|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 2, 2017 12:05:44 GMT -5
In the 80s, when MArvle and DC wanted to create the biggest comic project ever using their flagship properties in the JLA/Avengers cross-over, it was Perez they turned to, not Byrne to do the job because that's what fans at the time wanted to see and who creators and editors wanted to work with. Now the project didn't happen because Shooter couldn't play nice and it took almost 20 years and a couple of regime changes for a JLA/Avengers to happen with Perez still attached to it, and the biggest impetus behind it was that people wanted to see what Perez could do with it. By the late 90s when Marvel desperately needed to revitalize their main line of books after Heroes Reborn they first went and got Perez to do Avengers and found a writer later to work with him (it was supposed to be Englehart but that didn't work out and it became Busiek). they didn't turn to Byrne because his attempts to revitalize Marvel characters (like Spider-Man) had been disastrous. In the 70s and 80s, the two essentially went tit for tat with their accomplishments and renown, with a slight edge to Byrne, but by the time you move into the late 80s and 90s, Byrne's rep and successes were already falling off while Perez's was still growing and he was still getting prestigious projects because he was still delivering and Byrne was disappointing. It's a close race, but it we take their entire ouevre from the 70s to the 90s as the op outlines, then I think the edge goes to Perez. -M Perez was more the choice on JLA/Avengers because he had done both books, by that point (JLA very recently). He was also working at DC and it was DC's turn to produce the crossover (they alternated them). I always wondered if Shooter's problems lay exclusively with Conway's writing. Leaving aside that he did derail the whole thing by sitting on it, rather than trying to give constructive feedback, until they finally just shelved it, the premise that I recall, sounded a bit weak. The Lord of Time was never that strong of a character and having him and Kang as the villains just sounded a bit weak for a pairing of these two teams. If left to Shooter, I suspect he would have gone for something more like Korvac, where you have one really big threat, necessitating everyone. Had the team-up been X-Men/JLA, to be done by Marvel, I think they would have turned to Byrne. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 12:16:30 GMT -5
In the 80s, when MArvle and DC wanted to create the biggest comic project ever using their flagship properties in the JLA/Avengers cross-over, it was Perez they turned to, not Byrne to do the job because that's what fans at the time wanted to see and who creators and editors wanted to work with. Now the project didn't happen because Shooter couldn't play nice and it took almost 20 years and a couple of regime changes for a JLA/Avengers to happen with Perez still attached to it, and the biggest impetus behind it was that people wanted to see what Perez could do with it. By the late 90s when Marvel desperately needed to revitalize their main line of books after Heroes Reborn they first went and got Perez to do Avengers and found a writer later to work with him (it was supposed to be Englehart but that didn't work out and it became Busiek). they didn't turn to Byrne because his attempts to revitalize Marvel characters (like Spider-Man) had been disastrous. In the 70s and 80s, the two essentially went tit for tat with their accomplishments and renown, with a slight edge to Byrne, but by the time you move into the late 80s and 90s, Byrne's rep and successes were already falling off while Perez's was still growing and he was still getting prestigious projects because he was still delivering and Byrne was disappointing. It's a close race, but it we take their entire ouevre from the 70s to the 90s as the op outlines, then I think the edge goes to Perez. -M Perez was more the choice on JLA/Avengers because he had done both books, by that point (JLA very recently). He was also working at DC and it was DC's turn to produce the crossover (they alternated them). I always wondered if Shooter's problems lay exclusively with Conway's writing. Leaving aside that he did derail the whole thing by sitting on it, rather than trying to give constructive feedback, until they finally just shelved it, the premise that I recall, sounded a bit weak. The Lord of Time was never that strong of a character and having him and Kang as the villains just sounded a bit weak for a pairing of these two teams. If left to Shooter, I suspect he would have gone for something more like Korvac, where you have one really big threat, necessitating everyone. Had the team-up been X-Men/JLA, to be done by Marvel, I think they would have turned to Byrne. I'm not so sure, they didn't turn to Byrne when they did X-Men/Titans. Byrne had friends in editorial at Marvel and he didn't really get DC invites until some of those friends left Marvel to work at DC. And when his work didn't resonate with fans in the 90s, it was those friends who kept feeding him work despite the titles he did not being well received. When those friends left, his pipeline for work dried up. Byrne certainly was a big name, but aside from the clique of editorial friends, not many wanted to work with him, so I am not sure he would have been tapped for difficult hot potato project like an inter-company cross-over. Byrne certainly was talented and got his chances, but he often dropped the ball and burned bridges. Perez took the opportunities he was given and ran with them, creating more opportunities from a wider range of people offering jobs. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 12:24:25 GMT -5
Really tough question. Both did awesome work that I really enjoyed.
