JLA/Avengers!

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**Fenris:

You don’t like the Byrne version of Luthor? I know you’re big on the classics, but I have to say, I think he’s a much better villain now then pre-Crisis. **

EEeww. Of all the changes I despise about Byrne’s remake of Superman, the Luthor change is probably the worst.

Pre-Crisis, Luthor was a true flawed and fallen hero. Someone who a) Had been hurt by a reckless/careless super hero (basic science safety: when you have a roomful of burning chemicals, you don’t turn on a hurricane force wind.) b) was determined to keep Superman’s attention so that Superman couldn’t hurt anyone else or interfere with humans too much. (See Superman: Last Son of Krypton and Superman #192 or 3 (“The Luthor Nobody Knows”) for more info)

Byrne, being an unschooled moron on the subject, only saw the “He made me go bald, so I hate him” bit. Even in the original story from Adventure #280-something, it was pointed out that Superboy’s carelessness cost Luthor the life of the artifical being he’d created. It was NEVER just the hair-loss*

And while Luthor’s evolved into something more interesting (mainly due to Mark Waid in Kingdom Come and Grant Morrison in JLA) the Byrne version was such a (to me) obvious rip-off of Kingpin on Slim-Fast that the only bit he didn’t steal was the “Humble importer of spices” line. Byrne’s Luthor was (IMO again) dull.

Res: not actually the case. The Ultra-Humanite only appeared like 6 times in the Golden Age. I’m pretty sure that Action #20 was the last appearance of the Ultra-Humanite until he was revived for a JLA/JSA crossover in the 1980s

Luthor was Superman’s main bad-guy within about 5 appearances and was bald within 3 appearances. Plus, don’t forget that the Ultra-Humanite was only a bald scientist in his first appearance. He transplanted his brain a couple of times after that, but while he was the first bald mad scientist, he didn’t stay that way for long. Ditto with Luthor. Yeah, he had red hair in his first few appearances, but despite Earth-2 revisionism (per Earth-Two lore, Clark Kent E2 worked at the Daily Star under George Taylor, even though in the actual comics, he was working at the Planet under Perry White by about Superman 5), he was bald within a couple of years of his first appearance.

BTW: I think (based on what I’ve read elsewhere) that the orange skinned dudes are Aakrons who fought Mar-Vell in Captain Marvel #8. The red guys with the Pancho-Villa mustaches are sort-of Khunds…or whatever race Tyr (also from Legion) is from.

Fenris

*But this is the same Byrne who undid 30 years of contiunity to take Vision back to his “roots” as “an emotionless android”. When the first story where Vision appeared was called “Even an Android can Cry” :rolleyes:

[ddgryphon]

Byrne is a very good artist – he is one of the worst writers working in comics. He’s also, no Perez, who really can do it all. Now, having said that, I like Byrne, just not very much as a writer. He can sometimes come up with an interesting plot, but when it gets down to the actual words on the page – watch out! He over-writes constantly and really misses the point of characterization frequently.

[ddgryphon]

*Originally posted by Ranchoth *

And, please don’t think me a philistine, but the art style looks a little too…well, “old fashioned,” for my tastes. I mean, compared to, say, recent Spider-Man or Mystique comics…or even Batman. Maybe my eye’s have just been “spoiled” by all the computer-coloring and manga-influenced drawings. **

Well, to each his own, but while you may have been spoiled by computer coloring I don’t see how manga-influenced drawing could have spoiled you.

The anime drawing style is fine for what it is, but I find it detestable in comics. It is far too simple and lacks the dynamic power of someone who has learned from the “Byrne Hogarth” methods and western art in general how to make things dynamic and powerful. The manga style is anything but powerful. I’ll take Perez, Byrne, Neal Adams, W.M. Kaluta, Howard Chaykin. or Joe Kubert 's nuanced and powerful use of shading, position and detail over some thin-lined, stylized, mocked-up excuse for a character any day. Really, for all his oddities [square fingers, squiggly lines and so on] Kirby defined something uniquely American in it’s portrayal of power and grandeur. Manga has practically destroyed this legacy.

Sorry, I think that this art-style is one of the things that’s killing comics slowly from within.

Please don’t take this as a personal attack – I really don’t mean it to be, this is just one of the issues that pushes my buttons. I’ve tried for days not to say anthing, but finally the fever struck and I just had to say something.

