|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 8, 2023 19:34:28 GMT -5
If he did something like Batman/Capt America. Honestly I think he would do well with a JSA series set during the 40s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 19:47:33 GMT -5
Well, the topic was about how he could be relevant in 2023. I don't think a retro comic that appeals to older fans fits the bill. Relevant to us, maybe, but not as a whole. It can't be a retro comic if it isn't current, that's the definition. I'm saying his relevance today IS his retro appeal. Also, every fan is equal, I don't subscribe to "age" as critera. The Gibson guitar company still sticks to their core designs basically from the 50's and 60's of their most popular models and charges huge amounts (several thousands of dollars for certain ones) for them, and still sell them by the truckload. Can you imagine if they only sold to "younger players"? The difference is the transient nature of serial publications, very short vision of what's "hot now" versus thinking about how to catch some of the bigger money in the older demographics. Now statue and toy makers, that's a different story...they've got our number in spades and we happily let them fleece us with high dollar retro offerings all day long because it's awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 20:05:21 GMT -5
Well, the topic was about how he could be relevant in 2023. I don't think a retro comic that appeals to older fans fits the bill. Relevant to us, maybe, but not as a whole. It can't be a retro comic if it isn't current, that's the definition. I'm saying his relevance today IS his retro appeal. Also, every fan is equal, I don't subscribe to "age" as critera. The Gibson guitar company still sticks to their core designs basically from the 50's and 60's of their most popular models and charges huge amounts (several thousands of dollars for certain ones) for them, and still sell them by the truckload. Can you imagine if they only sold to "younger players"? The difference is the transient nature of serial publications, very short vision of what's "hot now" versus thinking about how to catch some of the bigger money in the older demographics. Now statue and toy makers, that's a different story...they've got our number in spades and we happily let them fleece us with high dollar retro offerings all day long because it's awesome. I think the difference between guitars and comics is more active versus passive use of the product. A young guitar player can play the guitar any way they want, mirroring styles of the 50s and 60s or current music, the way the guitar is played can evolve with the audience and the product does not become dated or lose its appeal to current audiences. A comic story however is passive. It cannot adapt to the user, so the types of stories told have to adapt and evolve with audiences. Even though the guitars playing them remain the same, the pop songs that resonate with audiences today are quite different than than the ones played on the same guitar in the 50s and 60s, and while the guitar remains relevant, some of the music made with it in the 50s and 60s has not. As a parallel, the medium of comics is still relevant, but certain types of stories told using the medium are not. The stories have had to evolve even though it uses the same medium used in the 50s and 60s, because the audience evolved. And while retro songs and concerts still have some appeal to a limited niche market, if guitars were only use dot make music for that market, they would not remain a viable product in modern market. Their versatility in use is the key to their remaining relevant in the marketplace. Comics told using past sensibilities lack that versatility, but the medium itself has it, so the medium remains relevant to some degree, while certain styles of storytelling do not. -M |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 8, 2023 20:10:50 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time imagining said Byrne comic. Perhaps a graphic novel? He's 72 years old, how much more does he have to give?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 21:53:15 GMT -5