In the 70's & 80's I preferred Byrne more than Perez. However from the 1990's to present day I prefer Perez more than Byrne.
At his peak I think Byrne was better than Perez however Perez was more consistent over his entire career.
I would give a slight edge to Perez.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 2, 2017 12:28:16 GMT -5
Perez was more the choice on JLA/Avengers because he had done both books, by that point (JLA very recently). He was also working at DC and it was DC's turn to produce the crossover (they alternated them). I always wondered if Shooter's problems lay exclusively with Conway's writing. Leaving aside that he did derail the whole thing by sitting on it, rather than trying to give constructive feedback, until they finally just shelved it, the premise that I recall, sounded a bit weak. The Lord of Time was never that strong of a character and having him and Kang as the villains just sounded a bit weak for a pairing of these two teams. If left to Shooter, I suspect he would have gone for something more like Korvac, where you have one really big threat, necessitating everyone. Had the team-up been X-Men/JLA, to be done by Marvel, I think they would have turned to Byrne. I'm not so sure, they didn't turn to Byrne when they did X-Men/Titans. Byrne had friends in editorial at Marvel and he didn't really get DC invites until some of those friends left Marvel to work at DC. And when his work didn't resonate with fans in the 90s, it was those friends who kept feeding him work despite the titles he did not being well received. When those friends left, his pipeline for work dried up. Byrne certainly was a big name, but aside from the clique of editorial friends, not many wanted to work with him, so I am not sure he would have been tapped for difficult hot potato project like an inter-company cross-over. Byrne certainly was talented and got his chances, but he often dropped the ball and burned bridges. Perez took the opportunities he was given and ran with them, creating more opportunities from a wider range of people offering jobs. -M Well, the story that has been told about X-Men/Teen Titans was that Claremont and Louise Simonson were discussing it and Claremont gave his pitch of Darkseid and Dark Phoenix, and Walt popped in and demanded to do the book. I'm sure that wasn't the actual sequence of events; but, I suspect Weezy probably shared the idea with Walt and he begged to do the book. Probably had to wash the dishes for 6 months to get it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 2, 2017 13:31:00 GMT -5
I'm not so sure, they didn't turn to Byrne when they did X-Men/Titans. Byrne had friends in editorial at Marvel and he didn't really get DC invites until some of those friends left Marvel to work at DC. And when his work didn't resonate with fans in the 90s, it was those friends who kept feeding him work despite the titles he did not being well received. When those friends left, his pipeline for work dried up. Byrne certainly was a big name, but aside from the clique of editorial friends, not many wanted to work with him, so I am not sure he would have been tapped for difficult hot potato project like an inter-company cross-over. Byrne certainly was talented and got his chances, but he often dropped the ball and burned bridges. Perez took the opportunities he was given and ran with them, creating more opportunities from a wider range of people offering jobs. -M Well, the story that has been told about X-Men/Teen Titans was that Claremont and Louise Simonson were discussing it and Claremont gave his pitch of Darkseid and Dark Phoenix, and Walt popped in and demanded to do the book. I'm sure that wasn't the actual sequence of events; but, I suspect Weezy probably shared the idea with Walt and he begged to do the book. Probably had to wash the dishes for 6 months to get it. Back then John also made it clear that he didn't want to do the X-Men anymore, despite the clamouring fans' demands. (In fact, when he finally started drawing Wolverine again for issue #11, he signed the cover "never say never again"). |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 2, 2017 13:35:07 GMT -5
Back then John also made it clear that he didn't want to do the X-Men anymore, despite the clamouring fans' demands. (In fact, when he finally started drawing Wolverine again for issue #11, he signed the cover "never say never again"). At a convention right after Dark Phoenix, he wore a shirt that said "she's dead and she's going to stay dead." That might've added to him not wanting to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 2, 2017 13:41:57 GMT -5
I can only mention what was posted in the Just Saying thread about Perez and Byrne, that the latter's earlier work (which brought him to any sort of prominence) was only successful thanks to the more-than-shaping inks of Terry Austin. Moreover, by the start of the 80's, George Perez (who--in the 1970s--had already dazzled comic fans on The Avengers and the film adaptation of Logan's Run) had made an earth-shaking splash (and slight streamlining of his style) with DC's The New Teen Titans. Perez not only mastered the superhero style in a dramatic, plus wildly detail-oriented manner not seen since Neal Adams and Jim Aparo's heydays, but was one of the few artists capable of illustrating any character--an extremely rare talent in the annals of comic history. For example, Byrne (like Kirby) could not illustrate an acceptable Batman or Spider-Man if his life depended on it, but Perez had no trouble understanding the