[Ranchoth]

*Originally posted by ddgryphon *
**Please don’t take this as a personal attack – I really don’t mean it to be, this is just one of the issues that pushes my buttons. I’ve tried for days not to say anthing, but finally the fever struck and I just had to say something. **

No offense taken at all. After all, “to each his own,” as you said.

…of course, if D.C. or Marvel starts releasing “Tentacle Hentai Annual Team-Up” issues, I’d be likely to change my opinion on the matter.

[cmkeller]

Fenris:

<Not going to quote entire Byrne-Luthor complaint>

Well, I guess I’m an “unschooled moron” as well, because Luthor hardly seemed to me to be a “flawed/fallen hero.” Granted, he wasn’t born villainous, but the variety and magnitude of crimes he committed make such back-justification almost absurd, even for a comic-book character. He had an entire planet (“Lexor” or some such?) on which he was a hero (and benevolent dictator a la Doctor Doom? I don’t recall the precise arrangement), but on Earth and other planets, he showed extreme indifference toward the lives and well-being of others.

I think Byrne’s version makes for a much better nemesis for Superman than the old version. Superman is the man who’s superior to ordinary humans, but thinks of them as his equals. Luthor is the man who’s an ordinary human but holds himself above all human conventions. He was (during the Byrne run) a constant source of frustration to Superman for his untouchability for his crimes. And not only is he utterly ruthless, but his evil leads him to treat ordinary folk as playthings…the Luthor back-up story in Superman # 9 (he offers a married waitress $1,000,000 to spend a night with him and enjoys watching her squirm with her decision and the eventual consequences thereof) was a masterpiece of cold-bloodedness. That strikes me as much more than a Kingpin rip-off. And as someone much more likely to maintain a lifelong vendetta against Superman than a “fallen hero”.

(I will admit that what he did to the Vision was dumb, but to be nitpicky, “Even an Android Can Cry” was, I’m pretty sure, Vizh’s second appearance, not his first.)

ddgryphon:

Byrne is a very good artist – he is one of the worst writers working in comics.

No way. His run on Fantastic Four was the best that that comic had seen since Lee, I, at least, enjoyed his revamp of Superman, and his “Generations” series has me totally hooked. I won’t claim he hasn’t had his share of clunkers, but as far as writers working in comics today, he’s at least in the middle of the pack, if not higher than that.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**Fenris:

<Not going to quote entire Byrne-Luthor complaint>

Well, I guess I’m an “unschooled moron” as well, **

Absolutely not.

I don’t believe that for a minute and if if came across that way please be assured that it was completely unintentional. In any case, I apologize.

**

because Luthor hardly seemed to me to be a “flawed/fallen hero.” Granted, he wasn’t born villainous, but the variety and magnitude of crimes he committed make such back-justification almost absurd, even for a comic-book character. He had an entire planet (“Lexor” or some such?) on which he was a hero (and benevolent dictator a la Doctor Doom? I don’t recall the precise arrangement), but on Earth and other planets, he showed extreme indifference toward the lives and well-being of others.

**

This is something that reasonable people can disagree on.

Byrne’s contention, however, was that Luthor was a dumb character because his entire motive was that he was bald. The end. This is where the “unschooled moron” came in. Not because he didn’t like Luthor, or thought Luthor needed a revamp or anything else, but because he was arguing against a strawman.

Hell, even ignoring all the layers of depth that had been added to Luthor in the '70s by Elliot S! Maggin and Cary Bates, by the time of the Crisis, Luthor had already been completely revamped–Lexor had been blown up as a side effect of a fight between Luthor and Superman and that was his primary motive.

You present a legitimate point of view. Byrne didn’t. Saying that Luthor was a dumb character “because he hates Superman because Superman made him bald” is just plain inaccurate. It’s like (though not as bad as, of course) saying you hate the '50s Captain America because you don’t like the fact that Cap advocated communism.

And, BTW, I agree with you regarding Byrne’s FFs.

**

(I will admit that what he did to the Vision was dumb, but to be nitpicky, “Even an Android Can Cry” was, I’m pretty sure, Vizh’s second appearance, not his first.)

**
Hmm…depends on how you count it. I was counting his first appearance as the single story that ran from Avengers 57-58 but you’re correct that the second half of that story was the “Even An Android Can Cry” one.

Fenris

[Trion]

sigh

Due to circumstances beyond my control (and my own stupidity) I have freakin’ missed the book.