It can't be a retro comic if it isn't current, that's the definition. I'm saying his relevance today IS his retro appeal. Also, every fan is equal, I don't subscribe to "age" as critera. The Gibson guitar company still sticks to their core designs basically from the 50's and 60's of their most popular models and charges huge amounts (several thousands of dollars for certain ones) for them, and still sell them by the truckload. Can you imagine if they only sold to "younger players"? The difference is the transient nature of serial publications, very short vision of what's "hot now" versus thinking about how to catch some of the bigger money in the older demographics. Now statue and toy makers, that's a different story...they've got our number in spades and we happily let them fleece us with high dollar retro offerings all day long because it's awesome. I think the difference between guitars and comics is more active versus passive use of the product. A young guitar player can play the guitar any way they want, mirroring styles of the 50s and 60s or current music, the way the guitar is played can evolve with the audience and the product does not become dated or lose its appeal to current audiences. A comic story however is passive. It cannot adapt to the user, so the types of stories told have to adapt and evolve with audiences. Even though the guitars playing them remain the same, the pop songs that resonate with audiences today are quite different than than the ones played on the same guitar in the 50s and 60s, and while the guitar remains relevant, some of the music made with it in the 50s and 60s has not. As a parallel, the medium of comics is still relevant, but certain types of stories told using the medium are not. The stories have had to evolve even though it uses the same medium used in the 50s and 60s, because the audience evolved. And while retro songs and concerts still have some appeal to a limited niche market, if guitars were only use dot make music for that market, they would not remain a viable product in modern market. Their versatility in use is the key to their remaining relevant in the marketplace. Comics told using past sensibilities lack that versatility, but the medium itself has it, so the medium remains relevant to some degree, while certain styles of storytelling do not. -M Yeah, it's a good way to break it down overall in terms of active and passive. Though I still think "relevant" is more nebulous than sometimes described. "Audiences today" is not a homogeneous term, and it's not like the modern approaches to comic books have been a completely proven success financially. And let's take this a step further beyond the instrument to the actual bands making the music...why is a band like Metallica so relevant still? Ain't their music "evolving" that's for sure, their historic reputation is just so huge they bring in the old and new fans with a new record and people of all ages go to the concerts. Being a Metallica fan is as passive as reading a comic book. And they make big $$$, they are hardly limited niche. Now, most of their peers from the classic years don't remotely have this level of popularity and many have faded considerably in terms of modern visibility, so it isn't like the modern music marketplace is overwhelmingly demanding classic 80's metal bands. But again the demand is big enough for a breakout success like Metallica to still headline the big venues, so there's enough diversity of demand in the overall industry to support this. I still ask why should comic books be any different. I'm just saying if John Byrne came back to a Fantastic Four title today, a whole bunch of us would perk up our ears like NO other modern announcement of a creative team. No mistake, our arms might be folded in skepticism, we might have disbelief it could be financially viable, or that he has the creative fuel left to do something interest, etc., etc. But I CERTAINLY would not dismiss it out of hand because I believe there's some "code of modern progress" that must be adhered to to somehow be "relevant". If Byrne went full on 80's, and it was a very solid output though not groundbreaking in any way, he's just as relevant to me today. I don't have to "run it by the kids" to like it, my money is just as good. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 21:57:07 GMT -5
I'm having a hard time imagining said Byrne comic. Perhaps a graphic novel? He's 72 years old, how much more does he have to give? Hayao Miyazaki made The Wind Rises at 72 (and was the highest grossing film in Japan the year it came out), and he's got one more movie coming out this year at 82. It depends on the 72 year old of course...but I wouldn't dismiss based on that alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 22:18:20 GMT -5
I'll give one other thought. Alex Ross does the retro thing all day long, granted his painted covers are a bit on the "timeless" side of things so he's been pretty financially relevant still, but for standalone creative works he doesn't play "modern". Fantastic Four: Full Circle came out last year and clearly there was a market for it, and it's a 60's story all the way.
I think Byrne should do the same, don't try to modernize, just do what he does well. And honestly...I don't know if he does fully have it in him, but Elsewhen did suggest to me that when he is in his comfort zone he could still knock out a fine looking classic story. Maybe a writer who is up for a classic love letter could provide some additional strength on the story ideas and Byrne could co-plot if he had ideas as well or even just stick more to drawing.
