| Author |
|
Joe Mayer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2005
Posts: 1398
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 9:03pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Ya know, I don't particularly know if either party has every exact detail down as there are obviously two sides to this. At times they both act a bit like highschool girls over the whole thing with their cattiness. Still, the both are generally class acts to me in so many other areas that the whole thing is rather sad from a fan standpoint. If anything, its these type of act that really come off more unprofesional than those who are called out for growing roses or whatever. Heck, in my own industry when it comes down to those who are late and those who act like JB and PAD and it is generally people in the second category who are let go faster.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6427
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 10:14pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Landry: I seem to have already conceded that I was unaware there was a dispute
over which pages were shown...So please, don't
attribute attitudes to me that do not represent what I have actually been saying.
***
So you are asking JB for clarifications without actually reading the thread first? I attributed you with the class to at least read what JB wrote before hounding him to convince you of his version of events. Forgive me.
Landry: I'm not disputing John Byrne here. I'm addressing your charge that the
marketing was "ruined". Clearly it wasn't
***
You can't say that without disputing JB. JB worked hard to keep the secret. PAD let it out of the bag. JB got letters complaining they already knew the secret ahead of time. Do the math.
Landry: Who said I don't believe them? By all means, point to me calling either
of them a liar.
***
PAD says he was given the pages by Denny O'Neil-- so either you believe PAD or you're calling him a liar.
PAD says he gave out pages spoiling the death of Guardian months in advance (his notion that no one could connect the dots is idiotic: for sake of argument, say the pages showed a dead Guardian rising from the grave one issue after SOMEONE in Alpha Flight is supposed to die. Hmmm. Who is he kidding?)-- Further, PAD says he double checked with the editor that these pages should go out (checked? But I thought no one could tell what they meant) -- Then PAD says he started handing them out until he was called on it by JB.
Add in the part where Denny O'Neil says PAD never got his permission and you pretty much have the whole story-- either PAD's lying or Denny O'Neil's lying. Let's say he did it under pain of being fired. How can you excuse him
for lying about where his marching orders came from? It doesn't add up. Either way, your campaign to get JB to answer your question is moot. O'Neil gave him permission, or he didn't have permission and PAD gave away the secret knowing it was giving away a year of JB's work, but did it anyway as "part of his job"
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6427
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 10:21pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Robert Oren: "so basically your here to stir sh%t up."
Landry: If that's your definition, then sure. And so are you and everyone else.
I'm here to discuss a subject I find interesting. Why are you here?
***
This is exactly the kind of exchange that's making me so annoyed at your "golly gee whiz, I'm only asking a question" dance.
Why are you here? To stir shit up? And so is everyone else? Ri-i-ight.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 11:02pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Mark Haslett: "So
you are asking JB for clarifications without actually reading the
thread first? I attributed you with the class to at least read what JB
wrote before hounding him to convince you of his version of events.
Forgive me."
I read the thread. I missed that specification. And? As soon as it was
pointed out to me I conceded the issue. What more would you like, a
written apology in blood?
Mark Haslett:
"PAD says he was given the pages by Denny O'Neil-- so either you believe PAD or you're calling him a liar."
I accepted Byrne's explanation from the onset that the editorial staff
had an open door policy. I'm not contesting this. I'm instead asking
him why he holds it (under the clear circumstances he has outlined
himself) as Peter David's responsibility that marketing was allowed to
take and use the material as they please, without editorial direction.
I'm not calling Peter David a liar because discussing this issue does
not require taking sides. I believe Peter David's side is correct, as
he recalls it. I wasn't there and I would never hold his explanation up
as fact. So I give Byrne the benefit of the doubt that his recollection
of editorial policy is accurate. We've boiled it down to human error
now. If we assume Byrne's recollection is
accurate, why is Peter David to blame instead of the editorial
department? That's what does not make sense to me, and I can challenge
this without calling either of them a liar over facts no one can prove
definitively.
Mark Haslett:
"Add in the part where Denny
O'Neil says PAD never got his permission and you pretty much have the
whole story-- either PAD's lying or Denny O'Neil's lying."
We don't all live in a black and white world. John Byrne remembers
Denny O'Neil taking one stance, Peter David recalls the other. Instead
of focusing on the unprovable, I choose to focus on something more
tangible. Assuming Byrne's recollection is correct, why does he believe
that Peter David is responsible when the editorial department
apparently had an open door policy? I'm not taking sides here, despite
your attempt to perceive it that way.
Mark Haslett:
"Why are you here?"
I'm here to participate in a discussion. As far as I can see, between us you are the only being antagonistic. Why are you here?
Mark Haslett:
"To stir shit up? And so is everyone else? Ri-i-ight."
Those were initially Steve Horton's words. Not mine. On that note...
Steve Horton: "It's just that you admit to being a JB fan, yet sign up here to
argue with and confront the man. Whether the truth is what it is or
not, is that proper behavior for a first-timer on a fan board?"
I'm sorry, I missed this amongst the rapid fire responses.
My apologies. That said, it's a public discussion board. I absolutely
respect the work John Byrne has done over the years. I hold up his
Superman work as definitive, and it angers me as a fan to see any of it
undone in modern continuity. I feel similarly about his Fantastic Four
work. But we're all adults here and I assume we can discuss a given
issue that the participants have made public rationally. I'm not saying
anything here I would not repeat to any persons face. I do not frequent
message boards to praise or confront professionals. I did not come here
to argue. I came her to discuss. And while I may not be asking the
questions other fans (or John Byrne himself) would prefer I ask, I
don't see the harm in asking. I also asked Peter David for
clarification
on his forum. I asked him some of the same questions I have now
repeatedly asked Byrne. He answered. So now I have his side of the
story in
that regard. It would be great to have Byrne clarify some of these
other matters himself, but I do not think he is interested in doing so.
