out the archives if you don’t believe me.
You’ll note, however, that you cannot find that particular thread at Byrne Robotics anymore. It appears to have been deleted, perhaps John’s own posts in that thread cast him in a very bad light.
So, y’know, things at Byrne robotics are not always as straightforward nor as aboveboard as they may appear on the surface.
Yogzilla-
Psi-Man? Weren’t those written by David Peters?;)
*grin*
Kath the Wife
“Prediction: Stéphane Garrelie will be the next person banned at the Byrne boards for amitting here to an appreciation of Peter David’s work.”
That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read here.”
Boy, then you haven’t been reading stuff at this site for very long. There’s TONS dumber things than that in our history.
And I didn’t mention Psi-Man because I didn’t create Psi-Man. I did a lot of work in building his world and many ancillary characters, but the basic concept was dreamt up by an editor at Ace. I was a hired gun on that.
PAD
“Boy, then you haven’t been reading stuff at this site for very long.”
I didn’t mean in the history of this site, I meant this topic. Sorry for not being more clear.
As for the Neal Adams thing I read it when it first was up and I don’t think it cast Neal Adams in a bad light at all. And JB never meant it in a bad light and he said as much after other people made a stink.
And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll. But I wouldn’t have done it that way. I would have banned him.
Richard
Uhm, oops.
I tried to post something about some of the nonsense that goes on at Byrne Robotics, only to get a message that my post would be reviewed later prior to posting.
Then I tried to post in another thread in PAD’s blog and my post got through instantly. So I figured, perhaps wrongly, that I should post again in this thread. So I edited my post a bit, and then hit “Post,” and it got through instantly.
Except that I just noticed that my earlier post got through, too. So I have two posts on this thread that are nearly, but not quite identical. And that’s why.
Just so you all don’t think I’m crazier than I truly am.
I got into reading comics because of the Claremont/Byrne X-Men and I think he has a terrific flair for drawing. I have many of his portfolios (most signed) and such. What I find hard to believe is that Byrne attacks other writers (from what I can see here) and yet doesn’t try to compare himself to other artists.
What’s with the Apples to Oranges; can someone explain Byrne’s hatred? On top of that, why can’t he let people appreciate the differing styles of our favourite workers in the industry without trying to pull others down (on one hand, Byrne’s no Dave McKean nor is he a Peter David… then again, Peter David is no Micheal Ondaatje, nor should any of the above be like another) Different approaches aren’t a bad thing.
Posted by: Richard Fisher at May 30, 2006 04:04 PM
As for the Neal Adams thing I read it when it first was up and I don’t think it cast Neal Adams in a bad light at all. And JB never meant it in a bad light and he said as much after other people made a stink.
Just because John believes he didn’t do anything wrong, and says he didn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t mean that he didn’t do anything wrong.
And it wasn’t just “other people” that “made a stink.” Neal Adams himself “made a stink.” Neal was upset that John would publicly repeat something Tom Palmer told him in private. Neal was also upset because of what John claimed Tom had said: that Neal was handing in layouts but getting paid for fully finished pencils. I think he had a right to be upset.
And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll. But I wouldn’t have done it that way. I would have banned him.
It doesn’t matter whether “the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll.” The fact is, someone was manipulating the preferences of members, without their knowledge, to manipulate their perception of reality. That may, for all I know, have been perfectly legal, but it is nevertheless an unethical and šhìŧŧÿ thing to do.
Weren’t both Byrne’s Hulk and West Coast Avenger’s runs cut short by him abrputly leaving the titles? Not that I’m coming to Byrne’s defense or anything like that, but it is possible he intended at some point to restore things to the status quo had he stayed on the books for any length of time. Or not. Just speculating.
That still doesn’t excuse Crapter One or anything else he’s done over the past 15 years that sucks. Or his assclown attitude.
“And the guy that was put on ignore list was a troll.”
No, he wasn’t. I remember, because I was one of the first people on the Byrne board to post a question and say, “Hey, why am I not seeing so-and-so’s” posts? I finally figured out I had the guy on “Ignore,” which was odd, because I knew I hadn’t put him there.
If he had been a troll, he would have been banned. But he wasn’t; he was just a guy who some of the mods were finding annoying, so somebody put him on everybody’s “Ignore” list (I don’t believe it was Dave Pruitt).
