Reading Byrne's FF for the first time

NathanPMahney · August 2015

I've been reading comics since the late 1980s, but the Byrne run on Fantastic Four is something I've never read before, besides the odd issue here and there. With the movie out this year (and all signs pointing towards it not being something I'd like), I decided to read the entire FF run from start to finish. I've been looking forward to reaching Byrne for a while, and I've just recently got there.

I have to say, it's not clicking for me. After two decades of following the same characters, and for the most part enjoying it, Byrne's takeover is really jarring. It's almost a soft reboot. Reed and Sue feel like completely different characters. Reed and Johnny are really off-model; both of them drop about a hundred pounds between issues. There's a marked shift towards more simplistic stories, and there are a number of touches that seem deliberately there to take the title back to the Lee-Kirby run; and not even the Lee-Kirby that people loved! Byrne's homaging the early stuff from the first couple of years, before the classic Inhumans/Galactus arcs.

It's not that these are bad comics. They're really solid, the craft is there. Taken in isolation I'd probably enjoy them a lot more. I was wondering anyone else out there has experienced this in the same way I did, or perhaps if any of you were there to see it first-hand. Thoughts?

WetRats · August 2015

At the time, it felt like an exciting change to what had been a fairly stagnant book, but yes, Byrne's style of "putting things back the way they were supposed to be" was quite abrupt and rather hamfisted.*

*@WetRats said "hamfisted". Take a drink!

Mr_Cosmic · August 2015

My first comic was FF #270 which was a Byrne issue. I think that's one of the major reasons why the FF is my favorite comic and why I consider his run to be my FF.

It might have been jarring then but the things he did taking over the book happen all the time today. I mean, back then, creators didn't try to rock the boat too much when they took over from someone else. Today all new directions and art styles are the norm(along with a new number one).

bralinator · August 2015

I was first introduced to Jack Kirby's FF in 70's reprints. I later devoured several issues during Perez's run. But I was really drawn to Joltin' Johnny Byrne's work from the moment I first read issue 210. And when he finally took over writing the title, his approach featured a nostalgic back to basics feel and a fresh artistic direction that was very comfortable for me. Byrne clearly demonstrated that he had a thorough understanding of what made each character work as he took the FF back to where they were in the '60s - using old personalities, old villains and old events.

I had already become quite fond of his work in the Uncanny X-Men under Terry Austin’s inks. And when he came to the Fantastic Four penciling under Jerry Ordway's inks, his work displayed a really polished feel. However, I won't pretend that there hasn't always been resistance to Byrne's take on the FF - as this interview with Jay Zilber, Len Wein and Marv Wolfman illustrates in Dec '81 (from The Fantastic Four Chronicles):

Len Wein:

My principal complaint -- and I may feel stronger about this than Marv Wolfman - is that I much resent what John is doing, I resent his implication that everything in the past 20 years hasn't happened, that it's still 1964. Everything he's doing is throwbacks to the past. I resent him tampering with so much of the legend. It's really very imperious to suddenly decide to change so much that is integral to the whole Marvel mythos, as opposed to just a supporting character in a book. He draws The Watcher the way he was drawn in the first story. Nobody else draws him that way. There's a whole issue The Watcher stars in, where he doesn't look the way he does in any other book.

Marv Wolfman:

John may be right; but unless it's company policy to make the change throughout the whole line, it's really wrong for him to do it alone."

I think they were less put off by his style, and more upset with his back-to-basics storylines.

I own volume 1 of the John Byrne Fantastic Four omnibus and I cherish it. His work epitomizes what comic books meant to me and hearken to an era of my youth when I was able to truly escape the daily doldrums of life and join in the adventures of Marvel's first family.

