|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2023 17:48:29 GMT -5
This may sound strange, but I liken Byrne's status in comics to that of Molly Ringwald in movies. She was a talented actress that was part of some of the most popular movies of her era (the Hughes films) and a box office draw. But she did nothing to revolutionize or elevate acting or movies. Her projects after that peak point did little to move the needle in sales or acclaim, and eventually work wasn't coming her way. She didn't gain acclaim of fans of previous era of movies despite her popularity and success at the time, and future generations of film fans may be familiar with the movies and body of work, but she herself is no longer the draw to those films and her legacy was that she was part of those popular films, not the reason for those films' popularity. Sure there are guys who were of the right age when the Hughes films featuring her came out that are still Molly Ringwald fans and still crush on her and wax poetic about her greatness, but contemporary audiences don't get the what the big deal was. But in that peak Hughes film era in the 80s, Ringwald was a really big deal and put butts in seats in theatres.
That's pretty much Byrne's comics legacy too. He was a really big deal and brought eyes to books in his day, but that day is long past, and now his legacy is he was part of the peak popularity of the X-Men, but most who weren't fans in that peak period would agree he was the primary reason for that success and could care less what he's doing now.
The difference between Ringwald and Byrne, Ringwald found ways to reinvent herself and find other avenues in the industry, doing different types of project to become relevant again and found ways to continue working in the field after that period where she fell form the spotlight. She understood that time was over and she needed to move on and do things differently. Byrne hasn't done that (and I am not sure he's capable of doing that because of his ego).
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 15, 2023 18:41:24 GMT -5
Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald did to cinema. Ringwald's popularity lasted for a handful of years in the 80s while she was still a teenager. Byrne was a big deal for roughly two decades. He didn't adapt well to the changes in comics in the 90s, but neither did most of his contemporaries. It wasn't for lack of trying. Next Men was risque by the usual Marvel and DC standards. Where he dropped the ball, IMO, was Spider-Man: Chapter One. There was a window of opportunity after the speculator boom crash, Marvel's bankruptcy, and the Heroes Reborn debacle, where a creator like Byrne could have easily swept in and salvaged a major Marvel book ala Busiek and Perez with the Avengers. Instead, he mucked about with Spider-Man's origins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2023 19:09:06 GMT -5
Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald did to cinema. Did he though? Ringwald defined an entire genre of movies for a generation in her time. What did Byrne define? X-Men-nope that was Claremont? FF? Nope he never supplanted Kirby/Lee in defining that? Superman? Nah. Maybe Alpha Flight, but really outside of the Wednesday Warriors who even heard of Alpha Flight? He was a hired gun who did good work for sure, but what did he leave behind in comics that was truly his that is enough to sustain a legacy? Ringwald will always be the teen queen of the 80s. It's not a huge legacy but it's more than that actress who worked on some popular movies. Byrne is that guy who worked on some popular comics in the late 70s and 80s. He isn't the X-Men guy. He isn't the Marvel guy. He isn't the Superman guy. He isn't even the Next Man guy because wtf is Next Men to anyone but the small audience who read it at the time? What does Byrne define to audiences beyond those of his time? What's his legacy that makes him mean more to comics than other popular artists in their time but whose time passed and who were forgotten? If you look at comics from an etic point of view, what is Byrne? he's a work for hire guy who did quality work on some of the most popular comics of his time. But in terms of impact on comics in the greater culture-his cover of Superman for Time Magazine moved the needle more on that scale than all his other comic work combined. And even that only moved the needle for comics as a whole briefly and very slightly. Ringwald was the face of making an entire genre popular, have ripple effects on other aspects of culture such as fashion, and as part of the Brat Pack, created a branding for films that lasted a decade, beyond her career. Yet, her legacy is still slight. Byrne's is even less so. I don't see many working artists today citing Byrne as a major influence. I don't see people talking about Byrne style covers the way they do Steranko style cover any time even a bit of psychadelic art it present. What did Byrne define? What is his legacy aside form work for hire pages on popular books that separates him from any other popular artist who worked on the top books of his period? With Perez, he gets mentioned every time there is a panel crammed with too many characters as it being a Perez-thing. Or any time there is a wonky fashion design of a costume (ugh he designs costumes like Perez). Adams redefined the look of Batman that defined the character until the '89 Burton film redefined the look again, and is pointed to (along with O'Neil) as ones who paved the way and made that film's sensibilities possible. What's that key thing for Byrne that he defined and made his that no one else does and that brings his name up every time it is seen or mentioned? What was his impact on comics beyond moving units or popular comics that sold well even when he wasn't there? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 15, 2023 19:17:29 GMT -5
I guess I'd liken Byrne to the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond. Both popular. Both lasted a long time. Neither of them changed anything at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 15, 2023 19:57:35 GMT -5
Of course John Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald meant to cinema.