The company line was that it was just a funny prank. Most people who had their personal settings tampered with in order to be unknowingly complicit in said “prank” weren’t too terribly amused. (Kurt Busiek was one of the people who were vocal about their finding it uncool.)
Jason
This stuff about the Hulk, and The Vision, etc., is all very interesting, but isn’t anyone besides me interested in the important, stuff? Focus, people, focus! PAD wrote “My work has appeared on the Op-Ed page of ‘The New York Times’.”
When did the op-ed appear? I want to read it on microfilm next time I can get to a good library!
Mike O’Brien,
I am a fan of much of John Byrne’s work, started reading it with Rog 2000 back at Charlton. Some of my favorite comics are John Byrne books.
I also ran a brick and mortar comics shop for 21 years.
I never, EVER refused to order a comic by any creator just because I didn’t like it. If a customer wanted it, I brought it in.
With John Byrne’s later work (Lab Rats, Next Men, Babe, Blood of the Demon), I found myself ordering fewer copies for the shelf because they’d just sit there and not sell.
I never made fun of the writing or the art, I never hid them behind other comics, and I always followed up on any special orders that customers would make.
At the end of the day, the number of subscribers Byrne could generate were fewer and fewer and fewer. By the time I closed my doors (due to a family crisis, not because my customer base was shrinking), I was bringing in one copy of Blood of the Demon for a subscriber, and one for the shelf.
And I ended up with ten consecutive issues of Blood of the Demon on my shelf. That meant that for ten months, NOBODY but the one guy who subscribed to it bought that book.
The exact same thing happened with his Doom Patrol. If I’d ever sold that one shelf copy, I’d have reordered, honestly. But I was never given the chance to, because nobody but his one fan wanted them.
It wasn’t a conspiracy…Mr. Byrne’s comics had the same chance that everyone else’s did. And unfortunately, they stiffed.
It wasn’t my job to promote John Byrne (or Peter David, for that matter)…it was my job to make sure that my customers got what they wanted.
Unfortunately, in the Practical Laboratory that is the sales floor, nobody wanted John Byrne’s new stuff.
I’m a big fan of creators being free to produce the work that they think will sell. Mr. Byrne has had unprecedented freedom to do just that. Unfortunately, as time has passed, his misses far outnumber his hits.
Batman/Captain America and the first two Generations series showed what he can still summon when he’s truly inspired. Those were fun books!
Unfortunately, they’re the exception rather than the rule.
Would that it weren’t so, but it is. Nobody’s sadder than I am not to feel a thrill at the arrival of a new John Byrne book. Unfortunately, I don’t.
And I’m not alone.
No conspiracy…just people voting with their wallets.
Richard Fisher, here is “the dumbest thing I have ever read here” : Bush is a good president.
🙂
Recent Byrne work:
Lab Rats—good premise, not so good execution.
Doom Patrol—I tried the first 3 or 4 issues, felt it was going nowhere.
Blood of the Demon—didn’t even bother to try it. Why? Byrne has proven to me that his work no longer appeals to me. Do the words that have come out of his mouth in the past few months had an effect on that decision? Yes. He sounds as if he is completely divorced from reality.
I can still enjoy a comic book that has his artwork, but his writing has really gone downhill.
He has a lot of gall considering all the šhìŧ that was piled on him for his Superman revamp (which I thoroughly enjoyed).
One of my biggest criticisms of comics is that once something is done, that’s almost how it is forever. I don’t mean that the past stays the past, I mean that even in revamps and retellings, there’s this pressure put on the writers by the readers or by themselves, to adhere to a vague history that’s already been told. This is true for the Marvel Ultimate universe in many ways. I’m not saying the Ultimate books don’t tell good stories, but things like Gwen Stacy being fated to die…
People are very scared of change… but I’m scared of things not changing, so when a new writer comes to a book and wants to try something different, I applaud. Maybe most of the time it doesn’t work out, but if there’s a real creative purpose behind it, there’s nothing wrong with the attempt.
I believe in a sense of status quo with characters (isn’t that what all story arcs really are? something interrupts the flow and the resolution is a restoration of balance?), but I don’t believe in some kind of *static* quo.
John Byrne would never want to work in someone else’s shadow, and he shouldn’t expect other people to want to work in his.