WetRats · August 2015

bralinator said:
Len Wein:
My principal complaint -- and I may feel stronger about this than Marv Wolfman - is that I much resent what John is doing, I resent his implication that everything in the past 20 years hasn't happened, that it's still 1964. Everything he's doing is throwbacks to the past. I resent him tampering with so much of the legend. It's really very imperious to suddenly decide to change so much that is integral to the whole Marvel mythos, as opposed to just a supporting character in a book. He draws The Watcher the way he was drawn in the first story. Nobody else draws him that way. There's a whole issue The Watcher stars in, where he doesn't look the way he does in any other book.

Marv Wolfman:

John may be right; but unless it's company policy to make the change throughout the whole line, it's really wrong for him to do it alone."

I think they were less put off by his style, and more upset with his back-to-basics storylines.

Read what they said. (emphasis added)

It wasn't his back-to-basics storylines, it was his "imperious" approach.

Byrne's undeniable talent has repeatedly been eclipsed by his formidable ego and his tendency to bulldoze his vision through, despite the concerns of people who are supposed to be his collaborators.

David_D · August 2015

A later, older Len Wein seemed to have a very different take on "tampering" (to borrow his word) with what has come before when it was time to do Before Watchmen. Some of the statements Wein made in the last few years were defensive (sometimes overly dismissive and rude, I think) responses to exactly the kind of criticism he is making of Byrne in that past statement of his.

Which is not to say views don't change over time. But interesting to see.

bralinator · August 2015

I was only pointing out that while many herald Byrne's run as being the only true successor of the Lee/Kirby era, there were detractors, even back then. I don't agree with Wein or Wolfman then, but I understand their gripes.

Hex · August 2015

bralinator said:

This poster graced my walls for well over a decade. It is one f my favourite images of all time.
(BTW- the new colouring introduced in this version is atrocious.)

I don't have much to add to this thread. I'm obviously Byrne biased, particularly to his run on the FF. I had picked up the odd issue of Fantastic Four off the rack, here and there, prior to the Byrne run, but they didn't feel all that "Fantastic" to me. I did have some reprints of the Lee/Kirby era stuff that I enjoyed, but I didn't really "get" Kirby's artwork back then (although I love it now).

When I finally stumbled into the Byrne FF run about a year after he took over, I was hooked. For life. I gave the first Volume of the Omnibus to my young daughters a while back. It is the "go-to" bedtime story book.

Chuck_Melville · August 2015

I remember at the time not being especially overwhelmed by Byrne's approach to the FF in the beginning. It just felt that he was going to do whatever he wanted to do in a kind of fanboy way, 'fixing' everything that he personally felt was broken. It took several issues for his take on the book to really gel, in my opinion, and I wasn't really won over until the anniversary issue; at that point, I was convinced that he had a handle on the book and that the series was catching fire. It proved to be one of the best runs since the original Lee & Kirby days. There were a few bumps along the way, but I think the overall whole stands up quite well today.

RickM · August 2015

I have a question about the art. I've never sat down and read a Byrne issue of FF, but I own several of his issues and have seen many more. It seems like the art on FF is much more rough and clunky than his work on X-Men, which was only a few years earlier. Does that bug anyone else? I know Byrne mentioned in an interview that he made the mistake of rushing some of his FF work, but I never hear fans say anything but how incredible the Byrne years were. But I look at a lot of covers and see weird poses and cartoony facial expressions, which was rare in Uncanny.

WetRats · August 2015

RickM said:
I have a question about the art. I've never sat down and read a Byrne issue of FF, but I own several of his issues and have seen many more. It seems like the art on FF is much more rough and clunky than his work on X-Men, which was only a few years earlier. Does that bug anyone else? I know Byrne mentioned in an interview that he made the mistake of rushing some of his FF work, but I never hear fans say anything but how incredible the Byrne years were. But I look at a lot of covers and see weird poses and cartoony facial expressions, which was rare in Uncanny.

