| Author |
|
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
You know, there's an easy way to "solve" this whole problem: it's really immaterial WHY or HOW the Alpha Flight photocopies came to be distributed by PAD at the retailer conference/convention. The central concern is did JB have a valid reason for feeling violated and becoming enraged (i.e. is spoiling the major reveal of his storyline well in advance of publication something someone could/should get pissed over)?
What a different discussion this would be if the PAD blog read something like "I was really embarrassed that day when JB's storyline got unintentionally outted, and I really regret my part in that episode. As a fellow creator, I can share his frustration."
Frankly, gang, doesn't that read so much better than quibbling over minor details and blaming Denny O'Neil?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Troy Nunis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:09pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
ya know, i've been seeing this issue batted around for years, all the way back to the AOL boards - from day one, John's told the same story, and each and every time PAD tells it, it drasticly changes, the convention it happened at has moved around the country, taken place at conventions Byrne's never been to, included disputed actions, and now suddenly the newest twist is that it wasn't even at a convention - No one can know why PAD did it other than PAD himself, nearly anything is believable from Malicous intent to misguided admiration coupled with stupidity - but PAD's record of dishonesty in this matter (and any matter involving JB) makes ever beliving why he did it impossible, all we can know is that it happened, and it was bad of him to have done it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Scott Rowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 166
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:14pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with expecting any recounting of events to hold up to logical scrutiny and asking for more information if you don't understand something or feel that it's not logical. Again, if you're not going to apply critical thinking to what people write, you might just as well take your information from Wikipedia.
To continue with the shooting analogy: Someone may see someone shot someone, but if no one can figure out a identifiable motive, that does make a difference. That doesn't mean the victim isn't dead, but it might be hard to convict the shooter of murder and get the death penalty for him. I see this as people demanding a death penalty without hearing any testimony from the defense.
No one is denying the ending of the story was spoiled for the people who were at the convention. And those people didn't get the same enjoyment they may have otherwise gotten from the story. But was there really any lasting effect? Did anyone stop enjoying John Byrne's work in general because that one ending was revealed?
My guess is no. Some people on this board I'm sure have even reread and enjoyed the original story, knowing the ending. Some of us started reading Alpha Flight after that issue was published, and I bet still enjoyed it, even knowing ahead of time that Guardian was dead.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Landry Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 August 2006
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:21pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
When did I say that?
You imply it on multiple occassions:
"To this day, he maintains he was. "I was doing my
job!" -- as PR flak for Marvel.
Someday, I hope some asshole does the same to
him."
If it was not an act borne out of negative intent, then he was,
in
fact, just doing his job. Was it his job to screen material? Was it his
job to be aware of a major story development that was apparently a
tight-lipped secret? You say it was standard practice for the people in
his
position to waltz in and take artwork for the sake of promotion. Whose
job was it to determine what story elements should or should not be
revealed through said promotion? Who guides the material in this
instance, the editor, or the individuals in marketing. It happened all
the time? It sounds mostly like it was a policy failure.
Edited by L. Walker on 29 August 2006 at 3:22pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133710
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:24pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
No one is denying the ending of the story was spoiled for the people who were at the convention. And those people didn't get the same enjoyment they may have otherwise gotten from the story. But was there really any lasting effect? Did anyone stop enjoying John Byrne's work in general because that one ending was revealed?*** K-Mart must have had a Blue Light Special on disingenuousness. Even in those pre-internet days, it took only slightly more than a nanosecond for this spoiler to get flashed all over the country. (There were these things called "telephones". I hear some people still use them to this day.) Responses I got on ALPHA FLIGHT 12 contained about a third of the mail with some variant on "I would have enjoyed this more if I hadn't already found out the ending." Of course, none of those people got their spoilers from this source, did they? They just plucked it out of the air. Was this a permanent, long-lasting effect? Of course not. Has anyone said it was? Of course not. But a story I had been working on for a year was damaged for about 1/3rd of the readers. Those people had their enjoyment spoiled. And for no good reason. No logical reason. No rational reason. That's what's missing here. David admits -- even flaunts -- the fact that he handed out the xeroxes (even if he constantly "refines" the scenario to make sure he comes out looking good). What he never, ever bothers to attempt to explain is how REVEALING THE END OF THE STORY qualifies as "promotion". To me, it reads, as it always has, as an "insider" saying "Look how cool I am! I can show you stuff only people in the Office are supposed to know about!" FEH
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133710
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:25pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
When did I say that?
+++
You imply it on multiple occassions:
****
Go look up the difference between "infer" and "imply".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dan Bowen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 August 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 953
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:26pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Guardian dies?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:28pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Scott, have you ever worked hard to keep a secret? Maybe something you wanted to have happen as a special surprise for someone you care about? And then, have you ever had that secret betrayed beforehand and all your plans got spoiled?
Are you aware of the reaction of Ron Howard when the trailer to Ransom revealed the major plot twist of the movie? (Hint: A few chairs got kicked over.)
John's reaction is understandable, frankly. PAD's smirk about the whole business is... unfortunate.
Originally the last sentence got cut off...
Edited by Matthew McCallum on 29 August 2006 at 3:30pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve Horton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3574
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Digression: Many directors and screenwriters are pretty annoyed at Hollywood's recent trend of giving away the whole thing in the trailer. Not only that, but many so-called professional reviewers will often spoil the movie just to seem superior, especially when reviewing a movie they don't like.
And then there's stuff like the Episode I soundtrack with a track called "Qui-Gon's Final End".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Steve Horton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3574
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:36pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
L.: 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?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133710
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:39pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Many directors and screenwriters are pretty annoyed at Hollywood's recent trend of giving away the whole thing in the trailer. Not only that, but many so-called professional reviewers will often spoil the movie just to seem superior, especially when reviewing a movie they don't like.*** Yeah. TV GUIDE has been doing this for years. Their issues come out the week before the broadcast, yet often their capsule desciptions contain information that should not be known until the previous -- ie, the week the issue ships -- episode has been viewed. I have sometimes been able to follow whole series (DALLAS, for instance) in this fashion, without ever watching a single episode!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 29 August 2006 at 3:39pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Steve, thank you for being the exclamation mark on my point!
(By the way, do you have any idea what the difference is between an "end" and a "final end"? If John Williams names his own tracks, seems like he was taking advice from the Department of Redundancy Department.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