Bill Myers- I can’t defend the “Ignoregate” fiasco. It was totally the wrong thing to do and it has cast a dark shadow over the board to this day. Nobody actually confessed to it but I don’t believe it was Dave Pruitt.
The Neal Adams comment was another huge mistake on the part of JB. I think he meant to say that back in the 60’s and early 70’s artists just didn’t pencil as tightly as they do today and he used the wrong artist as an example. If he would have just apologized instead of shifting the blame to Tom Palmer, it would have been no big thing.
The reason that thread may be gone is because the board is set to erase threads after a year. I think that’s a good thing because we all use our real names and stuff from there comes up on Google and some members don’t like that.
The thing about members being banned is just something that goes with the territory. At any time Byrne or one of the mods will just ban someone for whatever reason and that’s that. Byrne’s house, Byrne’s rule. I can roll with it. No big thing.
Is Byrne hypocritcal for taking others to task for making changes to characters, since he also does it himself? Good question. If you feel he makes the kind of changes to characters that PAD makes, personality changes, changes in motivations, morality changes and major changes in the staus quo of a particular title then yes, Byrne would be hypcocritical.
I don’t feel that way myself. I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I’m willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD. Both bring a lot of themselves to whatever they are writing which is why they both have such loyal fans.
I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows.
Bill Myers- I can’t defend the “Ignoregate” fiasco. It was totally the wrong thing to do and it has cast a dark shadow over the board to this day. Nobody actually confessed to it but I don’t believe it was Dave Pruitt.
The Neal Adams comment was another huge mistake on the part of JB. I think he meant to say that back in the 60’s and early 70’s artists just didn’t pencil as tightly as they do today and he used the wrong artist as an example. If he would have just apologized instead of shifting the blame to Tom Palmer, it would have been no big thing.
The reason that thread may be gone is because the board is set to erase threads after a year. I think that’s a good thing because we all use our real names and stuff from there comes up on Google and some members don’t like that.
The thing about members being banned is just something that goes with the territory. At any time Byrne or one of the mods will just ban someone for whatever reason and that’s that. Byrne’s house, Byrne’s rule. I can roll with it. No big thing.
Is Byrne hypocritcal for taking others to task for making changes to characters, since he also does it himself? Good question. If you feel he makes the kind of changes to characters that PAD makes, personality changes, changes in motivations, morality changes and major changes in the staus quo of a particular title then yes, Byrne would be hypcocritical.
I don’t feel that way myself. I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I’m willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD. Both bring a lot of themselves to whatever they are writing which is why they both have such loyal fans.
I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows.
Bill Myers- I can’t defend the “Ignoregate” fiasco. It was totally the wrong thing to do and it has cast a dark shadow over the board to this day. Nobody actually confessed to it but I don’t believe it was Dave Pruitt.
The Neal Adams comment was another huge mistake on the part of JB. I think he meant to say that back in the 60’s and early 70’s artists just didn’t pencil as tightly as they do today and he used the wrong artist as an example. If he would have just apologized instead of shifting the blame to Tom Palmer, it would have been no big thing.
The reason that thread may be gone is because the board is set to erase threads after a year. I think that’s a good thing because we all use our real names and stuff from there comes up on Google and some members don’t like that.
The thing about members being banned is just something that goes with the territory. At any time Byrne or one of the mods will just ban someone for whatever reason and that’s that. Byrne’s house, Byrne’s rule. I can roll with it. No big thing.
Is Byrne hypocritcal for taking others to task for making changes to characters, since he also does it himself? Good question. If you feel he makes the kind of changes to characters that PAD makes, personality changes, changes in motivations, morality changes and major changes in the staus quo of a particular title then yes, Byrne would be hypcocritical.
I don’t feel that way myself. I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I’m willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD. Both bring a lot of themselves to whatever they are writing which is why they both have such loyal fans.
I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows.
“Not that I’m coming to Byrne’s defense or anything like that, but it is possible he intended at some point to restore things to the status quo had he stayed on the books for any length of time. Or not. Just speculating.”
It’s entirely possible. But he quits the work and leaves it behind. I, on the other hand, see the work through and, by the end of the run (in Hulk, which is what triggered the discussion) the status quo had been restored…restored, in fact, to what the Hulk was BEFORE BYRNE’S RUN. So basically I did what he failed to do…and he continues to bìŧçh about me.
