Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 16 Next >>
Topic: Ten Reasons You Shouldn’t Be WRITING Superheroes (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Rob Hewitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10182
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 11:24am | IP Logged | 1  

Also, this is pretty much re-ordering the Marvel Universe, similar to Crisis I guess, so if you do read Marvel books, the aftermath at least you won't be able to ignore.

I think some heroes will be on the run at the end of this and I guess a new 2nd Avengers team (as well as Alpha Flight and maybe Champions) will emerge from this, and some the status quo of many heroes will be affected. It isn't everything goes back to normal at the end.  I believe Millar when he says this-the whole tone and status quo of most of it will change by the end of the year.

and there is still the one major (one that we thought could not be done) and one minor genie to be put back in the bottle by the end of the year Quesada talked about which may or may not tie in, plus the persistent rumors that the Spider-man marriage will be affected by this (not to start this debate again).

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 11:27am | IP Logged | 2  

Bickering, as Stan Lee used it, was a conceit, a method of shorthand
characterization in otherwise fast-paced action-adventure stories. At the
core, it was not used to define character relationships, but instead to just
add a little zing to the character interaction. Like the Thing and Human
Torch ongoing feud -- it was for comic relief, you knew that it didn't really
mean anything in the end, and it was fun.

To paraphrase Francesco Vanagolli, doesn't anyone remember fun?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36087
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 11:34am | IP Logged | 3  

Oh no, John.  Characters from the big two can't have fun (unless they're being written by John Byrne, Dan Slott, or Gail Simone) any more than modern mainstream superhero comics can have captions or one-and-done stories.  It's just not what comics are about anymore.  Reason numero uno why THE THING is finding it hard to gain an audience.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Hewitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10182
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 11:40am | IP Logged | 4  

I'm just thinking of the Roy Thomas Avenger issues I am now reading.  Sometimes the male characters are downright rude and nasty to each other, more than I would say I see now, mostly. and Pietro is again on one of his anti-human, Magneto was right tears.  I don't mean fun feuds like Torch and Thing or Torch and Spider-man. I mean like these rapper wars-Hawkeye bumps into Goliath and they call each other out and try to beat the crap out of each other.

Of course it doesn't last long, since so much is crammed into these issues, but it is happening every issue, sometimes several times an issue. Like a testosterone overload.  Doesn't happen with Wanda and Wasp since as we are repeatedly reminded "thou are just a female" and hence lack the testosterone.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Christopher Arndt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 278
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 12:55pm | IP Logged | 5  


 QUOTE:
- Don't beat up someone else's hero to prove how tough your hero is.


Odd how that reminds of me of what Mike Grell did in his second arc with Shaman's Tears.

His previous "very personal" character, Jon Sable Freelance, was quite beloved by consumers far and wide.  One could assume that he was a Mary Sue character except that Sable was created to be so bad-ass.

Grell retained ownership; Grell anf First Comics had others do the character.  We move on.

Grell's next was Shaman's Tears.  He did it for Image Comics.  Second arc had Jon Sable appear and be all bad-ass like we remember (he jettisoned all post-Grell continuity for the Freelance character) and he ran into something-something-something that appeared in Tears.... Sable encountered it all wussified, was "out-classed" and rescued by Grell's new "very personal" character.

Regardless of whether the character is yours or another company's, it smacks of bad taste to wussify a previously-established character just to make another look good.

CJA
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 12:57pm | IP Logged | 6  

Eh, I don't have a problem with it if it's a creator-owned character - but it's definately lame when it happens to work-for-hire characters.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133571
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 7  

One of my mini-rules is that no writer should be allowed to return to a character (or series), creator-owned or work-for-hire, if they have gone thru any kind of personal epiphany. If their world view has changed. Fans of the character(s) deserve the creator's (or share-cropper's) original "vision", not the "new-and-improved".
Back to Top profile | search
 
Christopher Arndt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 278
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | 8  


 QUOTE:
I don't have a problem with it if it's a creator-owned character


I understand that.

and you are right to an extent.

But I know that there are two ways to see the issue and I chose the opposite way.

Essentially bringing in the first character was a move to bring in the character's fanbase.  It's like how in the seventies and eighties and nineties Marvel would bring in Spider-Man to a title to pass on his blessings to the new character.  Marvel has every right to do whatever to Spider-Man while doing that; it's their character and they can even make him look stupid if they want to.

This was not Marvel Comics.  This is Grell Comics.