characters, and how to (if necessary) run with the traditions of the characters' best artists before him. I remember the 80s well, and Perez--moving from The New Teen Titans (and gracing other titles), to one of the few truly grand comic events of the remainder of the century ( Crisis on Infinite Earths) put most of the superhero-illustrating end of the industry on notice in the sense that one could always reach new heights. Byrne did not break similar ground, with his work (particularly post-Austin) just reduced to more of the same, not very self aware "Byrne-isms" that also plagued Kirby during the latter's last stint at Marvel. Totally agree with RR here. Byrne is one of those artists I've enjoyed on any character he's done. I've liked his Batman and really, really like his Spidey. BTW, to clarify, is this thread / poll about the person as artist or creator ? The thread title is artist but the poll says creator, which is how my vote was decided. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 2, 2017 18:29:23 GMT -5
In the 80s, when MArvle and DC wanted to create the biggest comic project ever using their flagship properties in the JLA/Avengers cross-over, it was Perez they turned to, not Byrne to do the job because that's what fans at the time wanted to see and who creators and editors wanted to work with. Now the project didn't happen because Shooter couldn't play nice and it took almost 20 years and a couple of regime changes for a JLA/Avengers to happen with Perez still attached to it, and the biggest impetus behind it was that people wanted to see what Perez could do with it. By the late 90s when Marvel desperately needed to revitalize their main line of books after Heroes Reborn they first went and got Perez to do Avengers and found a writer later to work with him (it was supposed to be Englehart but that didn't work out and it became Busiek). they didn't turn to Byrne because his attempts to revitalize Marvel characters (like Spider-Man) had been disastrous. In the 70s and 80s, the two essentially went tit for tat with their accomplishments and renown, with a slight edge to Byrne, but by the time you move into the late 80s and 90s, Byrne's rep and successes were already falling off while Perez's was still growing and he was still getting prestigious projects because he was still delivering and Byrne was disappointing. It's a close race, but it we take their entire ouevre from the 70s to the 90s as the op outlines, then I think the edge goes to Perez. -M agree with a lot of what you wrote her except - 1. The reason Perez was attached to the JLA/Avengers project is because Byrne had never drawn the JLA up till that point. 2. Perez disappeared after his departure from DC for a few years doing minor and largely unseen work for Ultraverse and a few other publishers mostly doing dreck, while Byrne after doing his Nextmen series was doing work for DC on Jack Kirbys fourth world, Wonder woman, And was quite prolific. I can Argue that if he hadn't done the Avengers series in 1998, he might not be even in this conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 19:15:51 GMT -5
In the 80s, when MArvle and DC wanted to create the biggest comic project ever using their flagship properties in the JLA/Avengers cross-over, it was Perez they turned to, not Byrne to do the job because that's what fans at the time wanted to see and who creators and editors wanted to work with. Now the project didn't happen because Shooter couldn't play nice and it took almost 20 years and a couple of regime changes for a JLA/Avengers to happen with Perez still attached to it, and the biggest impetus behind it was that people wanted to see what Perez could do with it. By the late 90s when Marvel desperately needed to revitalize their main line of books after Heroes Reborn they first went and got Perez to do Avengers and found a writer later to work with him (it was supposed to be Englehart but that didn't work out and it became Busiek). they didn't turn to Byrne because his attempts to revitalize Marvel characters (like Spider-Man) had been disastrous. In the 70s and 80s, the two essentially went tit for tat with their accomplishments and renown, with a slight edge to Byrne, but by the time you move into the late 80s and 90s, Byrne's rep and successes were already falling off while Perez's was still growing and he was still getting prestigious projects because he was still delivering and Byrne was disappointing. It's a close race, but it we take their entire ouevre from the 70s to the 90s as the op outlines, then I think the edge goes to Perez. -M agree with a lot of what you wrote her except - 1. The reason Perez was attached to the JLA/Avengers project is because Byrne had never drawn the JLA up till that point. 