“I still feel of the two, Byrne tries harder to keep the basic parts of what makes a character great than PAD but I’m willing to concede that my taste may just lean more towards Byrne than PAD.”
I appreciate the admission since the reality of our respective track records doesn’t match up with your perception. Hulk? At no time during my run of Hulk did I ever deemphasize or eliminate the emotional struggle of a man trying to deal with his inner demons. Even as the merged Hulk, the conflict was still there–just internalized rather than externalized. John elimianted that struggle IMMEDIATELY. Spider-Man? Any “changes” made to Spider-Man (such as the stinger) were made by other writers. X-Factor? Aside from giving Multiple Man’s multiples some additional personality, no changes there. Aquaman? You’ll appreciate this: I had an entire storyline planned that would “kill” Aquaman off, let people think he was dead, then bring him and eventually restore him to two-handedness and much of his original appearance (personally I never liked the semi-armored, bare-chested costume; I objected strenuously but was overruled by the editor). The storyline was rejected, I left the title, and eventually DC did the storyline I proposed–with some changes, but similarities as well. I seem to recall John claiming that he departed Hulk and his proposed storylines were supposedly then appropriated. True? Yet in the world of John, his stories are pure and mine are tainted.
“I was lucky enough to spend time with JB and I never met a more kind and caring individual. Maybe that colors my judgement, Who knows.”
Believe me when I say…lots of people know.
PAD
Posted by Kath the Wife:
Psi-Man? Weren’t those written by David Peters?;)
*grin*
I stand corrected. Funny thing, tho – – you never see Mr Peters and PAD in the same place at the same time. Mmmmm… 🙂
Posted by PAD:
And I didn’t mention Psi-Man because I didn’t create Psi-Man. I did a lot of work in building his world and many ancillary characters, but the basic concept was dreamt up by an editor at Ace. I was a hired gun on that.
Huh; ok. That definitely gets chalked up to the “learn something new every day” category. Thanks for the info. Still loved the series, btw.
Ah, the old PAD/JB feuds. How I miss teh AOL days :-D.
Seriously, I like it when writers change characters. In the end, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Altough John went far away from what the Original Vision felt like (he was VERY emotional even in his first issue), I liked that particular storyline, it worked for me. Same with the new Post-Crisis-Superman. It never felt «back to basics» to me, mor like a Marvel-ization of Supes, actually a step forward at the time. Great art, good stories. I loved the Hulk, at least prior to the Onslaught/Heroes-Reborn-Phase, when the book took a turn for the worse.
The idea, imo, is to keep a character recognizable (always was that way with Hulk as well as with Superman) and try to move things forward. Sometimes, as I said, it works… sometimes it doesn’t. Aquaman and Chapter One did not work for me.
The point of the debate, however, is that JB attacks other writers for something he himself has done time and again. JB has changed characters to the point of them becoming unrecognizable to their former selves – at a whim. He prided himself on being able to revive dead characters «in a single panel». Which is okay when he’s hired to do so… but jeez, you don’t piss on another creator doing JUST that. Its not even a question of the quality of writing, just of perspective.
The last good John Bryne story I read was Next Men, and I read his Generations trilogy and his run on Wonder Woman and quite frankly was bored to tears about it.
I had a problem keeping up with who’s who in The Generations trilogy.
I read Peter David’s run on the Hulk from #377-to the end of it, I bought the first issue of Bryne’s Hulk and have never read the Hulk again.
When I moved and a lot of my comics were sold the ones I kept were the complete PAD runs on
Supergirl
Aquaman
Captain Marvel
The Fallen Angel
Dreadstar
and as many issues of The Incrediable Hulk and
Spider-Man 2099 (but due to the speed that I moved I did sell some of PAD issues by accident.)
Whereas with the full run of John Brynes’s books that I kept were:
Next Men.
The only other creators that I went out of my way to keep their all my issues and tpbs, and hardcovers are: Jim Starlin and Alan Moore.
