|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 4, 2017 7:21:28 GMT -5
Neither ever held enough appeal to me to grant buying any of their works. But I must say that Perez WW indeed seems like an artist with far greater potential - alas not for me, the world is to big. Also, I must confess I enjoyed as a kid Byrn's writing on Action comics, those issues wit Demon especially (was it Action comics?)...
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 4, 2017 8:18:15 GMT -5
I think that's a pretty accurate description.
Not sure anyone else had that kind of style at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 4, 2017 8:49:50 GMT -5
Neither ever held enough appeal to me to grant buying any of their works. But I must say that Perez WW indeed seems like an artist with far greater potential - alas not for me, the world is to big. Also, I must confess I enjoyed as a kid Byrn's writing on Action comics, those issues wit Demon especially (was it Action comics?)... Yep it was Action Comics. Welcome back BTW ! |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 4, 2017 9:21:16 GMT -5
as a 'scritcher' and layout person, this poll is the eqivalent of the Kobayashi Maru test.
during the 80's/90's both had so much to offer, both as 'just pencillers' but also as auteurs.
perez had the pathos/empathy, tempo, pacing, hands down. he was 'fellini' and Huston, if likened to film directors. mixed with the best 70's tv which tugged at your heart, like MASH.
byrne had 'sense of wonder', big fx budget, fab 'creative-designs' and razor-sharp finesse; he was 'a rated PG HR Giger' mixed with george lucas on a mediocre day but through the lens of great anime.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 4, 2017 9:59:16 GMT -5
In 2015, our Classic Comics Christmas assignment was creators who both wrote and illustrated. Perez was #10 on my list. Here's the write-up I provided: #10. George Perez In addition to being a favorite artist of mine, Perez has the unique honor of being (so far as I know) the only comic book creator to ever single-handedly define a core American superhero. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Captain America and the like were all the products of creative teams, and even their most iconic iterations were the results of more than one contributor*, but Perez spent half a decade making one of the most iconic heroes in American Mythology entirely his own. Instead of depicting WW as just the girl of the group, or relying on easy tropes like being a strong but simplistic feminist, a femme fatale, or an aggressive and tough Amazon warrior, he gave Diana a rich and endearing complexity that truly stuck, and he reinforced it through both his writing and his artwork. The image above conveys it perfectly: though she is both strong and attractive, neither are emphasized -- instead what comes across is her idealism, naivete, courage, and joy. She is infinitely complex and real, never reducible to a stereotype, and Perez's writing and art worked together to give us this amazing spirit and personality. I'm not convinced anyone ever captured the character better, before or after. This is the definitive Wonder Woman, and Perez did it all on his own. * Yes, you could argue Frank Miller did this with Batman too, but he did it for all of four issues, not a full run, and I would argue his interpretation was heavily influenced by the work of creative teams that came before him. To be fair, I've yet to read Byrne's Fantastic Four run, but I think you folks are being overly generous about his work on Superman (this coming from the guy who has intricately studied each and everyone of those stories). Byrne's Superman was anything but remarkable as a character, his stories were often clumsy, his visuals often lazy, and he gave us the Barda/Sleeze storyline. Man of Steel #2 was the most brilliant work Byrne ever did on Superman, but it all went downhill from there. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 4, 2017 10:25:06 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. That juxtaposition is part of why I love his work so much. Also, Byrne's backgrounds were always spacious and realistic, particularly in outdoor environments, which brought an extra sense of reality to the Marvel universe in my eyes. Looking back, his art started changing for the worse after his underrated Namor run. First I ever heard of that Namor run, I'll have to check it out. Though for me his style had already changed enough by then that I don't find myself attracted to it the way I am to his 70s work. I meant to add earlier that another reason i voted Perez is that I like what I consider his best stuff even more than I do Byrne's. edit: The lesson to be taken from Byrne's career is: Never trust a Canadian! Interestingly, wiki describes him as a "British-born American comic book artist and writer". Is that how he likes to be thought of now, I wonder? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 4, 2017 10:27:43 GMT -5
To be fair, I've yet to read Byrne's Fantastic Four run, but I think you folks are being overly generous about his work on Superman (this coming from the guy who has intricately studied each and everyone of those stories). Byrne's Superman was anything but remarkable as a character, his stories were often clumsy, his visuals often lazy, and he gave us the Barda/Sleeze storyline. Man of Steel #2 was the most brilliant work Byrne ever did on Superman, but it all went downhill from there. For what it's worth, I thought Byrne's Superman was far inferior to his work on Fantastic Four. I dropped the mag after the man of steel and Superman #1, and the few later issues I got were definitely meh. By contrast, his FF were must-have comics for almost the entire run. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,215 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 5, 2017 6:28:12 GMT -5
