|
|
Post by comicsandwho on May 17, 2018 3:39:50 GMT -5
That's true, but there are mutually 'Byrned'(heh) bridges in both directions between him and Marvel/DC, dating back to the early 2000s. He wouldn't work for either of them again unless it magically became the early '80s again. Ordway, on the other hand, would work if someone in charge would Google him and actually learn who he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 10:08:48 GMT -5
That's true, but there are mutually 'Byrned'(heh) bridges in both directions between him and Marvel/DC, dating back to the early 2000s. He wouldn't work for either of them again unless it magically became the early '80s again. Ordway, on the other hand, would work if someone in charge would Google him and actually learn who he is. Ordway was under an exclusive contract and DC and was basically paid to do no work (much the way Claremont is/was at Marvel). The exclusive guaranteed a certain amount of work or the pay for it, and DC chose to pay him to produce nothing for a few years. I think the contract ended a few years ago, but it's not like nobody knew who he was, it's that that style of art is considered dated and doesn't appeal to the current marketplace in a lot of editor's eyes, and the sales it would garner don;t justify the higher page rates in their eyes. If you are only selling 20-30K of a book, you have to go with more affordable artists, usually newcomers with lower page rates or you will find the book cancelled quicker because it isn't generating enough revenue to make it worth the publisher's investment. As much as older fans bitch and moan about veteran creators not getting work, when they do, those fans don;t show up with their wallets to support the books and wallets speak much louder than any internet post. As I have said many times before, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 17, 2018 10:44:41 GMT -5
That's true, but there are mutually 'Byrned'(heh) bridges in both directions between him and Marvel/DC, dating back to the early 2000s. He wouldn't work for either of them again unless it magically became the early '80s again. Ordway, on the other hand, would work if someone in charge would Google him and actually learn who he is. Ordway was under an exclusive contract and DC and was basically paid to do no work (much the way Claremont is/was at Marvel). The exclusive guaranteed a certain amount of work or the pay for it, and DC chose to pay him to produce nothing for a few years. I think the contract ended a few years ago, but it's not like nobody knew who he was, it's that that style of art is considered dated and doesn't appeal to the current marketplace in a lot of editor's eyes, and the sales it would garner don;t justify the higher page rates in their eyes. If you are only selling 20-30K of a book, you have to go with more affordable artists, usually newcomers with lower page rates or you will find the book cancelled quicker because it isn't generating enough revenue to make it worth the publisher's investment. As much as older fans bitch and moan about veteran creators not getting work, when they do, those fans don;t show up with their wallets to support the books and wallets speak much louder than any internet post. As I have said many times before, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. -M Ordway always struck me as a guy who could take over Garcia-Lopez's position as "the man" when it comes to advertising and art guides. Clean style, can draw anyone, etc. But you're spot on when it comes to buyers getting what they pay for. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on May 17, 2018 11:06:27 GMT -5
Ordway was under an exclusive contract and DC and was basically paid to do no work (much the way Claremont is/was at Marvel). The exclusive guaranteed a certain amount of work or the pay for it, and DC chose to pay him to produce nothing for a few years. I think the contract ended a few years ago, but it's not like nobody knew who he was, it's that that style of art is considered dated and doesn't appeal to the current marketplace in a lot of editor's eyes, and the sales it would garner don;t justify the higher page rates in their eyes. If you are only selling 20-30K of a book, you have to go with more affordable artists, usually newcomers with lower page rates or you will find the book cancelled quicker because it isn't generating enough revenue to make it worth the publisher's investment. As much as older fans bitch and moan about veteran creators not getting work, when they do, those fans don;t show up with their wallets to support the books and wallets speak much louder than any internet post. As I have said many times before, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. -M Ordway always struck me as a guy who could take over Garcia-Lopez's position as "the man" when it comes to advertising and art guides. Clean style, can draw anyone, etc. But you're spot on when it comes to buyers getting what they pay for. The same thing happens in music. New bands sound bad and non-innovative and boring and over auto-tuned because their fans aren't willing to pay for them to spend more time developing their music and honing their skills. We get what we (refuse to) pay for. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on May 17, 2018 17:55:13 GMT -5
