|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2017 6:29:32 GMT -5
Let me say that I am a big fan of both and understand, as a person gets older, they produce projects that pale as compared to their earlier ones. I just don't think something like this can be decided because Byrne has been an ass for years. Most of the time, I can separate the artist from the things he does " off the field ". I never thought much of Perez as a writer, but one of my most favorite projects ever, is JLA/Avengers. I loved it so much, I bought the omnibus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 3, 2017 8:12:54 GMT -5
Let me say that I am a big fan of both and understand, as a person gets older, they produce projects that pale as compared to their earlier ones. On that score, I'm willing to give Perez more credit than Byrne: his art stayed constant throughout his career, while Byrne seemed to get sloppier starting in the early '90s. With Perez, I don't believe I ever thought "I liked his earlier art better". Absolutely. There are plenty of artists whose work I absolutely love, but whose attitude grates my nerves or whose politics I loathe. In fact, sadly, several of my top five artists in many fields are people I probably couldn't stand. (As many of them are long dead, I guess it really doesn't matter!) |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 3, 2017 8:30:11 GMT -5
I can safely say that i have read and enjoyed far more Perez than Byrne in the later years. Most of Byrne's comics once he left DC lost my interest as he began to delve into his own personal agenda and what he himself wanted to write/draw with little of it having any interest to me. Perez on the other hand while he will delve into personal (Crimson and Sirens) continued to doing "mainstream" things that I would enjoy like Avengers and Legion of 3 Worlds.
But in their beginning years they were equal in pleasure and excitement on anything they did as they both captured the essence of Marvel/DC comic books. It was once they were established superstars that you see the differences begin to emerge between the two. Perez fine tuned his art, going hyper detailed and yet still recognizably Perez. Byrne went hyper sharp/angles/lines losing the lush/round/fullness of his art and there in losing the instant recognition of his art. In their writing Perez showed his love for comics as he helped with the renewal of Superman and Wonder Woman by embracing and uniting older concepts from writers and artists into new iterations of the characters. Byrne showed his insensitivity to comics as he cherry picked and tore apart characters and stories based upon what "HE THOUGHT" was good or bad from past writers and artists with his updated versions of Superman, Spider-Man and New Gods.
Byrne has alienated everyone (from fans to professionals) with his outspoken views and thoughts and become isolated with a fervent group of followers while Perez has enjoyed the bountiful respect and admiration of the fans and professionals. Both have given us delights to enjoy and remember them with for eternity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2017 9:01:33 GMT -5
Brutalis, one day we have to meet. We think alike on many subjects  |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 3, 2017 9:30:33 GMT -5
George Perez is one of the few artists still capable of motivating me to pick up a current comic. John Byrne is not. Don't get me wrong, I like a whole buncha Byrne's comics. i give Perez the edge because he's never stopped growing as a draftsman and a storyteller. I've watched that growth from his early days at Marvel, where his clever layouts made up for his clumsy figure work through his coming to full maturity in JLA/Avengers and his fun Brave and Bold run with Mark Waid. Byrne stopped growing as an artist in the mid-80s. He had his schtick down and it was making him money and boosting his ego so why rock the boat? I get that. I can even respect it. But Perez clearly loves making comics more.
Cei-U!
The fact that George Perez once did me a kindness has nothing to do with my vote!
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 3, 2017 10:31:43 GMT -5
I'd have to say Byrne wins for me as I've followed him much more and enjoyed almost everything. Byrne is also the clear winner as writer for me; his FF run is likely the most reread comics in my collection. I can't think of anything Perez has written other than Wonder Woman and Crimson Plague, which I only ever found one issue of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 3, 2017 15:12:09 GMT -5
I'd have to say Byrne wins for me as I've followed him much more and enjoyed almost everything. Byrne is also the clear winner as writer for me; his FF run is likely the most reread comics in my collection. I can't think of anything Perez has written other than Wonder Woman and Crimson Plague, which I only ever found one issue of. Spider-Man Team-Up # 2, featuring Silver Surfer. (Perez might have actually been writing Silver Surfer at the time, but I only care about team-up books.) For the record: Byrne had a really nice run on Marvel Team-Up, and a shorter, non-consecutive (but still nice!) run on Marvel Two-In-One, and wrote (but not drew) the last issue of the title - featuring the Thing and Ben Grimm! He also wrote all of and drew nearly all of Action Comics 584-600, which were basically the Superman team-up book after DC Comics Presents got cancelled. Perez also drew Marvel Two-In-One (starting one issue after John Byrne left!), and over a year of the second ongoing Brave and the Bold series. He also drew exactly one issue of DC Comics Presents (featuring Superman and Omac, of all people!) wrote Spider-Man team-up... and collaborated with John Byrne on Action Comics # 600 (Superman and Wonder Woman.) |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Aug 3, 2017 17:28:20 GMT -5
Lets be honest here, comics are a visual medium, so despite liking books written by John, for the most part, and liking his art, for the most part, he never, ever, made me go WOW!
I cannot make that same statement about Mr Perez, in fact there are multiple issues of his work that have stunned me. Made the choice real easy for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 3, 2017 19:54:00 GMT -5
Today, I'd go with Perez hands down, but Byrne circa 1977-1990 was the better of the two in my eyes. I think he was a better visual storyteller and I'd give him the edge as a writer. I also think Byrne was more polished and dynamic out of the gate while Perez's early stuff was fairly generic until he hit his stride around 1980. That said, Perez continued to improve as an artist while Byrne seemed to regress.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 3, 2017 20:18:38 GMT -5
Wait
I'm hearing JLA / Avengers, and Brave and the Bold, and those are both 21st century titles.
The thread is about Byrne vs Perez in the 80's and 90's.
I voted Byrne on that criteria.
If it were from that era to now it's no contest it would be Perez.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 3, 2017 21:18:56 GMT -5
Lets be honest here, comics are a visual medium, so despite liking books written by John, for the most part, and liking his art, for the most part, he never, ever, made me go WOW! I cannot make that same statement about Mr Perez, in fact there are multiple issues of his work that have stunned me. Made the choice real easy for me. Byrne has made me go WOW many times. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 3, 2017 21:45:44 GMT -5
Also, is this strictly as an artist, or as a creator ?
The poll says creator, meaning writer/artist, but the thread says artist, where the race is much, much closer IMO.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 4, 2017 0:10:35 GMT -5
Speaking of character/personality, I'll never forget meeting George Perez for the first time at Pittsburgh Comicon in 2012 (back before Wizard World bought it out). The dude was repeatedly getting out from behind his table to meet and take pictures with fans (including me):  ...slowing the line to a full blown stop when a kid asked him advice about illustrating, and signing everything thrown in front of him for free. The man was clearly there because he loved meeting fans and for nothing else -- not to make a profit, not to boost his own ego -- while, a few feet away, Stan Lee was charging $90 per autograph (and far more if you wanted a picture). Perez was a class act, and that's something I've heard echoed by others many times. Few people, if any, seem to have anything bad to say about the man beyond his over-committing to projects at times. Byrne, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 4, 2017 0:37:07 GMT -5
Perez is a class act no question.
How cool that you were with Big George, Shax ?
Yeah, he's a class act, no question.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 4, 2017 1:25:09 GMT -5
Maybe I should put this in the John Byrne thread but it's relevant here too: I find his artwork of the late 70s very aesthetically pleasing: it's just really nice to look at. If I had to analyse it, I'd say his style was unusual in that it managed to combine some relatively cartoonish elements with the Neal Adams-style comic book realism.
|
|
