I’ve noticed that John Byrne is not a terribly popular comic book creator around these parts. His work revamping Superman and Spider-Man seems to be especially well-loathed. My question is this: what happened to the guy?
I was a big fan of his run on Fantastic Four. In fact, the triple-sized 20th anniversary issue (featuring Doom and the Puppet Master) was the comic book that got me hooked on the medium, and I stopped buying comics regularly just about the time Byrne left the book. (I read and loved his work on Alpha Flight, too.)
But after the late '80s, I’m more familiar with his work by reputation – and it seems like his reputation suffered greatly.
What’s the story here? Too much ego? Creative well ran dry? Pact with Satan expired? Anyone have any inside scoop? And has all of his '90s and later work been bad, or does he still produce good stuff every now and again?
Spider-Man got revamped? When did that happen? While I was reading Byrne’s work on the new Superman, as well as his Alpha Flight (I bought that series until it became clear they were morphing into Dr. Strange wannabes, with mystical characters in every issue), the primary Spider-Man artist was Todd McFarlane.
I like Byrne’s work, and it was inevitable that any major rewrite of the DC universe was going to create tons of problems, anyway. The vitriol thrown at Byrne isn’t really deserved, in my opinion. Any writer in his position would have gotten clobbered.
Incidentally, didja notice how often characters in Byrne stories end up shouting “NO NO NO NO NO NO etc” hysterically?
Bingo zingo. Half his run on Wonder Woman could basically be sold as “Etrigan the Demon: Guest staring Wonder Woman and her 800 lb. tiara”
About the only good thing about his run was the creation of the new Wonder Girl, and even she sucked until Young Justice.
I don’t read much of his other work because of what he did to WW, but I hear that he has a nasty tendancy to completely ignore any development a character has had since like, 1973 just so he can write the character that he wants to.
Spider-Man was not revamped. Nope nope nope nope nope. Really, the only ones that paid attention to S-M:Chapter One hawchhhh-ptooie! were John Byrne and Howard Mackie. Everyone else wisely swept those ideas under the rug.
I absolutely loved Byrne’s run on Fantastic Four. That was the era I started reading comics; one of my first was when Franklin killed Mephisto. Perhaps I remember those issues more fondly because I was so excited with the whole comics scene then. But reading the FF Visionaries TPB, I think they still hold up.
I’m one of the few that actually liked The Man of Steel revamp. But not being a DC reader, I have an excuse. I wasn’t involved with the character of Superman, just the idea.
His She-Hulk initial run was hilarious. But when he came back and stated that every issue he didn’t write never took place and were part of She-Hulk’s dreams, I knew something was amiss.
His attempt to revamp Spider-Man was hideous. Personally I never felt SM had a convoluted past and thus didn’t need to be fixed. But he went in, willy-nilly, cutting and pasting origins. He couldn’t believe so many accidents happening around the same time so he tied them together. Doc Ock was the one who caused the explosion that radiated the spider that bit Peter Parker that lived in the house that John built. Green Goblin and Sandman were cousins because they had the same hairstyle. It was insane. What pissed me off? Issue one, Ben and May gave Peter a computer instead of a microscope. Peter knows biology, he’s not a computer geek. Plus that microscope was a part of the story where Pete proposed to MJ. But that didn’t matter because Pete didn’t need to be married so Byrne plotted MJ’s stillbirth (still a dangling plotline) and had MJ killed by a guy with a lollipop (she got better.) He brought back Aunt May, who had died after confessing to Pete he knew his secret for a while in one of the most touching issues I’ve ever read. She’d been replaced by a friggin’ actress. Why? How? When, for God’s sake??? He didn’t bother to tell us, or why Aunt May wasn’t phased in the least when she was released by Norman Osborn.
He’s gotten lazy in his art too. His books (when last I looked at one) are filled with more floating heads and panels with blank backgrounds than a coloring book.
From time to time I still enjoy picking up a story of his, but only when I know it will have no effect on continuity that I have a vested interest in. Batman/Superman Generations isn’t bad. His Danger Unlimited was a fun read, if not owing too much to Fantastic Four/Challengers of the Unknown.
But in general, if I hear John Byrne is on a book, I stay away lest I get a foul taste in my mouth.
Oh, I forgot to mention his attempt to revamp Hulk’s origin (no one asked him to, AFAIK) in an annual called Hulk: Chapter One.
Remember Igor who didn’t stop the countdown of the gamma bomb because he was a spy? He wasn’t Russian. No no no. That would be silly. He was a Skrull.
As Rick Jones said when he read that issue in Captain Marvel: “Bwahahahah! Skrulls??? Who comes up with this crap??”
And Rick would know; he was there.
I thought John Byrne did a pretty damn good job revamping Superman, but I can never forgive what he did to Spider-Man.
Right when Spidey was at possibly his lowest ebb ever in terms of the quality of storytelling in the books being put out, Byrne come along to “fix” his continuity with that “Spider-Man: Chapter One” garbage.
We can’t really blame the linking of Spidey and Doc Ock’s origins totally on Byrne. I first encountered that stinkeroo of an idea in a Spider-Man short story collection, a revamped origin tale co-written by Stan Lee and and Peter David that also featured Doc Ock using an anti-gravity device to levitate the U.N. Building. The rest was all him though.
