Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 13, 2018 8:23:03 GMT -5
I think Byrne's art was excellent from the late 70's through the early 80's, and then good through the mid-80's. I think he suffers when inked by himself, because he takes shortcuts. Inked by Terry Austin was great, though.
Once he left for DC, it all started downhill - both writing and art. Too much power, shortcuts, indulgences. There are a couple highlights, like Batman/Captain America, but that's about it. His art got very... dirty looking, like he was drawing everything with a Sharpie slowly running out of ink. No thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Sept 13, 2018 8:33:42 GMT -5
I won't attack Bryne's competence directly, (though now that Crimebuster mentions it, I do remember Terry Austin improving his art) it's more his style. Like people always say McFarlane's humans look, well inhuman. I'd put Bryne in that category too. He's not bad that I avoid his art, but it's never wow'ed me and I never sought it out. And for the most part, the best of his writing; FF or She-Hulk would have improved greatly with a different artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 13, 2018 12:10:50 GMT -5
I will say that I am a little less enamored of Claremont's style than I used to be. The so-called Claremontisms kinda get on my nerves now, and I finally empathize with Byrne regarding his overwriting. But still, a guy who knew what he was doing. In this age of decompression, I find Claremont's writing idiosyncrasies rather nostalgic and enjoyable. The long captions with mood settings, descriptions, thoughts and such, heck, reading a classic X-Men issue takes some quality time versus the quick breeze-through of most of today's writing. Oh, I like the pacing of the stories just fine; I was talking more about the word count per panel. I understand your nostalgia and I'm not one of those kids who things old comics are too "wordy." But maybe there is just a little more in some of his work than there needs to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 13, 2018 12:22:01 GMT -5
At this point I find Claremont's writing almost unreadable. The overwriting is ridiculous and consistently violates the "show don't tell" rule...though that rule wasn't even a guideline through most of the 70s and 80s. I don't need the writer describing to me what the art is already portraying. And his tics are so prominent that you can make a drinking game of them and get plowed by the end of almost any issue of X-Men. The constant overuse of cliches, the ejaculation of foreign phrases, the self-indulgent soliloquies and on and on. As a plotter he was fine. As a scripter he had a small bag of tricks he used over and over to the point of tedium and nausea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 1:48:55 GMT -5
I don't like to debate who better Claremont and/or Byrne -- each of them has their ups and downs and we should applauded them for the good work that they did and skip the "negatives" and all that. I loved them dearly and I don't like to criticize anyone of the things that they done. My favorite Claremont was Iron Fist and the Dark Phoenix Saga of which John was involved in. For John is his work on Man of Steel and his involvement with She-Hulk and Iron Man as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 14, 2018 5:29:16 GMT -5
I don't like to debate who better Claremont and/or Byrne -- each of them has their ups and downs and we should applauded them for the good work that they did and skip the "negatives" and all that. I loved them dearly and I don't like to criticize anyone of the things that they done. My favorite Claremont was Iron Fist and the Dark Phoenix Saga of which John was involved in. For John is his work on Man of Steel and his involvement with She-Hulk and Iron Man as well. Well said. They both did things that brought enjoyment to thousands. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Sept 14, 2018 13:38:48 GMT -5
It's no problem though if someone enjoys different artists and writers from what I enjoy. I kind of like the later Byrne inked by himself or Al Milgrom more than the Terry Austin inked work most people rate highest. To me that verges on the best of Alex Toth and Gil Kane, maybe even Milt Caniff. So it's interesting that people like one thing over another or don't like some creators at all even. It has been the rule though at some forums to not allow 'vs' topics or anything pitting something negatively against something else, it does seem to create tensions. I remember someone way way back who thought I was insane for liking Steve Leialoha art for some reason while to his eyes he was the epitome of a bad artist, never could understand but it was 'interesting', and we got along otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Sept 14, 2018 14:09:24 GMT -5
It's no problem though if someone enjoys different artists and writers from what I enjoy. I kind of like the later Byrne inked by himself or Al Milgrom more than the Terry Austin inked work most people rate highest. To me that verges on the best of Alex Toth and Gil Kane, maybe even Milt Caniff. So it's interesting that people like one thing over another or don't like some creators at all even. It has been the rule though at some forums to not allow 'vs' topics or anything pitting something negatively against something else, it does seem to create tensions. I remember someone way way back who thought I was insane for liking Steve Leialoha art for some reason while to his eyes he was the epitome of a bad artist, never could understand but it was 'interesting', and we got along otherwise. My thread title was poorly chosen. I did not intend for people to debate whether they thought Claremont or Byrne was better, though I can see in retrospect how the title encourages that discussion. I was riffing off of the "Fantastic Four vs X-Men" miniseries which I am reviewing in my "Supplemental X-Men Series" thread, and reflecting how Claremont was using that miniseries to step out of his usual X-Men authorial role to tell a story focused on the Fantastic Four, long regarded as one of Byrne's definitive works. That in turn led me to think about the ongoing meta-story of Claremont and Byrne commenting on each other's work within their stories. I wasn't trying to argue one of them as superior to the other, let alone to provoke comments that the real contest was which of them was "the shittiest." That sort of comment seems grossly inappropriate for this group and for this thread, and I was frankly apalled to see how many "likes" it got from the senior members of this community. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 14, 2018 16:36:56 GMT -5
At this point I find Claremont's writing almost unreadable. The overwriting is ridiculous and consistently violates the "show don't tell" rule...though that rule wasn't even a guideline through most of the 70s and 80s. I don't need the writer describing to me what the art is already portraying. (...) I summon Michael P. Palladino, from Semper Fi #2!  The art show Whittier being hit by a V.C. bullet. But perhaps he wasn't, really? «Ugh! I'm hit!» says he --O.K., he was hit all right. Unless he's prone to exaggeration? A V.C. bullet slams into Whittier, confirms the omnipotent narrator. Guess this is it, then. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 14, 2018 19:02:34 GMT -5
I remember someone way way back who thought I was insane for liking Steve Leialoha art for some reason while to his eyes he was the epitome of a bad artist, never could understand but it was 'interesting', and we got along otherwise. He's an artist whose style varied quite a bit. I loved his work on Spider-Woman; on New Mutants (where he seemed to be emulating Bill Sienkiewicz), not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 14, 2018 20:51:27 GMT -5
Leialoha is among my top five favorite inkers on Gene Colan. Their work on Howard the Duck was gorgeous.
Cei-U!
I summon the "Waaughh!"
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 14, 2018 22:25:33 GMT -5
Leialoha is among my top five favorite inkers on Gene Colan. Their work on Howard the Duck was gorgeous. I forgot that he inked those! Yeah nice! |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 15, 2018 3:13:40 GMT -5
I like Leialoha's work in general; I *loved* his finishes over Sal Buscema's pencils/layouts in Marvel Team-up #s 82-85 (my favorite multi-part story in that series).
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 15, 2018 5:02:07 GMT -5
I hold a grudge against Leialoha for making the final chapter of Starlins Magus saga look crappy. The inker is so important and he made the figures really look odd after the likes of Starlin and Milgroms inks in the previous chapters.  |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 15, 2018 5:32:03 GMT -5
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I actually dug out my copies of Warlock special edition reprints and flipped through them just to compare the art in the various phases. I find the art in Starlin's entire Warlock saga - from start to finish in the two 1977 annuals - top-notch, regardless of the inker.
|
|
