|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 14, 2024 16:13:15 GMT -5
I grew up with more text heavy covers; it all boils down to how the balance is achieved and the aim. Sometimes it draws you in, other times it is just hype to try to sell a product. That said, I've also seen wordless covers that make a pretty image, but don't make me want to open the comic, especially if the cover image is vastly superior to the interior. A lot of low rent indie publishers were guilty of that and even the big guns. Look at Gold Key and compare a George Wilson painted Phantom cover to a Bill Ligante interior story. Ligante illustrated some fine stories; but, Wilson gripped your imagination more. I have to wonder how many people picked up the comic, for the cover, then opened it and saw the interior and put it back in the spinner or on the shelf? A pretty, action filled cover may not sell the comic, if the interior can't match up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 14, 2024 16:14:59 GMT -5
I'm a trembling mass of indifference as long as the art isn't terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 14, 2024 18:00:52 GMT -5
It's completely untrue. And Byrne knows that. He's just a flaming puckered @^*$. Libraries buy the books just like a normal human being does albeit at a discount from the publisher but I'm pretty sure that discount does not come out of the authors royalties. So the author gets the same amount of money from that sale as he/she would if you bought the book. A significant percentage of the books sold are are sold to libraries (I haven't been able to track down the exact percentage). That percentage is higher for academic publishing. Byrne is under the mistaken impression that people who check books out of the library would buy those books if libraries didn't exist. Like with many things, Byrne is abjectly mistaken about that. Yeah; you notice that mainstream authors, who Byrne can only envy for having a massively larger audience, have no issue with their books in libraires. Sounds more like him sniping at the fact that he drove away a significant portion of his audience, either through substandard work or negative public comments and is looking for a scapegoat for his loss in earnings. People like that will always seek someone else on whom to blame their problems. It's not my fault; I'm a genius! I think he bought into his press way too much, in the 80s, and it warped him and his work ever since. Years ago, there was at least one person who seemed to be suggesting a “conspiracy theory” that certain Byrne books were being kept from shelves by some comic stores. As if *any* comic store would throw money away like that. I know there are probably numerous reasons why all kinds of books weren’t sold in stores. My LCS never seemed to stock G.I. Joe (IDW version), and the deputy manager there told me it was because there had never been a demand for it. Fair enough. But it’s quite a leap into “tinfoil hat territory” to believe there was a conspiracy to keep Byrne’s books from the shelves (I should add, in fairness, Byrne himself didn’t seem to believe this). But I have come across a lot of instances of Byrne making excuses about all sorts of things rather than take responsibility for the fact that some of his later work wasn’t appealing. I mean, and I’ll admit to being silly here, I did follow Byrne longer than I should have because of the stuff I did enjoy, but there did reach a point - especially with the “photocopy heroes” - where I just couldn’t justify following and supporting his work based on my decades-long appreciation of the likes of Man of Steel. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 14, 2024 20:35:10 GMT -5
Yeah; you notice that mainstream authors, who Byrne can only envy for having a massively larger audience, have no issue with their books in libraires. Sounds more like him sniping at the fact that he drove away a significant portion of his audience, either through substandard work or negative public comments and is looking for a scapegoat for his loss in earnings. People like that will always seek someone else on whom to blame their problems. It's not my fault; I'm a genius! I think he bought into his press way too much, in the 80s, and it warped him and his work ever since. Years ago, there was at least one person who seemed to be suggesting a “conspiracy theory” that certain Byrne books were being kept from shelves by some comic stores. As if *any* comic store would throw money away like that. I know there are probably numerous reasons why all kinds of books weren’t sold in stores. My LCS never seemed to stock G.I. Joe (IDW version), and the deputy manager there told me it was because there had never been a demand for it. Fair enough. But it’s quite a leap into “tinfoil hat territory” to believe there was a conspiracy to keep Byrne’s books from the shelves (I should add, in fairness, Byrne himself didn’t seem to believe this). But I have come across a lot of instances of Byrne making excuses about all sorts