John Byrne has the worst interpersonal style of any comics creator I’ve ever met or spoken with. Honestly: he’s a pompous, stuck-up ass.
Case in point: in an AOL online discussion, I asked him about a point that confused me in his SUPERMAN/BATMAN: GENERATIONS series when I’d realized that Robin, while impersonating Superman, was “floating” in the air. (Turns out Robin wasn’t flying: he was dangling by wires, and I accidentally passed over that explanation.) When I asked him how this was, he tore into me with a rudeness that would make people in the Pit blush. To my defense, a number of other posters told Byrne he’d been way too harsh. I don’t think he cared.
He’s stated that his philosophy is “Never give the fans what they want” (read: “Give the fans what I want.”) I see this as the main reason why he’s lost touch with his fan base: while he may have set comic standards in the 80s, he’s failed to follow emerging trends and realize that art IS an ever-changing medium. Hence, the noticeable criticism that Byrne’s art hasn’t changed in 20 years. (To his credit, he’s one of the pioneers of computer graphics in comics, and he’s got entire CGI models of DC cities available for his use.)
I can only imagine how he’s reacted to the success of “Ultimate Spider-Man.”
I’m not a fan of Byrne, per se, but I do think he’s had some good ideas. It’s just the execution that he falls short on.
I thought the revamping of Superman was good. Not great, but good. (I personally think the Superman books right now are better than during all of the 70’s and most of the 80’s.) I’m glad Ma and Pa Kent are still around, and I think the Superman as executioner issue was important. It was the first time he actually had to make that kind of decision and live with the consequences.
On the other hand, I don’t care for Byrne’s art anymore, and his dialogue always seems stilted. The only aspect of his art on Superman that’s really stuck was the increased prominence of the ’
(Oops, hit submit before I was ready) I’m not a fan of Byrne, per se, but I do think he’s had some good ideas. It’s just the execution that he falls short on.
I thought the revamping of Superman was good. Not great, but good. (I personally think the Superman books right now are better than during all of the 70’s and most of the 80’s.) I’m glad Ma and Pa Kent are still around, and I think the Superman as executioner issue was important. It was the first time he actually had to make that kind of decision and live with the consequences.
On the other hand, I don’t care for Byrne’s art anymore, and his dialogue always seems stilted. The only aspect of his art on Superman that’s really stuck was the increased prominence of the “S” symbol on his chest.
I think Byrne did some good groundwork, but the quality has gone way up under more recent writers.
I think the root of the problem lies in a slight egomanical personality. Personally I really think John got a full head of steam in his heyday and figured to 'rewrite the histories as they should have been", floored everyone with writing so far out of cannon anyone else would have been beaten, then expected us to swallow it and act like these were suddenly the “HISTORY OF…place character here”. Only trouble is you DON’T DO THAT. I mean hell, the only ones that possibly could were the real creators and even they dont want to mess with a sure thing.
For that he is reviled. I know one guy who owns a comic shop that refuses to stock anything of this nature. Now thats hatred in a comic world when the guy that can make money off you refuses to sell your shit!
Me? I think he is a troll and needs to be put in his place.
Because nowdays, since Man of Steel, John Byrne is famous for breaking other people’s toys. He waltzes onto a book, undoes 20+ years of storytelling and leaves a broken, more confused book behind him.
He seems to want every character frozen exactly in 1977. Aunt May’s dead? Oops! No she’s not! The Sandman has spent the last 15 years trying to reform and actually became a member of the Avengers? Oops! No he didn’t! Vision and Scarlet Witch married? Oops! Nope! Etrigan the Demon rhymes? Nope! etc.
When he’s just telling a story, he’s fine (his Fantastic Fours are one of the best two or three runs ever and his current “Generations” thing for DC is as good as anything he’s ever done…I can’t recommend it highly enough. But when he’s on an in-continuity book…watch out!
He was one of my favorite artists, and when he first starting writing stories, he was kinda fun. There are a lot of comics I would never have started reading had he not been drawing them.
I have to agree tho that once he became a Force Majeure in comics he started riding rough shod over things he doesn’t have the license to ride.
Don’t know what he’s doing now, but he should have done a Todd McFarlane & gone off on his own.
I don’t know who the artist is of the most recent Peter Parker… comicbook, but the ‘cartoony’ style of the characters absolutely sucks! I left it on the rack.
Please don’t fuck with the artwork, Marvel people!
Hard to pinpoint it, but there’s a mean-spiritedness to his work from about 1983-on; contempt for the reader (an Alpha Flight story with five or six pages of blank panels), other creators (Public swipes at Claremont, Gerber, Shooter; making faces at Marv Wolfman throughout the Blade trial), and just an icky tone to all of his Superman stories. He’s a talented guy, but talent alone just isn’t enough.
I remember the Alpha Flight with the blank panels – actually, I kind of liked it. (And wasn’t it Assistant Editor month or something?)