****Posted by Marc Grant at May 30, 2006 04:38 PM
What’s with the Apples to Oranges; can someone explain Byrne’s hatred? ****
Of the PADguy? There’s a post from a couple of years ago about this on the alt.fan.peterdavid newsgroup. Short short version is this: Back when the PADguy was just a Marvel sales rep (instead of a writer like he is now), he was asked by a Marvel editor to drum up support for Byrne’s Alpha Flight (back when it was numbered in single digits) among some comic retailers at a convention. The pages he was given to show the retailers were of the death of Guardian, though minus the word ballons the scene was interpreted as ‘Heather having a bad dream after eating too many burritos before bedtime’ rather than ‘Guardian just bit the Big One’. Byrne comes into the room, and realized what was being passed around was a major spoiler from his run. Instead of quietly asking PAD to gather the pages from the retailers, he raised a big stink about how PAD had just spoiled the death of Guardian for him, and angrily grabs the pages from the retailers and leaves the room, leaving a bunch of retailers to discuss the spoiler that Byrne just dropped on them. Apparently Byrne’s been mad about it ever since.
Hope this helps.
Chris
There’s one thing about Byrne that bothered me even back when I was a big fan of his back in the `80’s. In an interview with Marvel’s in-house fanzine (I can’t recall the name of it but it was thin and cheap, like 25 cents. Was it called Marvel Fanfare? Or am I thinking of something else?), Byrne was discussing how he came about to choosing The Incredible Hulk as his next project. Byrne was mulling what popular Marvel title to do now that he revitalized the Fantastic Four. He said, and I can’t remember the words per se, that he thought about doing Thor but since Walt Simonson was doing a good job he decided to seek another title.
Boy, talk about arrogance. He could’ve picked Thor but his Grand Excellency decided to spare Walt Simonson getting bumped off the Thor book. That sure is the height of pompous entitlement.
Joe,
I could give Byrne a pass on that one–the statement could easily be interpreted as “I wanted to take on a comic that needed improvement but since Walt had already improved Thor there was no point.” I’d take it as a compliment.
Elf with a gun–if accurate that’s a pretty foolish way to act. Even worse if it’s a grudge that he still carries. I can only imagine how PAD would have felt. I have little respect for people who treat people they feel (rightly or worngly) are “underneath” them in a company as though they are subordinates. The irony that PAD would one day surpass Byrne as a fan favorite is worth savoring.
“All of his changes in Hulk, Spider-man, Wonder Woman, etc, etc were also approved by the PTB.”
I read this line, and had this mental image of John Byrne having visions a la Cordelia. “I saw…Hulk! And he was split into two people! And he’d assembled new Hulkbusters!” And then racing to his drawing board, filled with his new purpose.
I could just be insane.
Joe Cortazzi: “In an interview with Marvel’s in-house fanzine (I can’t recall the name of it but it was thin and cheap, like 25 cents. Was it called Marvel Fanfare? Or am I thinking of something else?)”
I think Marvel Age is what you’re thinking of. Marvel Fanfare came out back then too, but it was a slick paper comic featuring stories and pin-ups by fan-favorites on various Marvel characters they didn’t normally do (aka inventory stories…)
PS: The name[i]elf with a gun[/i]reminds me of something. I was just going through my Marvel Fanfare back issues last week, in order to select some to send to a friend’s children, and dame across a 4-issue story in issues 56 – 59 in which Steve Gerber finishes off a Shanna the She-Devil storyline he’d begun years earlier. Unfortunately he had forgotten the details of the story he’d intended to write, so the conclusion isn’t quite as satisfying to the completist in me as seeing the story he would have written originally would have been. (But even so, I set those 4 issues aside to re-read before giving away.) Seeing those issues got me to thinking — Gee, I wish he’d been able to finish off the old Defenders elf-with-a-gun storyline too.
Never having gotten to read what Gerber would have done with that if he’d been able to stay on the Defenders book is one of the things I regret most about the ’70s. If I had a time machine and could fix things that went wrong in the past, Gerber’s premature departure from several series is one of the things I’d fix first.
Hmmm… Peter, you’ve got some of the same wickedly warped sensibilities that Gerber did. I don’t suppose there’s any chance of you revisiting some of his mis-finished stories, say in X-Factor (the elf and Omega being two of the most pressing in my mind) and re-finishing them? A lot of his ideas would mesh really well with a lot of yours.