Possibly a lack of Terry Austin's inks?

shroud68 · August 2015

bralinator said:
I was first introduced to Jack Kirby's FF in 70's reprints. I later devoured several issues during Perez's run. But I was really drawn to Joltin' Johnny Byrne's work from the moment I first read issue 210. And when he finally took over writing the title, his approach featured a nostalgic back to basics feel and a fresh artistic direction that was very comfortable for me. Byrne clearly demonstrated that he had a thorough understanding of what made each character work as he took the FF back to where they were in the '60s - using old personalities, old villains and old events.

I had already become quite fond of his work in the Uncanny X-Men under Terry Austin’s inks. And when he came to the Fantastic Four penciling under Jerry Ordway's inks, his work displayed a really polished feel. However, I won't pretend that there hasn't always been resistance to Byrne's take on the FF - as this interview with Jay Zilber, Len Wein and Marv Wolfman illustrates in Dec '81 (from The Fantastic Four Chronicles):

Len Wein:
My principal complaint -- and I may feel stronger about this than Marv Wolfman - is that I much resent what John is doing, I resent his implication that everything in the past 20 years hasn't happened, that it's still 1964. Everything he's doing is throwbacks to the past. I resent him tampering with so much of the legend. It's really very imperious to suddenly decide to change so much that is integral to the whole Marvel mythos, as opposed to just a supporting character in a book. He draws The Watcher the way he was drawn in the first story. Nobody else draws him that way. There's a whole issue The Watcher stars in, where he doesn't look the way he does in any other book.

Marv Wolfman:

John may be right; but unless it's company policy to make the change throughout the whole line, it's really wrong for him to do it alone."

I think they were less put off by his style, and more upset with his back-to-basics storylines.

I own volume 1 of the John Byrne Fantastic Four omnibus and I cherish it. His work epitomizes what comic books meant to me and hearken to an era of my youth when I was able to truly escape the daily doldrums of life and join in the adventures of Marvel's first family.

I really never knew there was a counterpoint to what I thought was universal admiration of the Byrne stuff. The low 200's were my intro to the FF so I noticed the change over from Byrne art to Bryne story/art. I love that era of FF but I can see the opposition arguement now even if then I did not. I do own the 1st Omnibus and I love it but I will not get the 2nd as the stories fall off drastically in my opinion.

bralinator · August 2015

shroud68 said:

I really never knew there was a counterpoint to what I thought was universal admiration of the Byrne stuff. The low 200's were my intro to the FF so I noticed the change over from Byrne art to Bryne story/art. I love that era of FF but I can see the opposition arguement now even if then I did not. I do own the 1st Omnibus and I love it but I will not get the 2nd as the stories fall off drastically in my opinion.

I've considered getting the second omnibus, but the quality drop as well as the fact that they printed fewer and the prices are higher in the secondary market as well for the 2ndO has prevented me from picking it up.

WetRats · August 2015

shroud68 said:
I really never knew there was a counterpoint to what I thought was universal admiration of the Byrne stuff.

Byrnes' stuff, sure. Byrne himself, not so much...

Most of the objections seem to have been not so much to the work itself, but to the heavy-handed way Byrne made changes without any consideration for other creators. If I'm not mistaken, at the time, other artists at Marvel were drawing characters from very consistent style sheets, and Byrne just did whatever he pleased. When you play by your own set of rules, you tend not to engender the admiration of your peers.*

*Especially if you come across as considering yourself peerless.

hauberk · August 2015

David_D said:
A later, older Len Wein seemed to have a very different take on "tampering" (to borrow his word) with what has come before when it was time to do Before Watchmen. Some of the statements Wein made in the last few years were defensive (sometimes overly dismissive and rude, I think) responses to exactly the kind of criticism he is making of Byrne in that past statement of his.

Which is not to say views don't change over time. But interesting to see.

I think that the distinction is less than subtle. Byrne was disregarding whole reams of continuity in story and costuming. Wein was responding to an attitude that Watchmen was so utterly complete that there was no need to revisit the world and characters. There's no doubt that Watchmen was a complete work, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still stories which could be told with those characters. Nor does it mean that telling those stories, in a manner that maintains the continuity of the source material is out of bounds.

hornhead · August 2015

Interesting discussion. As I mentioned in another thread, I just came across the bulk of Byrne's FF run in dollar bins and nabbed it, so I'm preparing to read it all for the first time myself. I still have a few spot issues to pick up to complete the run, including #232, but I am tempted to just start at #233 and dig in.

