|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 12:51:37 GMT -5
Byrne was also associated with the start of the modern variant cover craze that props up sales in comics these days as many collectors point to Man of Steel #1 as the origin point for this practice, starting there and slowly building form there until it has become what it is today. -M was HE the start of it, provably, or was it an idea from EDITORIAL? just because an artist gets thrown under the bus for something doesn't mean it was THEIR idea. *collectors' market-comicscrash-cough cough* |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 14:43:17 GMT -5
Byrne was also associated with the start of the modern variant cover craze that props up sales in comics these days as many collectors point to Man of Steel #1 as the origin point for this practice, starting there and slowly building form there until it has become what it is today. -M was HE the start of it, provably, or was it an idea from EDITORIAL? just because an artist gets thrown under the bus for something doesn't mean it was THEIR idea. *collectors' market-comicscrash-cough cough* If he didn't start it, he was complicit in it and his ego probably thought if any creator deserved multiple covers for his big company debut it was him. He also produced the first variant cover since he did the art for both and reaped the finanacial rewards for the extra cover and the extra sales through royalties. He certainly bent over backwards to take as much of the credit for it selling so well with 2 covers, so he should shoulder some of the blame for the consequences of his actions. -M |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 14:55:34 GMT -5
was HE the start of it, provably, or was it an idea from EDITORIAL? just because an artist gets thrown under the bus for something doesn't mean it was THEIR idea. *collectors' market-comicscrash-cough cough* If he didn't start it, he was complicit in it and his ego probably thought if any creator deserved multiple covers for his big company debut it was him. He also produced the first variant cover since he did the art for both and reaped the finanacial rewards for the extra cover and the extra sales through royalties. He certainly bent over backwards to take as much of the credit for it selling so well with 2 covers, so he should shoulder some of the blame for the consequences of his actions. -M as should the editors whom, by your use of the word complicit, must, by definition, be equally complicit. slam byrne for this all you like but slam the editors EQUALLY alongside that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 15:01:42 GMT -5
If he didn't start it, he was complicit in it and his ego probably thought if any creator deserved multiple covers for his big company debut it was him. He also produced the first variant cover since he did the art for both and reaped the finanacial rewards for the extra cover and the extra sales through royalties. He certainly bent over backwards to take as much of the credit for it selling so well with 2 covers, so he should shoulder some of the blame for the consequences of his actions. -M as should the editors whom, by your use of the word complicit, must, by definition, be equally complicit. slam byrne for this all you like but slam the editors EQUALLY alongside that. Actually I place equal blame on the consumers and completists who had to buy one of each cover making it a financial boon to the company and rewarded the decisions and complicitness of the artists and editors involved. But I am sure it came from an even higher level than editor, likely publisher or VP of publishing who saw the chance to make more money and set the policy. It's the same thing I say about all the #1 issues and event storylines, if people didn't buy them in greater numbers than other comics, publishers would have no reason to continue putting them out there, but customers do and their buying habits define the market. Comic fans get the comics (and covers) their buying habits deserve. -M |
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Aug 7, 2017 15:14:46 GMT -5
as should the editors whom, by your use of the word complicit, must, by definition, be equally complicit. slam byrne for this all you like but slam the editors EQUALLY alongside that. Actually I place equal blame on the consumers and completists who had to buy one of each cover making it a financial boon to the company and rewarded the decisions and complicitness of the artists and editors involved. But I am sure it came form an even higher level than editor, likely publisher or VP of publishing who saw the chance to make more money and set the policy. It's the same thing I saw about all the #1 issues and event storylines, if people didn't buy them in greater numbers than other comics, publishers would have no reason to continue putting them out there, but customers do and their buying habits define the market. Comic fans get the comics (and covers) their buying habits deserve. -M as long as you're egalitarian in your blame, as you were above, i have no problem. well said, well written.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 15, 2017 11:33:01 GMT -5
Some continue to mention volume as some credit to Byrne, but in no way did that mean he was a superior talent. He merely jumped on anything pushed his way, but in all of the work he's churned out, he never created / worked on anything of the scale or importance of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Perez had to handle most of the known DC universe (at the period), capturing vastly different emotional and motivational levels of innumerable characters (a near-impossible challenge which he met masterfully), in addition to capturing the unique visual differences of each character involved (something JB's Byrne-isms failed at constantly). Add that to his other DC work at the time, and his true status cannot be underestimated. Perez was on a rare level Byrne never approached, and again, without his brief period of decent work thanks to Terry Austin's inks, Byrne would never reach that aforementioned rare level. It feels like your being disingenuous to Byrne. He had a lot of success after Austin departed Comics. As for Perez, he was known for doing books that had large casts. Every other artist hated team books. Not at all. His most decent work was with Austin, who added his own style to provide a more fluid, visually palatable end result over Byrne's pencils. Post Austin, the unappealing Byrne-isms were unchained (along with his ego), making his work (where nearly all characters looked like they were related) difficult to endure. About large casts (no matter the genre), I can think of many artists who handled that well: Simonson, Adams, Buscema (John), Wood, Infantino, Heck, Kane, Steranko, Dillin, et al. I've never recalled any really admitting they did not like illustrating team books. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 15, 2017 16:55:37 GMT -5
It feels like your being disingenuous to Byrne. He had a lot of success after Austin departed Comics. As for Perez, he was known for doing books that had large casts. Every other artist hated team books. Not at all. His most decent work was with Austin, who added his own style to provide a more fluid, visually palatable end result over Byrne's pencils. Post Austin, the unappealing Byrne-isms were unchained (along with his ego), making his work (where nearly all characters looked like they were related) difficult to endure. About large casts (no matter the genre), I can think of many artists who handled that well: Simonson, Adams, Buscema (John), Wood, Infantino, Heck, Kane, Steranko, Dillin, et al. I've never recalled any really admitting they did not like illustrating team books. I disagree about Byrnes art post Austin. His stuff looked really good when it was inked by Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer and his art looked really good in the legends mini series where Karl Kessel inked him. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 15, 2017 16:57:53 GMT -5
It feels like your being disingenuous to Byrne. He had a lot of success after Austin departed Comics. As for Perez, he was known for doing books that had large casts. Every other artist hated team books. Not at all. His most decent work was with Austin, who added his own style to provide a more fluid, visually palatable end result over Byrne's pencils. Post Austin, the unappealing Byrne-isms were unchained (along with his ego), making his work (where nearly all characters looked like they were related) difficult to endure. About large casts (no matter the genre), I can think of many artists who handled that well: Simonson, Adams, Buscema (John), Wood, Infantino, Heck, Kane, Steranko, Dillin, et al. I've never recalled any really admitting they did not like illustrating team books.I remember reading this a long time ago , that books with large casts were tougher to draw on a regular basis and not all artists wanted to do those books. |
|
