Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities Lardy's Roundtable (Gym'll's Ed.): Grant Morrison

My Dad and Uncle are huge Byrne fans. They aren't much for internet message boards so they have no idea any of the whacky things he's said over the years and I don't ever want to bring it up (conversation killer for sure).

I think when Next Men debuted money was tight and my Dad never decided to collect it. Ipso facto, I've never seen a single panel of it.

Byrne should do what Grell has done and return to his independent creations at IDW or Dark Horse or somewhere. I'd certainly buy the first few issues.

Ok, Byrne has some issues with reality. But are critics of his comic output juding his work, or his behaviour? We all talk about his run on this or on that as good, but then in the same post mention what a jerk he's been.

Winnick takes a lot of bashing on these boards, but more for his viewpoint than his work. I always wonder if Byrne is the same way.

Regarding John Byrne, they say if one has nothing nice to say, one shouldn't say anything at all.

So I'll say that I love most of his collaborations with Claremont, that his art on Marv Wolfman's Fantastic Four was solid, and that the first issue of Alpha Flight was good, and leave it at that.

There aren't really any creators whose work I won't buy because I don't like them. Even recent travesties like Robinson's Cry for Justice doesn't mean I won't sample his other work.

It's really the higher-ups in charge of the company who become the focus of my rage and annoyance. Current major case in point: Dan Didio. Not that long ago, it was Bill Jemas.

(That won't stop me from aiming criticism at writer's however. I paid for the comics, I paid for the chance to give my thoughts on them.)

I won't fault ya for tossing blame Cobie, some writiers deserve it (Andrew Kreisberg.)

I'm just hearing a lot of folks talk about some good Byrne comics and some bad Byrne behaviour. Not that I want this to delve into a list of bad comics, but just curious if there were Byrne books people didn't like.

I didn't enjoy NextMen. But other than that, I can't recall any of his work I don't like to some degree or another.

His Spider-Man run in the late 90's was the worst era of Spider-Man history perhaps in the history of the franchise IMO. Thinking about it gives me both a stomach ache and a headache.

I also thought his Doom Patrol was pretty awful.

Other than that, I can't think of any others I really disliked off the top of my head.

(As I said, never read Next Men).

I loved Byrne's Alpha Flight stuff (and hated what later writers did with those characters). I'm blissfully unaware of what sort of freakiness Byrne espouses in real life, so I can enjoy his work unencumbered by that.

I loved his clean art in the beginning, and that of similar artists who used that style (Karl Kesel comes to mind, but I have no idea, he could be a stand up comic, for all I know).

After awhile, the fact that it was pretty much impossible to tell his Cyclops from his Superman from his Guardian from that dude with the super-vision in the Next Men, because he drew all of their faces and bodies and square-jaws the same, dampened that affection.

His run on the Fantastic Four also had a couple of neat arcs, and I really liked how he made them more of a cosmic adventurer / explorer team and less of a traditional superhero group. The story that introduced 'Aunt Petunia,' for instance was totally cool, and self-contained. Ditto the bit where he introduced the concept of 'Skrull milk,' which has gotten a bit more play in revent events. Frankie Raye becoming the new Herald of Galactus, the Trial of Reed Richards, etc. There was some good stuff there.

On the other hand, while I started out loving his West Coast Avengers work (which included some of my all time favorite characters), his habit of dumping on Wanda quickly turned me off to that run.

It was the neverending cavalcade of crap that heaped on Wanda that opened my eyes to how so many female characters he worked on seemed to be more or less a victim of her powers, or in some way an emotional wreck. Tigra was turning animalistic and chasing mice around the compound. Jean-Marie was schizophrenic (and could less charitably be described as a virgin-whore archetype, both pure and brazen, in her different personas). Snowbird risked losing her mind if she stayed in animal form too long. Sue became Malice. Jean, well, we know what happened there, and who knows how much of that was Claremont. I can't blame Byrne for making Storm the only X-Man with a crippling phobia that reduced her to crying and screaming and flailing about in a panic, for instance, because that trait predated Byrne, IIRC.

Now, to be at least a little bit fair, *every* character gets dumped on. Spiderman's life has never been a bucket of roses, and Jenny Walters has, generally speaking, had a better time of it than her cousin Bruce (barring ever encountering that chode, Starfox...). But Byrne himself didn't seem to heap as much crap on the three Fantastic Dudes as he did as the Fantastic Gal (and when he did dump on Johnny and Ben, it was something to do with their relationships with Frankie and Alicia, which, again, ties it all around to those durn wimmin!).

I could deal with the occasional bit, because, as I said above, a heroes life is rarely pretty, but added up over a career, Byrne's treatment of his female characters began to look like an unpleasant pattern, and not 'comics as usual.'

Byrne's fanatical adherence to what he thought/thinks were Kirby ideals on Kirby characters really causes those books to stink. Thinking primarily of Demon and New Gods/4th World, but really any of his books that through elements of those things in there (Wonder Woman). Kirby was all about dynamic change and Byrne was about taking a snapshot of the King's work and not letting anyone touch it.

Alan Moore did a fantastic job updating the Demon and making him interesting (though admittedly hard to write for others) and Byrne tried to get it thrown out in favour of turning the character into a stale retread.

Byrne's devotion is just typical fanboyism to the extreme.

I think similar thoughts about Alex Ross and his refusal to let go of the Silver Age, in favour of modernism.

One could argue Geoff does that a bit from 1980-1985 era of comics. Not me mind you (been there, done that), but if Reboot wanted to step in any time and make this arguement, it would be fun to read. (hint, hint)

[heresy] I really don't like his painted artwork, which seems to be really popular. [/heresy]

Good God! Bill Mantlo turned the book into the most depressing, dark and soul-less shadow of the book it had been. I know Byrne killed off two characters (sort of) while on the book, but there was still a certain upbeat quality to it, regardless somehow. But Mantlo--!