I can't answer this question because, on the one hand I think Perez is probably the better artist and draftsman, but I've enjoyed more comics drawn and written by Byrne than I have Perez.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 5, 2017 6:39:48 GMT -5
In 2015, our Classic Comics Christmas assignment was creators who both wrote and illustrated. Perez was #10 on my list. Here's the write-up I provided: To be fair, I've yet to read Byrne's Fantastic Four run, but I think you folks are being overly generous about his work on Superman (this coming from the guy who has intricately studied each and everyone of those stories). Byrne's Superman was anything but remarkable as a character, his stories were often clumsy, his visuals often lazy, and he gave us the Barda/Sleeze storyline. Man of Steel #2 was the most brilliant work Byrne ever did on Superman, but it all went downhill from there. I enjoyed his Superman run. Being a big Marvel fan, he "Marvelized" Superman and his trappings. When he fought someone, there was considerable property destruction. That always drove home to me the challenge in taking down an opponent, whereas pre-crisis, the violence was much more clean. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 5, 2017 10:39:09 GMT -5
In 2015, our Classic Comics Christmas assignment was creators who both wrote and illustrated. Perez was #10 on my list. Here's the write-up I provided: To be fair, I've yet to read Byrne's Fantastic Four run, but I think you folks are being overly generous about his work on Superman (this coming from the guy who has intricately studied each and everyone of those stories). Byrne's Superman was anything but remarkable as a character, his stories were often clumsy, his visuals often lazy, and he gave us the Barda/Sleeze storyline. Man of Steel #2 was the most brilliant work Byrne ever did on Superman, but it all went downhill from there. I enjoyed his Superman run. Being a big Marvel fan, he "Marvelized" Superman and his trappings. When he fought someone, there was considerable property destruction. That always drove home to me the challenge in taking down an opponent, whereas pre-crisis, the violence was much more clean. He also made Superman ignorant, impulsive, and small-minded. It really bothered me that, in most of his team-ups, his first instinct was to fight or give attitude to the other good guy. It just wasn't Superman, even before Byrne decided to put him in porn films with Barda. |
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Aug 5, 2017 12:21:56 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Man of Steel mini-series and some of the very early Superman (main title) issues, but the writing quality quickly diminished. I never liked Action Comics, Byrne's writing was juvenile, written for a child like audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Aug 5, 2017 12:40:28 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Man of Steel mini-series and some of the very early Superman (main title) issues, but the writing quality quickly diminished. I never liked Action Comics, Byrne's writing was juvenile, written for a child like audience. I hope that at one point there was children in the audience of mainstream comic books, I sure remember being a kid when I read those Action Comics (fond memories of Morgaine le Fey  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 5, 2017 12:47:28 GMT -5
That juxtaposition is part of why I love his work so much. Also, Byrne's backgrounds were always spacious and realistic, particularly in outdoor environments, which brought an extra sense of reality to the Marvel universe in my eyes. Looking back, his art started changing for the worse after his underrated Namor run. First I ever heard of that Namor run, I'll have to check it out. Though for me his style had already changed enough by then that I don't find myself attracted to it the way I am to his 70s work. I meant to add earlier that another reason i voted Perez is that I like what I consider his best stuff even more than I do Byrne's. edit: The lesson to be taken from Byrne's career is: Never trust a Canadian! Interestingly, wiki describes him as a "British-born American comic book artist and writer". Is that how he likes to be thought of now, I wonder? Yes. The man himself, from Byrne robotics: "I've been a citizen of three different countries. I was born in England, so I got that one the easy way. When I was 14, my parents became Canadian citizens, and I floated in with them. Then, in 1988, after having lived in this country the prerequisite number of years, I became an American citizen. (In full. I do not hold dual citizenship. I do not hyphenate myself.) All three were the proper, legal means of gaining citizenship, and while I had the obvious advantage of being White and Middle Class, I really don't think it's too much to ask people entering this country to do so legally." |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 5, 2017 14:12:12 GMT -5
Byrne's Action Comics weren't as complex, but they were fun.
Hopefully some kids picked em up and read em and decided to get some more.
Not Bob Haney-crazy, but those were fun too.
Yeah, the Sleeze story with Barda was weird and stupid, but there was a lot more to enjoy there.
Everyone has one go off kilter now and again.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 5, 2017 14:46:50 GMT -5
Byrne's Action Comics weren't as complex, but they were fun. Hopefully some kids picked em up and read em and decided to get some more. And those kids got to see Superman and Barda make a porn. |
|
).