of things rather than take responsibility for the fact that some of his later work wasn’t appealing. I mean, and I’ll admit to being silly here, I did follow Byrne longer than I should have because of the stuff I did enjoy, but there did reach a point - especially with the “photocopy heroes” - where I just couldn’t justify following and supporting his work based on my decades-long appreciation of the likes of Man of Steel. As soon as people start talk about a "conspiracy" to deny access to published material, you know they are making excuses. Really, it is the same as claiming that it wasn't marketed properly or there was editorial interference, or it was ahead of its time. Those are excuses for saying it didn't sell to a wider audience. Now, some of those might be true in some cases, but only to a limited degree. Millions of people didn't avoid the Justice League film because Snyder didn't have final cut. Some did, and some enjoyed it more; but, most people just looked at the trailer and said, "Nope!" If your comic doesn't sell, it's because no one wanted to buy it....or not enough to satisfy you. If you are satisfied that you did your best work, you just move on and try again. The ones who dwell on it probably recognize there are faults and can't look inside to find them, because of the truth they might have to face. There have been conspiracies to deny access to books and magazines, but we are talking about open crusades against them, like book bannings, the 50s comic book witch hunts or political suppression of works of dissidents or "undesirables." Tell John Byrne to talk to Judy Blume about those kind of conspiracies. He has never even ventured into that kind of territory, in his work. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 14, 2024 23:42:36 GMT -5
But I have come across a lot of instances of Byrne making excuses about all sorts of things rather than take responsibility for the fact that some of his later work wasn’t appealing. Such is the personality of a hack who was far overrated as a "creator", and the moment his crud fails, the nebulous "fix" is in for him. He reminds me of Marvel Studios, who fired off instant conspiracy theories why The Marvels and some of other other MCU movies and streaming series bombed, because nahh, their failure could not have been internal, such as terrible ideas, unappealing concepts few wanted to see, and other mismanagement-related problems. Nope, it was the darn internet trolls that brought it all down, because they have a pull over millions of audience members across the globe.... In other words, that's another example of responsible parties never looking within for the source of their failures. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Sept 15, 2024 2:11:17 GMT -5
Years ago, there was at least one person who seemed to be suggesting a “conspiracy theory” that certain Byrne books were being kept from shelves by some comic stores. Byrne actually has a legitimate complaint in one case. In 1997, he did DC's big crossover event for the year, Genesis. It was to be released as 4 weekly issues starting in the first week of August 1997. But on August 4 1997, just a couple days before the first issue would have shipped, United Parcel Service (UPS) went on strike for 15 days, and comics were not delivered to shops except for a few scattered titles here and there. DC, Marvel, and most indies were hit by this, and I think only a few small press books made it through. Maybe a few DC and Marvel titles got shipped, possibly through alternative shipping services, but mostly nothing showed up. So while Byrne was not at the heights of popularity like he was in the 80s, he got a chance to do a company-wide crossover which should have sold pretty well, only for no one to get the first two issues on time. That said, I read one issue of it and several of the titles that crossed over with it, and it was crap. As if *any* comic store would throw money away like that. When I have more time, remind me to tell you about a conversation I had with a comic shop owner earlier that same year. Byrne's name was one of the ones to come up. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 15, 2024 3:32:34 GMT -5
I mean, obviously, there can be legitimate excuses, specific situations, e.g. a printers’ strike or something. But the minority of people who were pushing a conspiracy about Byrne books being restricted are wrong.
I feel people, now more than ever, will find a way to get books, even digitally. I will get that first Defenders of the Earth issue, digital or otherwise. I’ll drive and get it. I want it, so I will try and find it. But even in an era before digital comics, I’m sure most people would find what they wanted. Even when my LCS told me that they didn’t stock G.I. Joe, they offered to get it in for me.
Byrne is probably worth a topic of his own, but for me personally, I liked his work. His Superman origin is my definitive one. I did enjoy Next Men. But once he began down the road of “photocopy heroes”, I lost interest.
|
|