All that said, I'm not a huge Byrne apologist or anything. But back to the original question of relevance, I just don't think it HAS to be some modern thing in all cases. Sometimes classic IS relevant still, like my Alex Ross example.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 8, 2023 23:05:01 GMT -5
There was some talk about Marvel's EIC, C.B. Cebulski, being a fan of Byrne's and wanting to bring veteran creators back into the fold, so it's not outside the realm of possibility, but I remain skeptical about how good the work would be. Byrne revivals have been tried many times before, and it's not a pretty picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2023 23:23:26 GMT -5
There was some talk about Marvel's EIC, C.B. Cebulski, being a fan of Byrne's and wanting to bring veteran creators back into the fold, so it's not outside the realm of possibility, but I remain skeptical about how good the work would be. Byrne revivals have been tried many times before, and it's not a pretty picture. That's definitely fair, despite my comment on Elsewhen, I would agree some of his other efforts do raise that question mark. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 1:04:43 GMT -5
I think the difference between guitars and comics is more active versus passive use of the product. A young guitar player can play the guitar any way they want, mirroring styles of the 50s and 60s or current music, the way the guitar is played can evolve with the audience and the product does not become dated or lose its appeal to current audiences. A comic story however is passive. It cannot adapt to the user, so the types of stories told have to adapt and evolve with audiences. Even though the guitars playing them remain the same, the pop songs that resonate with audiences today are quite different than than the ones played on the same guitar in the 50s and 60s, and while the guitar remains relevant, some of the music made with it in the 50s and 60s has not. As a parallel, the medium of comics is still relevant, but certain types of stories told using the medium are not. The stories have had to evolve even though it uses the same medium used in the 50s and 60s, because the audience evolved. And while retro songs and concerts still have some appeal to a limited niche market, if guitars were only use dot make music for that market, they would not remain a viable product in modern market. Their versatility in use is the key to their remaining relevant in the marketplace. Comics told using past sensibilities lack that versatility, but the medium itself has it, so the medium remains relevant to some degree, while certain styles of storytelling do not. -M Yeah, it's a good way to break it down overall in terms of active and passive. Though I still think "relevant" is more nebulous than sometimes described. "Audiences today" is not a homogeneous term, and it's not like the modern approaches to comic books have been a completely proven success financially. And let's take this a step further beyond the instrument to the actual bands making the music...why is a band like Metallica so relevant still? Ain't their music "evolving" that's for sure, their historic reputation is just so huge they bring in the old and new fans with a new record and people of all ages go to the concerts. Being a Metallica fan is as passive as reading a comic book. And they make big $$$, they are hardly limited niche. Now, most of their peers from the classic years don't remotely have this level of popularity and many have faded considerably in terms of modern visibility, so it isn't like the modern music marketplace is overwhelmingly demanding classic 80's metal bands. But again the demand is big enough for a breakout success like Metallica to still headline the big venues, so there's enough diversity of demand in the overall industry to support this. I still ask why should comic books be any different. I'm just saying if John Byrne came back to a Fantastic Four title today, a whole bunch of us would perk up our ears like NO other modern announcement of a creative team. No mistake, our arms might be folded in skepticism, we might have disbelief it could be financially viable, or that he has the creative fuel left to do something interest, etc., etc. But I CERTAINLY would not dismiss it out of hand because I believe there's some "code of modern progress" that must be adhered to to somehow be "relevant". If Byrne went full on 80's, and it was a very solid output though not groundbreaking in any way, he's just as relevant to me today. I don't have to "run it by the kids" to like it, my money is just as good. Because audiences/customer bases for comics were much smaller, less diverse, and more niche to begin with, so attrition hits them harder. If Metallica and Amazing Spider-Man lose the same percentage (not number but percentage) of customers/audience members each year, ASM's audience would become non-viable much quicker. Plus music has much better access to growth markets to bring in new customers/audience members to replace those lost to attrition than comics do because of the nature of the direct market and its lack of presence in vast swaths of this country, let alone the world. Plus, there's less start up cost to listening to music than comics, and music can be a shared experience while comics are an individual activity. It can be shared after the fact, but it's not a communal experience the way music is. As a side note, you might get some pushback that Metallica's music isn't evolving, as there is a sizable discontented part of their fanbase that thinks they "went pop metal" and "sold out" with Enter Sandman and that fifth album and that they haven't been the same since, because again tastes are subjective and also evolve for many, while some hate change and think every album should sound exactly like the band's first. Others call that stagnation. And sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but there are exponentially more bands who became passé and lost their audience than still thrive like Metallica does. But the heart of Metallica's success and the foundation of their success was that they were so much different form what came before and that they broke new ground, not that they mirrored the styles of what had been done previous to them ad infinitum. If they had followed your dictates and only created music like what had been done decades before, they would not be the Metallica you knew. If Kirby and Lee made comics exactly like the DC Comics that had come before them, there would never have been a Marvel Universe. Innovation and change are necessary for a thriving market, resting on your laurels and imitating the past is the quickest way to obsolescence. -M |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 9, 2023 2:31:14 GMT -5
Stupid question: why isn't he virtually working anywhere, even at some indipendent publisher?