For one thing, he's more analogous to John Hughes than Molly Ringwald in terms of creative input in their respective mediums (a writer-director being more of a parallel to a writer-artist than an actor or actress, IMO.) There was a period when from the time when Byrne became a star on the X-Men through his run on Fantastic Four and his Superman reboot, where he was arguably the biggest name in the entire industry. That cooled when he returned to Marvel in the late 80s, but at his peak, whatever Byrne chose to do drew huge attention. It was closer to Spielberg levels than John Hughes. The legacy of those years is still intact. When CBR does its top 100 comic book runs, Claremont and Byrne's X-Men run is either #1or 2, and Byrne's Fantastic Four and Superman runs also make the list (those being Byrne's three major runs, I suppose.) Ringwald's films might make some critics Best of the 80s lists, or some kind of genre list, but I don't think that anyone considers John Hughes' films to be amongst the greatest in the history of the medium. In Byrne's case, many people would rank his work amongst the best comics ever made, or at least the best superhero work ever made.
As far as his influence goes, people were already gravitating towards the younger Image guys during Byrne's return to Marvel, and before them, Art Adams. Once widescreen comics became the norm, and everything became more cinematic, Byrne's was even more of date, but that happens to everyone. Ditko became out of date. Kirby became out of date. It is extremely difficult for an artist, in any medium, to stay with the times and continue creating work at a high level. But Byrne isn't some kind of flash-in-the-pan, three hit wonder. He was a major player in the industry along with Miller, Perez, Alan Moore, etc. Even at his peak, he wasn't particularly good at creating new characters and did his best work playing with other people's toys, but no creator is above criticism.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 15, 2023 20:49:15 GMT -5
Byrne never worked with Tootie!  or Ducky!  'Nuff said! |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 15, 2023 20:52:09 GMT -5
I'm more inclined to compare Byrne to Judd Nelson than Molly Ringwald. Anyone who's seen Cybermutt will understand why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 15, 2023 21:03:59 GMT -5
I guess I'd liken Byrne to the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond. Both popular. Both lasted a long time. Neither of them changed anything at all. I always have wondered why anyone would even tolerate Raymond. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2023 22:31:12 GMT -5
Of course John Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald meant to cinema. For one thing, he's more analogous to John Hughes than Molly Ringwald in terms of creative input in their respective mediums (a writer-director being more of a parallel to a writer-artist than an actor or actress, IMO.) There was a period when from the time when Byrne became a star on the X-Men through his run on Fantastic Four and his Superman reboot, where he was arguably the biggest name in the entire industry. That cooled when he returned to Marvel in the late 80s, but at his peak, whatever Byrne chose to do drew huge attention. It was closer to Spielberg levels than John Hughes. The legacy of those years is still intact. When CBR does its top 100 comic book runs, Claremont and Byrne's X-Men run is either #1or 2, and Byrne's Fantastic Four and Superman runs also make the list (those being Byrne's three major runs, I suppose.) Ringwald's films might make some critics Best of the 80s lists, or some kind of genre list, but I don't think that anyone considers John Hughes' films to be amongst the greatest in the history of the medium. In Byrne's case, many people would rank his work amongst the best comics ever made, or at least the best superhero work ever made. As far as his influence goes, people were already gravitating towards the younger Image guys during Byrne's return to Marvel, and before them, Art Adams. Once widescreen comics became the norm, and everything became more cinematic, Byrne's was even more of date, but that happens to everyone. Ditko became out of date. Kirby became out of date. It is extremely difficult for an artist, in any medium, to stay with the times and continue creating work at a high level. But Byrne isn't some kind of flash-in-the-pan, three hit wonder. He was a major player in the industry along with Miller, Perez, Alan Moore, etc. Even at his peak, he wasn't particularly good at creating new characters and did his best work playing with other people's toys, but no creator is above criticism. I suspect of those big 3 Byrne runs, only the X-Men (and those are known as Claremont's X-Men run not Byrne's X-Men run) would place on those best of lists if you eliminated the votes of those who bought them and read them as they came out on the 80s. And since forum message boards skew towards an older demographic, such readers are over represented in those lists, and if you surveyed the entirety of comic readership (not just those who frequent forums) nothing of Byrne's (except Claremont's X-Men) would place on best of lists. SO no, his legacy is not intact because legacy has to endure beyond the people who experienced it in the moment. That's what legacy is, and those runs do not have cache among fans who were not there in the moment. That's why I specifically said use an etic point of view. Byrne looks important if you only have the emic perspective of a comic fan familiar with the 80s. In an etic point of view, his imprint on comics is much less significant. And I wouldn't liken him to Hughes, who was developing his own material, Byrne was more like a studio man, using other peoples characters and stories to make what was asked of him. A hired gun who produced good material, but not original material that is the foundation of a legacy the endures. Byrne's FF is a non-entity because it is a pale imitation of Kirby/Lee FF. Most of what endured from Byrne's Superman reboot was the material brought to the project by Wolfman (the new portrayal of Lex Luthor) and editorial, not what Byrne brought to it. The better part of what he did with X-Men is associated with Claremont not Byrne, as Claremont predated him on the run and stayed with it much longer. Byrne was one of many to partner with Claremont on that run, but it is Claremont's legacy not Byrne's. Byrne was for a time the big name you could attach to a project to get people to look at it, but the work actually produced is not the stuff of legacy, and what endures, has as much to do with other as it does with Byrne's presence on the project. His legacy is as empty as many of his backgrounds. -M |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 15, 2023 23:12:26 GMT -5
Maybe age is a bit of a factor as well, if you grew up during the revolution Adams created you may not have been as impressed with a Byrne down the line. Just like a Jim Lee fan down the line might say you're both crazy, Adams and Byrne don't hold a candle. Maybe for some, but not for me in this case. Steranko's groundbreaking comic work was published way before I was born and I was a little too young to appreciate Adams' Batman stuff as it was coming out. Byrne's work on Fantastic Four, Alpha Flight, Indiana Jones, Superman etc was all coming out when I was aged 10-15, so the perfect age to appreciate it -- which I certainly did and still do. 14 yo me wouldn't have had a clue who Neal Adams was, much less Jim Steranko, but I would've waxed lyrical about how great John Byrne's art was. But as an adult, having gotten into the likes of Adams' or Steranko's 60s and 70s work, I can see that it was on a whole other level in terms of its influence and, personally speaking, on an artistic level too. That's not to disparage Byrne...he's a damn good comic artist, but he ain't Adams or Steranko (or Ditko or Romita, to name two other influential and highly skilled artists from before my time).
In my case, I would say I probably like Byrne's art more than I do Adams's in the sense that I'd rather look at Byrne's X-Men or Iron Fist than I would Adam's Batman. But there's no doubt in my mind that Adams was the more accomplished artist - more talented, better training (I'm guessing), more skilled, wider range, you name it. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 16, 2023 4:25:27 GMT -5
Of course John Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald meant to cinema. For one thing, he's more analogous to John Hughes than Molly Ringwald in terms of creative input in their respective mediums (a writer-director being more of a parallel to a writer-artist than an actor or actress, IMO.) There was a period when from the time when Byrne became a star on the X-Men through his run on Fantastic Four and his Superman reboot, where he was arguably the biggest name in the entire industry. That cooled when he returned to Marvel in the late 80s, but at his peak, whatever Byrne chose to do drew huge attention. It was closer to Spielberg levels than John Hughes. The legacy of those years is still intact. When CBR does its top 100 comic book runs, Claremont and Byrne's X-Men run is either #1or 2, and Byrne's Fantastic Four and Superman runs also make the list (those being Byrne's three major runs, I suppose.) Ringwald's films might make some critics Best of the 80s lists, or some kind of genre list, but I don't think that anyone considers John Hughes' films to be amongst the greatest in the history of the medium. In Byrne's case, many people would rank his work amongst the best comics ever made, or at least the best superhero work ever made. As far as his influence goes, people were already gravitating towards the younger Image guys during Byrne's return to Marvel, and before them, Art Adams. Once widescreen comics became the norm, and everything became more cinematic, Byrne's was even more of date, but that happens to everyone. Ditko became out of date. Kirby became out of date. It is extremely difficult for an artist, in any medium, to stay with the times and continue creating work at a high level. But Byrne isn't some kind of flash-in-the-pan, three hit wonder. He was a major player in the industry along with Miller, Perez, Alan Moore, etc. Even at his