|
Post by kirby101 on Nov 25, 2021 10:28:15 GMT -5
I assume you are talking about Byrne. All I have to say is Richard Donner said he was able to capture Superman in his movie because he was a fan of the comic book. He went on to say other Directors, like Richard Lester, did not get the character because they weren't fans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:31:41 GMT -5
I’m a Byrne fan - Man of Steel is still the definitive Superman origin for me, plus what can one say about his FF run?
But he did a run of Star Trek books, utilising photos from the series to tell “new stories” and did some X-Men fan fiction on his site. I’ll always be a fan of his work and the joy it has brought me, but I see those projects as no less fanboy-oriented than continuations of Reeve Superman/Keaton Batman.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Nov 25, 2021 10:48:11 GMT -5
And do we want those writing these books to not be fans of the films? How about dark and grim deconstruction of the movie super hero. Yeah. that's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 10:55:08 GMT -5
And do we want those writing these books to not be fans of the films? How about dark and grim deconstruction of the movie super hero. Yeah. that's fun. True! I read Batman ‘66 for the first time recently. I loved that we got to see further exploits of those characters, plus new concepts, e.g. Alfred’s twin brother, Bane in a ‘66 context, etc. And Superman ‘78 is a dream come true for me. Hell, if they can get Reeve’s Superman and Keaton’s Batman to team up, I’ll pre-order now. It’s just that, with respect, I’m not sure a person can throw around the “fanboy” slur when he utilised photos from Star Trek: TOS to tell new stories. Not criticising that title at all, but that surely qualifies as a fanboy project, too?
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 25, 2021 12:08:49 GMT -5
And do we want those writing these books to not be fans of the films? How about dark and grim deconstruction of the movie super hero. Yeah. that's fun. True! I read Batman ‘66 for the first time recently. I loved that we got to see further exploits of those characters, plus new concepts, e.g. Alfred’s twin brother, Bane in a ‘66 context, etc. And Superman ‘78 is a dream come true for me. Hell, if they can get Reeve’s Superman and Keaton’s Batman to team up, I’ll pre-order now. It’s just that, with respect, I’m not sure a person can throw around the “fanboy” slur when he utilised photos from Star Trek: TOS to tell new stories. Not criticising that title at all, but that surely qualifies as a fanboy project, too? I've enjoyed a lot of Byrne's work, throughout his career; but, the man himself is an @#$%-stirrer and a hypocrite. He likes the attention, he likes to take shots at people when he is just as guilty of the same behavior. I first started seeing it in his Flame About This High column, in Next Men. Some valid criticism, a lot of petty jealousy of the Image guys, while he was doing derivative work, just as they were. The internet just magnified those traits. Byrne is a fanboy; he has had his greatest success working on other people's characters and his own were photocopies of his Marvel work, with new names.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 12:24:37 GMT -5
Good point, Cody! Especially about photocopies.
Derivative is fine, but don’t complain when others do it.
I’m taking it a tad personal due to my appreciation for the current Superman ‘78 and Batman ‘89 titles, but to see “fanboy” thrown around from a guy writing not-endorsed-by-Marvel X-Men fan fiction, and who had a run doing Star Trek photo-snap (or whatever the term is) novels, is a little hard to take.
One could argue that those Superman and Batman titles at least involve effort, as if a writer said, “How do we develop movie era Lex? How can we fit Brainiac in?” Or, “How can we serve the Harvey Dent character as played by Billy Dee Williams? What new Keaton-Era stories we can tell?” And Batman ‘66 means we can see villains that the show didn’t use, either because they hadn’t been invented yet, or because they just weren’t used, e.g. Scarecrow and Two-Face.