Despite 30+ years reading, I have never read a lick of FF. So this will be my starting point from absolute zero. My only Byrne experience, despite liking what art I've seen over the years, has been with his late 80s She-Hulk stuff, and I found that book to be hilarious, and enjoyed the art a lot.

Byrne's FF was done in the early 80s which were my formative years as a reader, and it has been so highly acclaimed on CGS and elsewhere that I've long wanted to give the run a whirl. I do find the dissenting opinions to be very interesting. Time has a way of erasing criticism of work that goes on to be so acclaimed, so I'm fascinated to see the contrary opinions. It's one of the reasons I'm happy to have the run in issues- so I can read the letter columns and see if there were people writing in who disliked it. I feel pretty strongly that artists & works that I am a HUGE fan of (in all mediums) are not above some criticism, and I've always liked to see how those perceptions of quality evolve over time.

But I'll have none of the reference as to things changing with #232 or being like the Lee/Kirby run, since I've never read FF before.. so that'll inform my "maiden voyage"- and any subsequent reading I do as well- with the characters.

Plus, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): as interesting as this discussion is, it's a little worse for us all missing out on whatever Jamie D would have added to it.

WetRats · August 2015

hornhead said:
Interesting discussion. As I mentioned in another thread, I just came across the bulk of Byrne's FF run in dollar bins and nabbed it, so I'm preparing to read it all for the first time myself. I still have a few spot issues to pick up to complete the run, including #232, but I am tempted to just start at #233 and dig in.

Despite 30+ years reading, I have never read a lick of FF. So this will be my starting point from absolute zero. My only Byrne experience, despite liking what art I've seen over the years, has been with his late 80s She-Hulk stuff, and I found that book to be hilarious, and enjoyed the art a lot.

Byrne's FF was done in the early 80s which were my formative years as a reader, and it has been so highly acclaimed on CGS and elsewhere that I've long wanted to give the run a whirl. I do find the dissenting opinions to be very interesting. Time has a way of erasing criticism of work that goes on to be so acclaimed, so I'm fascinated to see the contrary opinions. It's one of the reasons I'm happy to have the run in issues- so I can read the letter columns and see if there were people writing in who disliked it. I feel pretty strongly that artists & works that I am a HUGE fan of (in all mediums) are not above some criticism, and I've always liked to see how those perceptions of quality evolve over time.

But I'll have none of the reference as to things changing with #232 or being like the Lee/Kirby run, since I've never read FF before.. so that'll inform my "maiden voyage"- and any subsequent reading I do as well- with the characters.

Plus, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): as interesting as this discussion is, it's a little worse for us all missing out on whatever Jamie D would have added to it.

I'm interested in your response to it.

I loved it at the time, but haven't read it since it first came out.

I'm curious as to how well it has aged.

David_D · August 2015

hauberk said:

David_D said:
A later, older Len Wein seemed to have a very different take on "tampering" (to borrow his word) with what has come before when it was time to do Before Watchmen. Some of the statements Wein made in the last few years were defensive (sometimes overly dismissive and rude, I think) responses to exactly the kind of criticism he is making of Byrne in that past statement of his.

Which is not to say views don't change over time. But interesting to see.
I think that the distinction is less than subtle. Byrne was disregarding whole reams of continuity in story and costuming. Wein was responding to an attitude that Watchmen was so utterly complete that there was no need to revisit the world and characters. There's no doubt that Watchmen was a complete work, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still stories which could be told with those characters. Nor does it mean that telling those stories, in a manner that maintains the continuity of the source material is out of bounds.