So the biggest pet peeve seems to be his disregard for continuity. I wonder if he sort of hit his peak in that regard with Fantastic Four – I remember some complaints about his version of the FF, but I also remember seeing longtime readers thankful for the breath of fresh air he gave the series. It sounds like, later on, he started to apply fresh air by the hurricane.
Continuity is an interesting issue in itself. It seems to me that creators are always in a balancing act between fidelity to earlier stories and finding something interesting to shake up the storylines. (I imagine the relatively slow aging process makes things even more difficult – it’s not like Spider-Man, for example, can easily go through a 5-year-long story arc while remaining in mainstream Marvel continuity.) But I remember being really annoyed when I found out that Marvel had written off the Johnny/Alicia relationship by explaining that Alicia had been a Skrull at the time, so I do understand the grumpiness.
At any rate, I’m sorry to hear that Byrne let his ego get the better of him. “The Trial of Reed Richards” is still one of my favorite comic arcs ever. And I loved the way he handled Doom’s escape from the Silver Surfer/Terrax conflagration. (Which, in itself, is a great use of earlier continuity, drawing on an aspect of Doom that was often overlooked by other writers.)
**
It’s not so much the lack of continuity, it’s the obnoxious disregard for other creator’s work.
Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart (and a few other writers) spent 10 years, 125 (or so) issues and who knows how much effort setting up the Scarlet Witch/Vision marriage.
Byrne undid all that work in two issues.
Aunt May’s reconcilliation with Spider-Man and her realization that she kinda suspected all along started in Spider-Man 200 and climaxed in Spider-Man 400, building subtly for what? Four or five hundred issues (counting Marvel Team-Up and Peter Parker)?.
Byrne undid all that work in one issue.
Sandman worked on becoming reformed across five or six titles and about 15 years to the point where he (IIRC) actually joined the Avengers.
Byrne undid it in a four page back-up story.
Etrigan became a rhyming demon and a prince of Hell in Swamp Thing 25 or so (circa 1983) by Alan Moore. Hundreds of stories built on that, including a 60+ issue series by Garth Ennis.
Byrne undid it all in 2 issues(?) (or one panel) of Wonder Woman: it had all been a magical spell. :rolleyes:
Superman, from 1954 - 1983 had evolved a tremendously rich backstory, mythos and legend. 30 years of character development and background that’s so rich, so detailed that other companies are still mining it (See Alan Moore’s utterly brilliant series SUPREME, the first half of which was released as a trade paperback a few weeks ago).
Byrne undid it all to make Superman a “brie eating yuppie”* :rolleyes: in 6 issues. You think Superman’s better now? Name 3 supporting cast members other than Lois, Perry and Jimmy. Name 3 cities on Krypton that didn’t come from the previous incarnation. Name some of his childhood friends other than Pete and Lana. Hell, name just one memorable new villian, as opposed to recycled Silver Age ones.
It’s not that things change: I’m fine with characters changing…but not changing back and even worse, not changing back organically.
Comics are an ongoing story. While I am a trivia freak, I also know that the story needs to come first. If J. Michael Straztpzltk (sp) has a great four part story arc but it hinges on the fact that Peter is allergic to wheat cakes, I’m not gonna get my underpants in a twist that in Amazing Fantasy 15, Peter’s favorite breakfast was wheat-cakes. (Trufact: they were, too!). It’s a minor detail. Who cares?
BUT…what I object to is the idiotic idea that poof everything you know is wrong. There are ways to change a character slowly and organically: look at Daredevil. Over the course of about 25 issues (roughly 135-165) he went from happy go lucky guy to grim avenger of the night. I preferred the earlier one, but the change happened slowly and believably. What I hate is when the
the writer essentially says “Nope. All those issues you bought and read never happened.”
Imagine if that stunt was pulled in a novel:
Sam: Well Master Frodo, we’re at the top of Mt. Doom. It’s time to lose that stupid ring.
Gollum: Mussssn’t hurt precioussssssss! :: leaps at Frodo ::
Frodo: AAaaaaagh! (as finger is bitten off and they teeter on the edge of the Crack of Doom)
Suddenly:
Frodo: (comes awake in a comfy chair in Bag End): My stars, Bilbo! I just had the most horrible nightmare about your old invisiblity ring!
Bilbo: You mean this old thing?
Frodo: Yes. Hey lemme see it a sec.
Bilbo: Sure!
Frodo: (Tosses it in the fire. Runes appear) Oh shit…Huh. This time, no Mr. Nice Hobbit for me. Call Gandalf and tell him to get me the king of Eagles. I want a nice comfy flight to the Crack of Doom.
< fade out >
**
**
Byrne’s FFs were stellar and I’ve always wondered if the fact that whichever hack undid most of the growth and development Byrne did on FF is what soured him and now he’s seeking revenge on other creators.
By the way, I just found someone who nicely articluates what I don’t like about Byrne’s modern stuff. (I was trying to find a cite for the “brie-eating yuppie” quote that Byrne made when discussing his verison of Superman.see here.
Note that I strongly disagree with his take on Byrne’s FF and other stuff. But he’s dead on the mark regarding the Vision, Sub Mariner, Scarlet Witch, the Original Human Torch, etc.