Off the top of my head was Mantlo's treatment of Roger Bachs/Box I. Here was a chance to show a parapalegic character as an active, heroic figure, and Mantlo just had him wallow in self-pity and spiral into going to great lengths to compensate. There was no redemptive arc at all. In the end, Bachs dies a pathetic death. Absolutely disgusting!

And there was a lot more where that came from. I don't like to speak ill of Mantlo because of his major health problems, but he absolutely ran a previously fun book into the ground.

Certainly, Byrne's art style seems very dated at this point. There are very few artists from bygone eras whose art has a timeless feel to it. You could argue that some of the giants have a certain simplicity or cartoonish aspect to their work that may seem less sophisticated than some of the more comparatively realistic artists of today.

I say good art is good art. Byrne, Kirby, Neal Adams, Ditko, Romita, Swan and a truckload of others may have aspects to their work that date them by comparison, but if it's attractive and tells a story well, it's good art. Period. Definitely, there's a sameness to Byrne's faces, but I'd argue that terrific facial differentiation was never a common feature of comics for a long, long time. And there are still very many "modern" artists who struggle with it, as well.

One thing the old school definitely, indisputably has over the new school? The ability to make deadlines!

So much craziness.

Heather Hudson turns from a short, slender waifish girl who only with serious reservations considers a role on the team (and who says very specifically that she couldn't anyway, as she doesn't have a copy of her husband's battlesuit hanging around) to a statuesque woman with hooters the size of her head who *shoots teammates who annoy her* with the copy of the battlesuit that she found lying around.

Northstar and Aurora are elves?

Puck is magically short and not an actual dwarf?

Bochs is sidelined for Madison Jeffries, who is magically transformed from a kinda fugly dude to a Bruce Springsteen clone.

Snowbird dies. Walter Langkowski dies, and comes back in Snowbird's body as 'Wanda.'

Shaman kipes his daughter's Talisman, changes his name and starts using completely different powers, for no apparent reason.

Just crazy stuff.

I loved Alpha Flight, and every change after Byrne left was just painful, it seemed.

You said it, big guy! Artists who can't make deadlines are akin to the pits!

I like the old days where editors were jerks and grabbed another artist to do a fill-in and totally screw up the books direction and feel. As if to say "now we all suffer for it".

Ross paints some pretty pictures. But there's no dynamic to it all. His stories feel like a clip book as opposed to actual storytelling. Even his work on JUSTICE with Doug Braithwaite seemed too posed.

Allred reminds me a lot of that old school art, light on the backgrounds, detailed on the facial expressions. Reliable, fun to look at, pretty stuff.

JRJR much the same. He doesn't have the detail of a David Finch, but it's just great to look at.

I agree somewhat on Alex Ross art. I loved Marvels and Kingdom Come but a lot of his subsequent work I've realized is just a bit too flat for me. He works best on one-shots and minis that max out around four issues. More than that I start to feel like they are going to slow.

Love Allred & JR Jr. I once shot an unarmed man for speaking ill of them.

A while back in this thread, we did a list of favourite creators, even favourite teams.

I wonder- are there any artists that would make you buy a book, regardless of story quality? Any that would make you drop a book?

Two artists would make me buy a book regardless of story quality -- Steve Epting, for combining the best of the old and the new styles, and Alan Davis, who is truly unique and almost always gives it his all.

There are a few for me. Darwyn Cooke, Mike Allred, George Perez. I bet there are more but I can't think of them right now. Steve Epting has basically moved into this category.

Two newer artists who I've decided I will buy their stuff regardless of writer are Marcos Martin and Javier Rodriguez, whose Spider-Man work I simply just LOVE. Possibly Mark Buckingham at this point.

Some artists are ones who's stuff I'd "check out" for a minimum 3 issues but would drop if the story was awful. I suspect the majority of us have these. This includes Amanda Conner, Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, Butch Guice, Ryan Sook.

In days of yore, I'd buy anything by Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko. Still will, actually, as my Dad and I buy all their stuff immediately if we can find it. We'll buy a crazy expensive monster comic book from Marvel for a 6 page Ditko back-up. Also Wally Wood.

To a lesser degree Lou Fine, but you've gotta really have some $$ to do that.

Also, there are some artists whose artwork I enjoy quite a bit and consider a "nice bonus", like Johnny Romita Jr. I didn't go out of my way to buy his Black Panther stories or Kick-Ass, but I love his art on the comics I'm already collecting, especially Spidey and DD. I would put Alan Davis in this category as well for me.

I can't think of any that would make me drop a book outright, but there are a few whose styles make me more inclined to do so: Humberto Ramos, Skottie Young, Carlos Pacheao and Salvador Larocca. They're crazy style just isn't my thing, especially Ramos. Pacheao and Larocca (I bet I spelled their names wrong), I can live with if the story is decent like the recent Spider-Man Lizard story.

Also, the more manga the art is, the less I'm inclined to keep collecting it.

I used to be a rabbid follower of many artists like Byrne, Perez, Davis and several others, but I won't buy anything anymore just because of who's drawing it with one exception. Sure, an artist's attachment to a project is likely to make me at least think about it when I ordinarily wouldn't, but it's far from a done deal at this point.

The lone exception, btw, would be that Darwyn Cooke fella! He's one hep cat!

Having thought about this for a while, I'd have to say no to both.

I would have said Perez, but I realize that I haven't even decided on "Games" yet.

Nobody that will guarentee that I will buy the book, but those that will make me look twicw and think a lot about it...

Darwyn Cooke
Mike Allred
Alan Davis
Rags Morales
Tony Harris


George Perez, Guy Davis and Keith Giffen to a slightly lesser extent.