Regardless, this is the issue that brought me here. This is the issue I
have been discussing. And I have been attempting to do so in a civil
manner. I don't know why anyone might have been offended by
that. But honestly, I'm not really worried about it either. I've been
nothing but polite, and I'm comfortable to let that stand as example
for my intent rather than the controversial subject matter. Particularly when you
consider that the subject has been being openly discussed in one form
or another for over two decades. Let's be fair, first time poster or
not, it's not like I sprung anything on anyone out of the blue. This is
not an ambush. So proper behavior? Who's to say? Byrne I guess. He can
always kick me off the board if he's inclined. If other people disagree
with my line of questioning, no one is obligated to respond.
Edited by L. Walker on 29 August 2006 at 11:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 11:13pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 11:22pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Jason Fulton:
By all means, please clarify.
And completely off the topic, I would genuinely like to know what the graphic is from. I like the imagery.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6427
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 11:36pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Landry: We don't all live in a black and white world. John Byrne remembers
Denny O'Neil taking one stance, Peter David recalls the other. Instead
of focusing on the unprovable, I choose to focus on something more
tangible.
***
When it comes to facts, we all live in a black and white world. The crux of this "dispute" comes down to whether or not Denny O'Neil lied when he told JB that PAD didn't check with him before giving out the pages. Your response when faced with this is to hound JB for the names of the people running marketing.
PAD's story isn't even internally consistent. Why did he "check" with O'Neil if no one who saw the pages could tell what they meant until JB pointed it out?
Since you've clarified that all of this stirring you've managed is to satisfy your personal curiousity I'm certain you will receive all the answers you deserve.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 12:19am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Mark Haslett: "When
it comes to facts, we all live in a black and white world. "
That's great for you. But it does not work as such for everybody.
Mark Haslett:
"The crux of
this "dispute" comes down to whether or not Denny O'Neil lied when he
told JB that PAD didn't check with him before giving out the pages."
No... As I stated: "Regardless of the validity of Peter David's claims
about permission
being granted..." Permission is irrelevant. If Denny
O'Neil did give permission, then all we have is a situation where he is
to blame rather than Peter David. All evidence points to the fact that
Byrne is angry over laboring
"for a year to create something, only to see someone else casually
demolish it". This is not about one creator versus another. This is
about one creator feeling his efforts were "sabotaged". I'm asking who
is culpable? According to Byrne's description, permission would not
even be relevant to the end scenario because "sales
and Marketing did that all the
time". Why would sales and marketing be allowed to wander off with
material like that? Why is it not being doled out by editorial? If
editorial is that lax with important material, who is responsible?
According to Byrne, Peter David was operation as policy dictated. Why 22
years of anger if that is the case?
Mark Haslett:
"Your response when faced with this is to hound JB for the names of the
people running marketing."
No. I know who was running marketing. What I am asking is who would
have the authority to allow marketing to casually waltz in and leave
with whatever they like? Why was that policy allowed? It sounds like
madness to me. If such a policy were allowed, how do you blame the
marketing guy who is operating under it? It sounds to me like a policy
issue. One that failed miserably. Who was responsible for allowing said
policy? Who was responsible for disseminating materials to the
marketing department? If this policy exists as Byrne reports, then the
ones who maintained this are the ones to be angry at.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Troy Nunis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 12:36am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
>>That said, it's a public discussion board.<<
Funny, I was under the impression it was a privately owned fan forum, requiring membership - and under the terms of membership, one needs to be a fan of John Byrne; and explicitly stated: not here to start trouble, or paraphrased, stir shit up. Perhaps i just imagined reading that somewhere in one of those "Rules" sticky posts that you are asked to read before posting . .
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Francesco Vanagolli
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 June 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 3130
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 1:45am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
John Byrne:
QUOTE:
| You haven't had three months to think about this. There have not been three months worth of internet speculations. IT JUST HAPPENS. |
|
|
What the industry miss, so, is the "surprise factor", right? I partially agree. And I say "partially" because I like to know that an author I appreciate will work on a title... But I don't like to know it one year before! This ruin the pleasure to read the stories before the "event".
As a Superman fan, this has been a big problem for me in the last years. I subscribed in early 2003, when there still were the old runs and subplots. During the summer, the big news: a new relaunch, called Superstorm, would have been arrived in April. This means EIGHT months later. How could I enjoy the stories in those 8 months knowing that they were about to end?
Actually, I enjoyed them, but always thinking to what was about to come. Do you want the Superstorm? You must read two crossovers in three months, before. Do you want to see Simone, Byrne and the other pre-IC teams? After the Superman/Captain Marvel crossover. Do you want the post-IC Superman? Hey, you can't miss the february titles tied to IC and four months of crossovers between SUPERMAN and ACTION!
This is boring.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Arvid Spejare
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 386
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 1:47am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
And if you want to politely discuss something with John Byrne without being a fan, then just go to the other boards he posts on...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Alex Jay Berman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: 30 August 2006 at 3:00am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
What convention was it at?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