2. Perez disappeared after his departure from DC for a few years doing minor and largely unseen work for Ultraverse and a few other publishers mostly doing dreck, while Byrne after doing his Nextmen series was doing work for DC on Jack Kirbys fourth world, Wonder woman, And was quite prolific. I can Argue that if he hadn't done the Avengers series in 1998, he might not be even in this conversation. After DC he returned to Marvel to do Future Imperfect with Peter David, started Infinity Gauntlet with Starlin, did the Epic series Sachs and Violens with Peter David, launched his own Crimson Plague series, etc. and I would put Byne's Nextmen as derivative series barely a step up from dreck while Perez was doing stuff that hadn't been seen before. He went to Malibu because they were offering rights to own what you created and had been formed under the auspices of creator rights by a group of creators such as Steve Gerber, Steve Englehart and other veterans who wanted to own what they created while Byrne was doing the same with the Maverick label and with all the stuff that came out of that Maverick label Next Men was the least successful for the most part and had the least staying power. When Malibu folded (because Marvel decided it wanted it coloring process and leveraged a takeover) Perez focused on some creator owned stuff with the Gorilla label at Image reviving his Crimson Plague before returning to Marvel to do the Heroes Reborn Avengers gig. While Byrne was doing stuff like Chapter One, Hidden Years and Lost Generation because his friends were the editors feeding him work that he took because his creator owned stuff wasn't selling well enough. If Byrne's only output had been his 90s stuff we wouldn't be having this conversation either. He did good work early in his career but started coasting on his reputation and that combined with his ego and inability to play well with others limited his options and tarnished his reputation in the industry. -M |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 2, 2017 20:36:22 GMT -5
Perez was more the choice on JLA/Avengers because he had done both books, by that point (JLA very recently). He was also working at DC and it was DC's turn to produce the crossover (they alternated them). I always wondered if Shooter's problems lay exclusively with Conway's writing. Leaving aside that he did derail the whole thing by sitting on it, rather than trying to give constructive feedback, until they finally just shelved it, the premise that I recall, sounded a bit weak. The Lord of Time was never that strong of a character and having him and Kang as the villains just sounded a bit weak for a pairing of these two teams. If left to Shooter, I suspect he would have gone for something more like Korvac, where you have one really big threat, necessitating everyone. Had the team-up been X-Men/JLA, to be done by Marvel, I think they would have turned to Byrne. I'm not so sure, they didn't turn to Byrne when they did X-Men/Titans. Byrne had friends in editorial at Marvel and he didn't really get DC invites until some of those friends left Marvel to work at DC. And when his work didn't resonate with fans in the 90s, it was those friends who kept feeding him work despite the titles he did not being well received. When those friends left, his pipeline for work dried up. Byrne certainly was a big name, but aside from the clique of editorial friends, not many wanted to work with him, so I am not sure he would have been tapped for difficult hot potato project like an inter-company cross-over. Byrne certainly was talented and got his chances, but he often dropped the ball and burned bridges. Perez took the opportunities he was given and ran with them, creating more opportunities from a wider range of people offering jobs. -M Very interesting, and it lines up with what I have read about some comic pros' general feelings about Byrne (working with him or not). Aside from any of Byrne's unattractive personality traits, the choice of Simonson for the Teen Titans / X-Men crossover speaks volumes about how other artist were seen as talented enough to effectively handle such a formidable task as a crossover with the two hottest group comic characters of the age--while Byrne was (likely) in a "don't call us, we'll call you" status. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 2, 2017 20:53:08 GMT -5
agree with a lot of what you wrote her except - 1. The reason Perez was attached to the JLA/Avengers project is because Byrne had never drawn the JLA up till that point. 2. Perez disappeared after his departure from DC for a few years doing minor and largely unseen work for Ultraverse and a few other publishers mostly doing dreck, while Byrne after doing his Nextmen series was doing work for DC on Jack Kirbys fourth world, Wonder woman, And was quite prolific. I can Argue that if he hadn't done the Avengers series in 1998, he might not be even in this conversation. After DC he returned to Marvel to do Future Imperfect with Peter David, started Infinity Gauntlet with Starlin, did the Epic series Sachs and Violens with Peter David, launched his own Crimson Plague series, etc. and I would put Byne's Nextmen as derivative series barely a step up from dreck while Perez was doing stuff that hadn't been seen before. He went to Malibu because they were offering rights to own what you created and had been formed under the auspices of creator rights by a group of creators such as Steve Gerber, Steve Englehart and other veterans who wanted to own what they created while Byrne was doing the same with the Maverick label and with all the stuff that came out of that Maverick label Next Men was the least successful for the most part and had the least staying power. When Malibu folded (because Marvel decided it wanted it coloring process and leveraged a takeover) Perez focused on some creator owned stuff with the Gorilla label at Image reviving his Crimson Plague before returning to Marvel to do the Heroes Reborn Avengers gig. While Byrne was doing stuff like Chapter One, Hidden Years and Lost Generation because his friends were the editors feeding him work that he took because his creator owned stuff wasn't selling well enough. If Byrne's only output had been his 90s stuff we wouldn't be having this conversation either. He did good work early in his career but started coasting on his reputation and that combined with his ego and inability to play well with others limited his options and tarnished his reputation in the industry. -M Bryne was busy during those years that you claim "his friends were the editors feeding him work" Let's take a closer look at the 90's- 2112NextmenShe HulkBabeWonder WomanNew GodsJK Fourth WorldSpider-ManBatman and Superman : GenerationsX-men Hidden YearsMarvel Lost YearsGenerationsHe wasn't lacking for work at the time. As for Perez in the 90's- Infinity Gauntlet- 3 issues