So Grell brought in the Freelance fanbase to join the Grell fanbase and then made Freelance look stupid and weak in front of the Sable fanbase.  To make "Character, Model: New" look good.

So it's quite nearly, but not quite, the same thing as what Marvel did with Spider-Man in that Punisher issue in the Ennis comic.  It's close to what George Lucas did with Han Solo in the Star Wars Special Edition.  He betrayed the fanbase, the expectations of the fanbase, and even a little of his own character(s) to honor his own intentions.

That is in poor taste.  It was his choice and his right and I find it poor.

I mean, honestly.... how long did Shaman's Tears last?  How long did the spin-off (Bar Sinister) last?  How many people remember that there was a spin-off to Shaman's Tears?

Would I even recall Shaman's Tears if not for the nipples and nudity?

CJA


Edited by Christopher Arndt on 13 April 2006 at 1:18pm
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Christopher Arndt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 278
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 1:22pm | IP Logged | 9  

Anyone who has ever seen the first Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible movie and was a major fan of the original series and the original characters knows what I am talking about.

Ethan Hunt/Tom Cruise can look good because the original M:I character was re-written to look bad/evil.

fark that.  That is a betrayal.  Just because one has a right to betray a fanbase doen't make the betrayal within good taste.

CJA
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Bob Robertson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 April 2006
Posts: 22
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 2:12pm | IP Logged | 10  

(1) You come from screen writing, and think writing comics is just the same.

You have a valid point but then lots of artists can move freely between screen and comic, John. Frank Miller for one, Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, Geoff Johns, Mark Waid, Neil Gaiman just because you can't doesn't mean you should bitch.

(2) You think the civilian guise is much more interesting than the superhero.

It is, it's the equal of the hero it's what makes the hero character interesting that coflict between the alter ego and the civilian identity. That's why when Marvel actually did something with this concept (Spider-man) back in the 60's they invented modern comics. Hell considering you can't get any drama from a Superman fight since he always wins his civilian life is by default always more interesting and during the top selling Supes days most stories were about the Clark/Supes conflcit and Lois trying to find out his secret identity.

(3) You think having superheroes say "fuck" is "sophisticated".

Nice straw man argument there. I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

(4) You think being assigned to a long established title is an automatic mandate to blow everything up and start over.

OH COME ON YOU MONSTROUS HYPOCRITE!  How the hell can you say this with a straight face!

(5) You think the characters should serve your stories, not the other way 'round.

Depends if they're pre-existing characters or not. And again Bryne you are the ret-con king here you change characters all the time.

(6) You think Batman is "crazy".

Well he does have mental problems yeah.

(7) You think Superman is a "boy scout".

This I agree on.

(8) You use the characters and stories as therapy.

So wait, putting parts of yourself into a work is a bad thing? John I think I've got, oooh hundreds of years of literary criticism that would disagree.

(9) You pepper your stories with "jokes" (usually at the expense of the characters) to amuse your fanboy friends.

Because god knows you can never, ever use fourth wall humour in a book, right my John "Sensational She-Hulk" Bryne.

ass

(10) You've "always" thought superheroes were stupid (and have often said so), but they sell better than your own comics, so you're in it for the money.

Okay I agree here and this is why I tend to avoid Ellis's uper-hero work (unless he is actually mocking them à la Authority and NEXTWAVE!!!) but you're still an ass.

 

I didn't write this.  But the man who did write it can't post it because he uses hotmail for his email address.  I don't read comics enough to comment on any of this, I merely speak for a forum that dislikes you.  *bows*



Edited by Bob Robertson on 13 April 2006 at 2:19pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36087
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 2:18pm | IP Logged | 11  

Wow.  An entire forum that dislikes JB, huh?  Down to every single man, woman and child.  Glad to hear that whomever gave you the above to post, if in fact that is what happened, felt it so incredibly important to have his "voice" heard that they don't care that they can't post here due to Hotmail registration restrictions.  Real nice of him (or you) to agree on two out of ten, though.  Real big of him (or you). Do you always allow your friends, or yourself for that matter, to come into someone's house and call them names?  Real nice, that.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bob Robertson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 April 2006
Posts: 22
Posted: 13 April 2006 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | 12  

Well I'll grant you that there are some lurkers who may or may not like him.  But every one who saw this listed merely stated that JB was an ass.  And he didn't ask that it be posted here.  He did however ask that someone point out what a raging hypocrite JB was.  I obeyed.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 16 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login