Perhaps is just him who no longer wants to work continuously?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 5:51:22 GMT -5
As a side note, you might get some pushback that Metallica's music isn't evolving, as there is a sizable discontented part of their fanbase that thinks they "went pop metal" and "sold out" with Enter Sandman and that fifth album and that they haven't been the same since, because again tastes are subjective and also evolve for many, while some hate change and think every album should sound exactly like the band's first. Others call that stagnation. And sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but there are exponentially more bands who became passé and lost their audience than still thrive like Metallica does. But the heart of Metallica's success and the foundation of their success was that they were so much different form what came before and that they broke new ground, not that they mirrored the styles of what had been done previous to them ad infinitum. If they had followed your dictates and only created music like what had been done decades before, they would not be the Metallica you knew. If Kirby and Lee made comics exactly like the DC Comics that had come before them, there would never have been a Marvel Universe. Innovation and change are necessary for a thriving market, resting on your laurels and imitating the past is the quickest way to obsolescence. -M This debate has been running for decades on pretty much every music forum, but regardless of subjective tastes, as a musician who has performed Metallica covers on guitar countless times, let me assure you there was nothing "evolved" about their sound. Bob Rock literally came in and dictated how to make something commercial for the Black album which gave them their mega success and they have lived off of that ever since (and I'm not a fan who begrudges them this, just stating what actually happened). When a new album comes out, people are waiting for signs of old Sandman or Master of Puppets, not St. Anger or Lulu or most stuff since. Just like Guns and Roses have been living mostly off of one album for 35 years. Yeah, they've done other stuff, and a smaller group can argue it was musically interesting too, but that's not their bread and butter. So back on comics...again I'm not saying innovation and change are not necessary for a thriving market, we fully agree on that point. I'm saying there should be room for more diversity, and the music comparison is simply that if you have some legacy "star power", it tends to be marketable as well. When an Alex Ross or Darwyn Cooke (rest his soul) go full on retro, it's somehow cool and "modern chic", but if John Byrne does it's obsolete? And is Fantastic Four: Full Circle really that much better than Elsewhen? I don't think so actually, but if Marvel had put their weight behind Byrne and supported that one with maybe a little editorial oversight and got a polished final version published and marketed (proudly presenting from the original artist of "Dark Phoenix" and "Days of Future Past" or something of that nature, like I said, there's still some recognizable star power here even to the kiddos), I think it may have been viable. Derivative of the past or not, just like Full Circle. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 6:35:25 GMT -5
And I'll make one last comment on this because I feel like I've posted a ton already in this thread.
My retro comments are not meant to suggest Byrne just needs to make any old throwback and because he used to be a huge star we should all be happy with that.
There are two questions here to me in terms of relevance:
1) Does he have to "modernize" to be relevant? In other words attempt to update his storytelling (ideas/script AND art) to somehow fit more modern trends of younger creators. And that's where I continue to think no, do what he does best. It will either capture enough of the younger readers' attention as a cool throwback and/or older readers who love their classics still to be successful or it won't, but at least he will be attempting to play to his strengths.
2) Does he have inspired creativity left in him to create something compelling to actually read? I think that's the bigger question and has been raised by others. He NEEDS a good story as a foundation, and then well executed in terms of the visual storytelling. I feel more confident in the latter than the former, and so I think a good pairing with the right writer might be more realistic at this point for him.
I'll also say again though...why WOULDN'T a lot of folks here want to see this if done right, and does our average age here somehow make John less "relevant"? We are as relevant as any other comic book readers, in fact most of us have a huge passion for the medium so I'll dare say we are a benchmark for relevance and should stand up and be proud. And if you say "that's nice grandstanding supercat, but we're not exactly paying the bills for the big publishers", I say that's commercial viability, not relevance. And while you need some of that viability to simply stay afloat, the best selling titles of the day are not necessarily the most relevant (like you guys are always picking on the popular 90's stuff, there's some serious disregard for that era). Relevance to me is making a statement with a great book which may or may not actually sell well.