Ordway always struck me as a guy who could take over Garcia-Lopez's position as "the man" when it comes to advertising and art guides. Clean style, can draw anyone, etc. But you're spot on when it comes to buyers getting what they pay for. The same thing happens in music. New bands sound bad and non-innovative and boring and over auto-tuned because their fans aren't willing to pay for them to spend more time developing their music and honing their skills. We get what we (refuse to) pay for. I think you're listening to the wrong new bands!  Regarding your point though, you're correct inasmuch as a lot of modern, big selling pop music sounds formulaic, non-innovative and drastically auto-tuned. But that's not because people don't pay for music and therefore there's no insentive for artists to improve musically. The big selling pop acts make that kind of music precisely because it's what makes them the biggest selling acts. That kind of bland pop music is hugely popular. It gets played a lot on TV and radio, gets streamed a lot, garners a lot of physical sales (proportionately speaking), and generates a lot of ticket sales when those artists tour -- which is where a lot of the money is to be made in the music industry these days. So, you're right that these artists make that kind of music because a LOT of people consume it and therefore the public gets what they pay for. But it's wrong to suggest that these pop acts and the writers, producers and musicians behind them aren't making enough money to bother creating anything better. Musical talent and creative inspiration don't really work like that. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on May 17, 2018 19:09:12 GMT -5
The same thing happens in music. New bands sound bad and non-innovative and boring and over auto-tuned because their fans aren't willing to pay for them to spend more time developing their music and honing their skills. We get what we (refuse to) pay for. I think you're listening to the wrong new bands! Regarding your point though, you're correct inasmuch as a lot of modern, big selling pop music sounds formulaic, non-innovative and drastically auto-tuned. But that's not because people don't pay for music and therefore there's no insentive for artists to improve musically. The big selling pop acts make that kind of music precisely because it's what makes them the biggest selling acts. That kind of bland pop music is hugely popular. It gets played a lot on TV and radio, gets streamed a lot, garners a lot of physical sales (proportionately speaking), and generates a lot of ticket sales when those artists tour -- which is where a lot of the money is to be made in the music industry these days. So, you're right that these artists make that kind of music because a LOT of people consume it and therefore the public gets what they pay for. But it's wrong to suggest that these pop acts and the writers, producers and musicians behind them aren't making enough money to bother creating anything better. Musical talent and creative inspiration don't really work like that. Sure, I listen to lots of great new music, and as you say it's nothing that has a chance of getting played on the radio. Auto-tune does radically cut down on studio time, though, which is important when music sales are a small fraction of what they once were. You won't find artists spending a year in the studio on an album, as The Beatles (later) or Led Zeppelin or Fleetwood Mac or U2 were known to do. Even with cheaper digital recording, the ROI won't support it. And with fewer artists supported by serious record label muscle overall, the base of the quality pyramid is smaller, and the peak less lofty. As you say, artists are now relying more on ticket sales than before, as well as special products and encounters tailored to the superfan market that's willing to shell out a lot for a more personalized experience related to their favorite artists. Plus now the artists are finally figuring out how to become the scalpers, selling the tickets for what the market will bear instead of delegating that task to resale entrepreneurs. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 10, 2018 23:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 11, 2018 4:36:23 GMT -5
Doesn't get much better than that. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 11, 2018 10:55:14 GMT -5
One more...  |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jul 15, 2018 16:09:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 15, 2018 16:21:33 GMT -5
It's a thread on the John Byrne Forum - here's a link to the first page. Just browse through it (there's over 20 pages now), these images are posted intermittently, with much commentary and attempts at inking them by a few forum members. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 16, 2018 16:31:08 GMT -5
I just noticed that Byrne also posted just the panels in their proper order in a separate thread entitled X-MEN: ELSEWHEN in Sequence. He also added dialogue to two of the pages, which can be found on page 14 and page 18 of the original thread. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jul 16, 2018 16:50:36 GMT -5
I just noticed that Byrne also posted just the panels in their proper order in a separate thread entitled X-MEN: ELSEWHEN in Sequence. He also added dialogue to two of the pages, which can be found on page 14 and page 18 of the original thread. Wolverine trying to tickle Kitty for "being naughty"... kinda uncomfortable... |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jul 16, 2018 17:07:09 GMT -5
I think he's trying to spank her, actually. Not sure if that's better or worse - well, slightly better I guess. Tickling would be seriously skeevy.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jul 17, 2018 21:56:35 GMT -5
I'm there but never quite sure how to take some peoples' words on the screen, and feeling like mine come across other than as intended. I guess I'm used to at least a few emoticons which they don't have there. I'm probably just too verbose for the place, not learned, just quantity hoping to achieve quality at least some of the time. I did learn about some cool pirate trading cards by Kurt Schaffenberger which Mr. Byrne mentioned having some of as a kid! Plus some of the many changes imposed upon artist's work at Marvel I never knew about. Yikes!
It is great to see these new pages of 'my' X-Men, as I started with the title with #131, March 1980 cover date. Ideally I'd love it to be inked, colored and published looking as much like a late 1980 Marvel comic as possible. I don't care so much about the continuity, it can have dropped in from another dimension. I thought maybe as #145, but I'll settle for #139, or minus, or zero, or nu number.
|
|