peak, he wasn't particularly good at creating new characters and did his best work playing with other people's toys, but no creator is above criticism. I suspect of those big 3 Byrne runs, only the X-Men (and those are known as Claremont's X-Men run not Byrne's X-Men run) would place on those best of lists if you eliminated the votes of those who bought them and read them as they came out on the 80s. And since forum message boards skew towards an older demographic, such readers are over represented in those lists, and if you surveyed the entirety of comic readership (not just those who frequent forums) nothing of Byrne's (except Claremont's X-Men) would place on best of lists. SO no, his legacy is not intact because legacy has to endure beyond the people who experienced it in the moment. That's what legacy is, and those runs do not have cache among fans who were not there in the moment. That's why I specifically said use an etic point of view. Byrne looks important if you only have the emic perspective of a comic fan familiar with the 80s. In an etic point of view, his imprint on comics is much less significant. And I wouldn't liken him to Hughes, who was developing his own material, Byrne was more like a studio man, using other peoples characters and stories to make what was asked of him. A hired gun who produced good material, but not original material that is the foundation of a legacy the endures. Byrne's FF is a non-entity because it is a pale imitation of Kirby/Lee FF. Most of what endured from Byrne's Superman reboot was the material brought to the project by Wolfman (the new portrayal of Lex Luthor) and editorial, not what Byrne brought to it. The better part of what he did with X-Men is associated with Claremont not Byrne, as Claremont predated him on the run and stayed with it much longer. Byrne was one of many to partner with Claremont on that run, but it is Claremont's legacy not Byrne's. Byrne was for a time the big name you could attach to a project to get people to look at it, but the work actually produced is not the stuff of legacy, and what endures, has as much to do with other as it does with Byrne's presence on the project. His legacy is as empty as many of his backgrounds. -M His backgrounds were often empty, but at least he put books out on a monthly basis. I have a hard time believing that anyone who follows comics online, be it through social media, YouTube or websites, is ignorant as to who Byrne is and what his major works were. They may not give two craps about him, but I am 99% sure that they would recognize the name. I didn't grow up reading Claremont and Byrne's X-Men. I read it in trades years later and in the pages of Classic X-Men. I can only imagine that there are a fair number of younger readers who've read the Dark Phoenix Saga and Days of Future Past either in a trade or digitally, particularly with the rep those stories have even today. I'm also fairly certain that people view that run as Claremont and Byrne's X-Men and not just Claremont's X-Men, and to be honest, Claremont faded from relevancy even earlier than Byrne did. The Fantastic Four and Superman runs probably have less of an audience, but they haven't faded into obscurity. I'm not a diehard Byrne fan, but give the guy his flowers. He produced some significant work during the 70s and 80s. His FF may have been a pale imitation of Lee and Kirby, but it was a lot better than the FF that preceded or followed it (though personally I did like the Walt Simonson run.) If there's a better second best FF run than Byrne's, I'd like to read it. I suspect if such a run exists, Byrne's run is often brought up in comparison, which means it can't be completely forgotten. And, honestly speaking, if Byrne is a forgotten creator, then it stands to reason that 90% of the comics from his era also forgotten. That's scary. I'd actually like to know what makes you think people remember Perez' work more than Byrne's. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 16, 2023 5:24:53 GMT -5
Byrne meant more to comics than Molly Ringwald did to cinema. Did he though? Ringwald defined an entire genre of movies for a generation in her time. What did Byrne define? X-Men-nope that was Claremont? FF? Nope he never supplanted Kirby/Lee in defining that? Superman? Nah. Very good points. By no stretch of the imagination is Byrne some definitve talent associated with the Fantastic Four, as that will forever be Lee & Kirby, and arguably the next great period of the title was the one which followed theirs. The X-men would have been a concept that died in the early 70s if not for Claremont (and Cockrum), and again, Byrne's work on the X-Men was bolstered--to a significant degree--by Austin's inks. No matter what may think of his Superman project, the character had a number of defining runs before that time, so Byrne did not innovate much with the character. I look at it this way: the 1975 "new" X-Men--which gave the concept a second life--was in the hands of others--Claremont and Cockrum--long before Byrne's arrival, so he cannot be credited with making the X-Men a popular title, as that was already in effect. Compare that to Perez on The New