I know this thread has played out and is getting ready to drop off the front page, but I thought I’d drop in this little link, which might actually eke out some sympathy for Mr. Byrne from even his most staunch detractors: http://rodlovesjb.blogspot.com/
And that page eke out sympathy for Byrne………how?
“I’m pretty sure one long-time poster was totally banned from the site because he disagreed with Byrne too much. “
-I think that would be me, but more specifically for being an “auto contrarian” which I can’t say there isn’t a grain of truth to. I had a minor run in with PAD as well on newsarama (I rarely post there but having been banned, I did a few times).
I don’t think it serves any purposes to attack the work of PAD or JB. They’ve both created good work in the past (Incredible Hulk, Spide 2099 and others for PAD, X-men, Avengers West Coast, Namor and others for JB) and in the present (Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man is very good, though I wish it could have been not a part of everything going on. I also think Blood of the Demon is quite good). If you don’t like it, you don’t like it. THere is always nitpicking to do and things rarely affect you the same way as when you were young
I started reading Hulk around Mr. Fixit time, and I do believe it was pretty different than “classic Hulk”. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps it went on too long post-Pantheon. But it was usually good. I also think JB’s Hulk run had loads of potential but we’ll never know.
I think there is some truth to keeping some core characteristics the same with characters-yeah things can change a bit, but a reversion eventually is usually in order. We should hope there are new and young readers who deserve to read about the core character (as well as have their own differences).
I personally feel Man of Steel was very good-Superman was a special case because I do think he was essentially broken.
Personally, I have found JB and PAD both a bit abrasive over the net at times, and yet they also give a lot of their time to their fans, so that says something too.
As for the vision, I thought Visionquest was great, but then….nothing. For years nothing was done with the Vision. I don’t understand why Marvel tore him down, and then did nothing to build him back up again. It was clear JB’s storyline was aborted early, and then no one seemed to want to touch the Vision after that to do anything with or change him. Eventually, but even that was half hearted, his emotions were touched on again.,
I too liked it better when I didn’t “know” the creators. Maybe the name and style. But when all you knew was STan was the man, and Jack the King, when your glimpse into Mark was in his remarks, when Ralph macchio was just the guy being made fun of in the Spider-nman letters pages (and maybe just maybe you imagined he was the Karate Kid guy) it was better. Creators wars, everybody getting mad at some dumb thing another guy posted, and all that have taken away some of the fun.
It was better to me when I didn’t get to peak behind the curtain much.
Hey, Rob. If you’re not already a member, you ought to swing by IMWAN.com. Lots of familiar faces for a former Byrne Board poster and a generally silly attitude.
spiderrob8: I don’t think it serves any purposes to attack the work of PAD or JB. They’ve both created good work in the past….
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what one has to do with the other. If one has constructive criticism about a work, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with offering it. I have a feeling that Peter doesn’t start those “Whadja Think?” threads just to have everyone saying they love every single thing he does. The problem with Byrne is that he does not tolerate any sort of criticism or disagreement at all, no matter how polite it is, regardless of whether it constitutes an “attack.”
spiderrob8: Personally, I have found JB and PAD both a bit abrasive over the net at times, and yet they also give a lot of their time to their fans, so that says something too.
Luigi Novi: I can’t recall Peter ever being this way with his fans.
****Posted by Bill Mulligan at June 3, 2006 08:22 PM
Elf with a gun–if accurate that’s a pretty foolish way to act. Even worse if it’s a grudge that he still carries. I can only imagine how PAD would have felt. I have little respect for people who treat people they feel (rightly or worngly) are “underneath” them in a company as though they are subordinates. The irony that PAD would one day surpass Byrne as a fan favorite is worth savoring.***
I tried to find the original Usenet post that had that, but came up empty, so I’m not sure where I did read that orignally. It’s possible that it was in a different Usenet group before PAD all but left them behind a few years ago, or I could have read that story here. But I do know someone asked PAD about that incident, and that was the story he gave. How true the story is, or if my memory remembered it accurately, or if Byrne really does (or would) carry a grudge that long, I leave to someelse to decide.
Chris
First off, the reason why the Vision acted robotic in Brne’s WCA is because Wonder Man hadn’t allowed Pym to add his brainwave patterns to the Vision. That was the whole crux of the story. Had Byrne stayed on he would have resolved that issue. He was just adding a little drama to the book. Just like PAD didn’t leave the Hulk as that godawful Mr. Fixit character forever.