Despite all of the infuriating things Byrne has said over the years and some of his equally irritating creative decisions at times, John at his best stands out as one of the greats. If he has ANY fuel left, he's relevant in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 9, 2023 8:32:31 GMT -5
And what do you even call Star Trek Photoshop books? I call them pieced-together garbage with stories that were not of the same standard of the original series. Somehow, he also thought those very familiar with TOS (the target audience) would not notice his using screengrabs of actors across the three seasons, where there were--as anyone would expect--differences in actors' appearance due to age, weight, stress (which in turn were impacted depending on which end of a season one was working through), etc. Byrne tried to rip-off the style of the Mandala Productions / Bantam Books Star Trek Fotonovels published between 1977 - 1978, and failed; those Fotonovels adapted episodes and creatively used hundreds of film frames in ways more resembling a comic book layout than Byrne's hackwork--and he's supposed to be some sort of comic book expert?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 9:27:43 GMT -5
So back on comics...again I'm not saying innovation and change are not necessary for a thriving market, we fully agree on that point. I'm saying there should be room for more diversity, and the music comparison is simply that if you have some legacy "star power", it tends to be marketable as well. When an Alex Ross or Darwyn Cooke (rest his soul) go full on retro, it's somehow cool and "modern chic", but if John Byrne does it's obsolete? And is Fantastic Four: Full Circle really that much better than Elsewhen? I don't think so actually, but if Marvel had put their weight behind Byrne and supported that one with maybe a little editorial oversight and got a polished final version published and marketed (proudly presenting from the original artist of "Dark Phoenix" and "Days of Future Past" or something of that nature, like I said, there's still some recognizable star power here even to the kiddos), I think it may have been viable. Derivative of the past or not, just like Full Circle. Ross, like Metallica, have enough of a following that a company (Marvel, music label, etc.) throwing their weight behind it when the they do something "retro" is a winning bet. Their credibility and cache are what sells the product, not the retro. Byrne used to claim he had that cache, His Byrne victims he claimed, was enough of a sales force that he could make any book sell. Not sure if he was ever right, and if he did have that cache, he has pissed it away, and no matter what he does now, retro or modern, he doesn't have the cache or credibility in the marketplace to make it a winning bet. It's now a sucker's bet. And that's on him, not the publishers, because publisher's don't leave money they can make on the table. Variants, #1, events, and all that are testaments to their chasing every last dollar they can get if they think they can sell it. Byrne has burned his bridges. For a book to succeed, retailers have to order it. They are the publishers customer. A Byrne project hasn't generated enough interest, or preorders from retailers, to make a Byrne print project viable. Retailers know it won't sell on the shelves, so they can only order what they get preorders for from pull customers, and that's not a large enough customer base anymore to make it viable. Not for a retro project. Not for a "modern" project. Not for any project really. It's not the project that's obsolete. It's the creator here. And he did it to himself by pissing away all the goodwill and willingness to buy his work that existed in the industry. This isn't an industry problem with retro books. Ross' Full Circle show that can and will back a "retro" product they know has the cache behind it to succeed. It's a Byrne problem. not because publishers have decided he's obsolete, because he's dug himself a hole of obsolescence that destroyed his credibility (and cache) with many members of his former customer base that he needed to remain relevant. If he had that credibility, if he had that cache, if he was a winning bet, he'd have projects coming out. He doesn't. And instead of working to fix the credibility issues, he doubles down on it thinking past success entitles him to continued opportunities, taking no ownership as to why he has lost that credibility. As much as Byrne wants to point fingers at publishers and blame them, he has 3 fingers pointing back at himself when he does that, and that tells the true story, not his scapegoating of publishers. Yes publishers (and retailers) are risk resistant in a smaller market, but they do take chances and green light and throw their weight behind retro (or new) projects that have the right factors in place to give them a chance at succeeding Byrne has none of those factors in place. How is that the publisher's fault? In music terms. Metallica has that cache, but as much popularity Quiet Riot had in 80s metal and MTV, people still play the old songs, but no one is clamoring (or paying) for new music (either retro or modern) form them. They don't have the cache or the credibility to do so. That's not the fault of the record companies. That's the will of the market. It's not a matter of retro vs. modern, it's a matter of what the market will bear. And retro has to meet the onus of being able to thrive on the credibility of the artist making it. Metallica has it. Ross has it. Byrne doesn't. -M |
|