Teen Titans and Crisis on Infinite Earths: in the 80's, Perez played a major role in two among the most significant titles of the decade (arguably comic book history overall), and there's no other era or artist who supplanted his work or status as the face of those events. The same cannot be said of Byrne, who worked on a title where the aforementioned Cockrum had played an undeniable role in revitalizing the X-Men, and only years earlier, Adams had his own run on the title, which casts a long shadow over X-Men history. supercat claimed Bryne was a "big deal" for two decades...but he was not. If he's marking the late 70s as the beginning of Byrne's run, then one has to ask what did he produce in the 90s that was so significant? For all of that decade's excesses and flaws pouring out of DC and Marvel, one thing was certain: Bryne was not standing above it all, with great, innovative art. We do know artists such as Ross were making a Rushmore-sized impact on the way superhero comics could be viewed (on a level not achieved by predecessors such as Larkin, Barr, et al., and prodded DC and Marvel to either hire him constantly or usher in a flood of imitators), but Byrne was not spending his end of the 90s in a similar manner. His shelf-life of relevance is chained to the 80s. Same here, and the most glaring point of all is that for Byrne, his chief claim to fame--his X-Men run--did not represent some seismic change in the title, as said changes were already in effect the moment Claremont and Cockrum were placed on the title years earlier. I've heard more talk about Perez' work than Byrne's regarding comic art of the 1980s, and how he was in a state of constant, positive evolution in his work. I've yet to hear anyone say the same about Byrne. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 16, 2023 5:26:30 GMT -5
I guess I'd liken Byrne to the TV show Everybody Loves Raymond. Both popular. Both lasted a long time. Neither of them changed anything at all. I always have wondered why anyone would even tolerate Raymond. ...or any main character from its "brother" series, The King of Queens. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2023 6:05:19 GMT -5
This all feels a bit revisionist. Anybody who says the Claremont/Byrne X-Men run was not very historically significant is just making things up. Those back issues have consistently been in high demand over the years, it completely set the stage for the mutant explosion that would define Marvel for years to come. And everyone calls it the Clarement/BYRNE run, not the "Claremont" run, let's not skew things.
The FF run? One of the most important runs in FF history. Oh wait, do kids today worship it? Got news for you, kids today don't worship Kirby or Ditko even if they've heard their names in popular media over the years as historical references (heck, they were passe by the time I started reading even though I love them both). Most probably don't know who Adams or Steranko were either. ALL great creators tend to have a shelf life in terms of broader popularity. The LEGACY part always needs to be looked at in an historical context, and Byrne was on FIRE during that era and was a darling of plenty of awards along the way. There's a reason why DC hand picked him to reinvigorate their flagship IP.
You can make technical arguments on his draftsmanship, things he's said over the year, pick at the quality of some of his later work, etc., etc. But in terms of being one of the titans of his time, there's no question of it.
Perez, Byrne, and as also called out earlier, Miller. Moore for writing as well. There's your 80's in a nutshell, you don't personally have to like it or agree they were the "greatest" somehow, but in terms of who defined that decade, that history has been written. They are all in the hall of fame whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2023 6:23:08 GMT -5
There's a reason why DC hand picked him to reinvigorate their flagship IP. Good point! I do think his FF run is my favourite after Lee/Kirby. I can’t honestly say that any run after that has appealed to me, although the Tom DeFalco and Paul Ryan run has a certain charm, with vibrant inks and colours. I would definitely re-read those. I also do like, and Byrne himself has mentioned this, that he liked to do “cross-pollination” of heroes/villains, hence why his FF run gave us an encounter between the FF and Dr. Octopus (not necessarily a full-blown fight). And he had Joker show up in a Superman comic. Not the first person to do a Superman/Joker encounter, but I did enjoy that story. I do feel his Superman run has been influential, with the likes of Lois and Clark, Superman Adventures and maybe even Smallville being inspired by it. Man of Steel cast a long shadow for years afterwards, and while I’m sure countless reboots negated that shadow, it was a shadow for many years. Subjective though it is, Nick Jones, currently editing Hachette’s DC Heroes & Villains Collection, chose MOS as one of the volumes he would include. There have been countless re-releases of that story. And I agree, the vernacular in most of comicdom about that X-Men period tends to be Byrne/Claremont. |
|