One other thing, Byrne didn’t need PAD to drum up support for Alpha Flight. It was in Marvel’s top five since it started. PAD was just giving first looks of certain Marvel books and Alpha Flight was one of them.
Did Byrne over react, of course. Byrne is the biggest prima donna baby to ever have worked in the industry. He doesn’t work well with others. he makes unreasonable demands, he takes over characters just to get back at comic pros he hates by undoing their work, he walks off books at the drop of a hat leaving storylines unfinished, he holds grudges like an eight year old child, he hates criticism of his own work but loves to bash other peoples, he runs his board like a tyrant, he doesn’t like indepenent thought, he hates free speech unless it’s for himself and other people at his level, he holds others to standards he doesn’t keep, he hates comic fans, he hates comic retailers, he believes in the I’m the artist you’re the fan, I outrank you thing, he hates cutesy names for characters like Supes and Bats.
The only thing he loves are his life size robots.
I’m sure PAD has a few faults but I can’t think of any right now.
Well, according to some posters (who usually say “I am never buying your work again! You don’t like the President!!!), Peter’s main fault is he has opinions. Ðámņ uppity comic book writers thinking they have the right to an opinion-and to express it no less.
You know, Rod, I could overlook all of Byrne’s peronsal faults if he produced some good work from time to time. To be honest, I don’t think much of Alan Moore as a person, but he does know how to write.
I haven’t really enjoyed any of Byrne’s work since his Fantastic Four days. Part of it is his need to spend most of his time on a book undoing other’s works, and then leaving in a huff before resolving anything. If he had stayed on West Coast Avengers and finished his Vision plot, maybe it would have redeemed itself.
But the fact is, he didn’t.
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions which can be frustrating to wade through (then again no one is forcing me to wade through) since he frequently makes an assumption that I often believe is not based on the facts (often simply his own guess given his predisposed opinion), and then makes a conclusion based on that assumption which I can’t possibly agree with since I did not agree with his assumptions, or if I do agree, I don’t agree on the way he got there. Sometimes that comes off as a bit obnoxious. and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, from time to time, here and there. But not too much.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 6, 2006 12:01 PM
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions which can be frustrating to wade through (then again no one is forcing me to wade through) since he frequently makes an assumption that I often believe is not based on the facts (often simply his own guess given his predisposed opinion), and then makes a conclusion based on that assumption which I can’t possibly agree with since I did not agree with his assumptions, or if I do agree, I don’t agree on the way he got there.
I’m curious: why do you “believe” that his opinions are not based on “the facts?” I ask because in the age of the Internet, it’s easy to fact-check. Just look for credible sources (for example, a major newspaper is probably more credible than Joe’s Inflammatory Rantings Blog).
Sometimes that comes off as a bit obnoxious.
To be fair, if you’re the same spiderrob8 who posts in Newsarama, you’ve done the same thing you’ve accused Peter of doing. For instance, in a recent thread regarding Joanne Siegel’s “open letter,” you referred to Newsarama as an “obscure Web site.” Matt Brady had to explain to you twice that Newsarama is not “obscure” to those involved in the story surrounding Jerome Siegel’s family.
Also, remember the recent Gordon Lee/CBLDF thread you and I participated in? You asserted that the law makes a general presumption that nudity is harmful, even though the laws under which Gordon has been charged provide a definition of instances in which nudity may be considered “harmful to minors,” which to me implies that the laws do not presume all nudity to be harmful. (That said, I think the laws are nevertheless overbroad and vague. Kudos to the CBLDF for going on the offensive.)
Of course, I got obnoxious in that thread as well. I went from pointing out facts to being condescending, combative and downright arrogant.
My point? We all have our flaws. Sometimes it’s better to try to improve oneself than it is to criticize others. Trust me, I oughtta know. Every time I criticize someone else, I find myself realizing that I need improvement more than they do.
And it does affect my enjoyment of his work, from time to time, here and there. But not too much.
I must confess, I don’t understand why. Unless he’s expressing “obnoxious opinions” in his work, why would you allow that to affect your enjoyment? I think John Byrne is a rotten guy, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying much of his work.