Future Imperfect
Ultraverse books- none of which he owned
Silver Surfer- which was forgettable
The Dan Jurgens Teen Titans which he was only inking
Crimson PlagueAnd then he took the book that revived his floundering career Avengers with Kurt Busiek. After that he did the awesome JLA/Avengers but took on crappy titles like the Brave and the Bold and Legion of three worlds since. So, he did some great books but if you think Crimson Plague and his Silver Surfer books can match what Byrne was doing around the same time, maybe you have to re-read Byrnes stuff and subtract the hate. Yes, i'll be the first one to say that Byrne has acted like a D**k in the last 15 years but Perez didn't endear himself recently when he said he wouldn't go to cons in the states that voted for Trump. Huh??? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 21:29:13 GMT -5
Next Men is Byrne looking at what Liefled did with Youngblood and Lee did with Wild CATS, essentially filing off the serial numbers of Marvel characters and stories and recycling them and saying hey, I can do that and churning out a series of uninspired stories under the Maverick label expecting his rep to carry the sales on the books. It's telling that Next Men is perhaps the only Maverick series that hasn't gone on to become an evergreen seller in trades and gotten greater exposure through film adaptations or other media adaptations. And most of those DC assignments came from his Marvel editor friends who left Marvel and then were at DC. His wonder Woman run was poorly received and didn't sell that well, same with Hiddne Years, Spidey Chapter One etc. The indy stuff he did was self-indulgent pap, and sold poorly and was not well received by fans. Byrne's 90s work was a string of mediocre selling books to outright duds that lowered his reputation while Perez's work increased his rep and the demand for him on bigger projects cementing his status and his legacy. He also spent a large chunk of time in the 90s working on the Game OGN featuring the New Teen Titans that got cancelled/delayed because he was having health issues (which eventually got finished and released a few years ago). He took gigs in the 90s with Malibu and Tekno Comix because they were offering better page rates than either Marvel or DC and he was having those health concerns and attendant medical expenses. It's aslo a big reason he was enticed to join the staff at CrossGen in the early 2000s becaue they offered a benefits package including health insurance, something freelancers never got from their employers.
I have a lot of respect for Byrne's body of work in the 70s and early 80s but by the 90s he was coasting on his rep and the good graces of his few friends in the industry. When both got used up, he was no longer getting work and his creator-owned stuff wasn't selling well enough for even IDW to keep it going. He was very influential and very important in the Bronze Age, but since his work has only tarnished his rep not enhanced it. Perez's last bit of work at DC during the new52 launch did a bit of the same to his rep among newer fans, and Sirens struggled to find an audience before George's health issues made it difficult to keep working. Byrne is healthy enough to still work, but no one wants his work anymore and he makes his living mostly doing commissions to the die hard fans who still love him and his work, a tribute to the strength of his early work at Marvel and DC.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 3, 2017 0:02:32 GMT -5
I voted Perez but this is a bit of a weird question for me because I think both guys did their best work in the 70s: Perez in his first Avengers run and Byrne on Iron Fist, Marvel Team-Up, and his run on the X-Men, though I suppose those Byrne examples extend into the early 80s. Perez OTOH, started to look better in the late 90s, when he came back to the Avengers and afterwards. Though to be honest I haven't seen a whole lot of either artist's work from the mid 80s onwards.
I don't rate Byrne as a writer at all so that doesn't lend him any weight in this contest, for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Aug 3, 2017 2:10:42 GMT -5
I quite liked Byrnes work in the 80s,liked what he did with FF and Superman, BUT George Freaking Perez man...no contest whatsoeverarooni...
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 3, 2017 2:39:10 GMT -5
I did buy and read Perez's Sirens, since that was mentioned. I thought the artwork looked good but must admit I found the story convoluted to the point that I didn't follow the intricacies too closely after the third issue or so. But I don't want to sound too negative about the writing - my experience could be entirely due to my own failings as a reader and even so, the general idea of what was going on was pretty clear. I think anyone who likes Perez's art would enjoy the series. Also, there were long intervals between some issues so I'll try re-reading it all in one go sometime to see if it works better as a story for me that way.
|
|