The keyword for me is EFFORT. Given the choice, I’d rather see new Reeve-Superman and Keaton-Batman stories than Savage Land X-Men ‘fan fiction’ and speech bubbles utilised on TOS screencaps.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 16:31:05 GMT -5
Considering the Batman '89 comic is written by Sam Hamm who wrote the screenplay for the Batman movie and is continuing his own work there, I'd hardly call that a fanboy continuing someone else's work, but I doubt JB even bothered to look who was actually writing the book before casting aspersions at that. But he has simply morphed into a troll who says or does anything to try to get some validation for his over-sized ego. If people would stop feeding the troll, he would fade into oblivion.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 17:29:26 GMT -5
His exact words: “Sounds like fanboys unleashed.” While producing X-Men: Elsewhen and having finished a run doing Star Trek photo novels.
That was the one that irked me, especially, as you say, Sam Hamm is writing it.
I am sure I wasn’t the only one who wanted to see the further adventures of Superman ‘78 and Batman ‘89, but I know I craved it for years (wish someone would do a continuation of the Hulk TV series).
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 25, 2021 19:12:19 GMT -5
I am sure I wasn’t the only one who wanted to see the further adventures of Superman ‘78 and Batman ‘89, but I know I craved it for years (wish someone would do a continuation of the Hulk TV series). Bruce Jones' run seems to draw from it a bit.
Are they using the actors' likenesses for these projects?
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 25, 2021 22:24:19 GMT -5
I’m not sure a person can throw around the “fanboy” slur when he utilised photos from Star Trek: TOS to tell new stories. Not criticising that title at all, but that surely qualifies as a fanboy project, too? Its slapped-together hack-work.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 25, 2021 22:25:54 GMT -5
Considering the Batman '89 comic is written by Sam Hamm who wrote the screenplay for the Batman movie and is continuing his own work there, I'd hardly call that a fanboy continuing someone else's work, but I doubt JB even bothered to look who was actually writing the book before casting aspersions at that. But he has simply morphed into a troll who says or does anything to try to get some validation for his over-sized ego. If people would stop feeding the troll, he would fade into oblivion. -M ...if only that would happen.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2021 23:36:14 GMT -5
Considering the Batman '89 comic is written by Sam Hamm who wrote the screenplay for the Batman movie and is continuing his own work there, I'd hardly call that a fanboy continuing someone else's work, but I doubt JB even bothered to look who was actually writing the book before casting aspersions at that. But he has simply morphed into a troll who says or does anything to try to get some validation for his over-sized ego. If people would stop feeding the troll, he would fade into oblivion. -M ...if only that would happen. It will eventually, time nor tide wait for no man. I don't wish ill on him, just irrelevance, but he seems to be taking care of that all on his own. -M
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 26, 2021 2:30:04 GMT -5
In a perfect world Gilbert Hernandez would be given free reign to write and draw Wonder Woman comics to his heart's content.
I'd love to see it, but I would have loved it even more if it had happened 20-25 years ago, when his style was a little more realistic - I'm thnking of the difference between this WW page and how he drew athletic/muscular female figures such as Petra or some of the Girl Crazy charaters in the 90s. Of course that's no guarantee he would have drawn WW in the same way even back then: perhaps he's always seen her as this sort of cartoonish figure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 7:03:59 GMT -5
I guess what irks me a bit is a conversation I saw him have with Dan Slott. Byrne seems to frown upon character changes. Yet this is the guy whose She-Hulk bears no resemblance to the She-Hulk I read in FF or her own title (and I have read a lot of reprints).
I don’t like too much change. Or change that takes us far away from a character. But shaking things up is good, e.g. I like what Peter David did with Hulk. I just don’t know how one can criticise character changes when his version of She-Hulk was a monumental change in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 27, 2021 8:34:45 GMT -5
I guess what irks me a bit is a conversation I saw him have with Dan Slott. Byrne seems to frown upon character changes. Yet this is the guy whose She-Hulk bears no resemblance to the She-Hulk I read in FF or her own title (and I have read a lot of reprints). I don’t like too much change. Or change that takes us far away from a character. But shaking things up is good, e.g. I like what Peter David did with Hulk. I just don’t know how one can criticise character changes when his version of She-Hulk was a monumental change in many ways. My impression of Byrne is he only likes change if he came up with it... otherwise it's terrible. He's done some great stuff, but he also repesents alot of what's wrong with American comics, IMO.
|
|