Except that Before Watchmen-- unlike FF under Byrne (as well as the various creators on FF between Kirby/Lee and Byrne)-- wasn't continuing to tell stories about what happened next. They were not the next era of a periodical. They were telling stories that came before the completed novel, and therefore in ways small and large, changed the context and the nature of the characters that were in that novel. And Before Watchmen did this against the express wishes of one of the two co-authors. (As opposed to FF, which clearly Kirby and Lee knew they were handing off to others to continue and, I would guess, always intended that to be the case with the periodical they started).

So, I agree the differences are substantial. But, to me, if we are talking about "tampering", to use Wein's word, then I see what Before Watchmen was as a worse example of tampering than anything that any creator to follow Kirby and Lee on FF could do. As I think the nature of the ongoing, never-ending corporate superhero serial is that things get retooled, continuity gets dumped, new things are thrown at the wall, etc. I think history at both DC and early Marvel show that was just part of the game when you are working in the era of the audience that is expected to turn over every few years. Heck, even Kirby and Lee pretty much rebooted FF just a few issues in, where they went from a kind of mystery-solving club to a uniformed and branded team of capital-S Superheroes. They themselves didn't seem that precious about committing and keeping every detail and decision they made (and, don't get me wrong, I think that was great-- and clearly was the right idea for what they were doing at that time.

But Watchmen had a very different intent behind it. And it a relentless, perhaps obsessively, detailed, specific, and complete novel. So those who tampered with that, were doing a different, and I think, bigger thing.

(And, again, it is not like I now boycott those creators, or that I think Len Wein and Brian Azzarello should be shot at sunrise, you know what I mean? I just couldn't resist what I see as the ironic dissonance between 1981 Len Wein's feelings about tampering with what is established, and the Len Wein of the last five years, and what he has said in defense of Before Watchmen.)

Also, and maybe it is too soon to compare, and we'll wait and let history judge, but also putting the relative merits and results of Byrne's "tampering" with the run on FF he had, and the results of Before Watchmen...?

WetRats · August 2015

@David_D, while Wein's word choice is somewhat ironic in retrospect, what he was objecting to at the time was valid.

Up until Byrne's FF run, changes to established books, characters and continuity were additive, while Byrne's approach (seen soon afterward in an even more drastic fashion on Superman) was revisionistic.

Byrne's approach has often been to negate the work of his predecessors (or even his collaborators--see various accounts of his work with and against Claremont) in favor of his own "better" ideas, rather than to build upon what they had done. It was insulting, and it was breaking the unspoken "gentlemen's" rules.

Byrne's approach has become fairly commonplace in the years since, but it was pretty shocking at the time.

David_D · August 2015

WetRats said:
@David_D, while Wein's word choice is somewhat ironic in retrospect, what he was objecting to at the time was valid.

Up until Byrne's FF run, changes to established books, characters and continuity were additive, while Byrne's approach (seen soon afterward in an even more drastic fashion on Superman) was revisionistic.

Byrne's approach has often been to negate the work of his predecessors (or even his collaborators--see various accounts of his work with and against Claremont) in favor of his own "better" ideas, rather than to build upon what they had done. It was insulting, and it was breaking the unspoken "gentlemen's" rules.

Byrne's approach has become fairly commonplace in the years since, but it was pretty shocking at the time.

And that's fair, and the context of the time is helpful. I haven't read Byrne's FF yet, so I can only judge it on its enduring reputation, rather than on the quality of reading it myself (or comparing it to how FF was doing before he came along). So I'm not saying that Wein was out of step at the time he and Wolfman made these statements, I just think, as I said, that Wein has changed his tune since then.

WetRats · August 2015

David_D said:
And that's fair, and the context of the time is helpful. I haven't read Byrne's FF yet, so I can only judge it on its enduring reputation, rather than on the quality of reading it myself (or comparing it to how FF was doing before he came along). So I'm not saying that Wein was out of step at the time he and Wolfman made these statements, I just think, as I said, that Wein has changed his tune since then.

He's changed his tune in the post-Gentlemen's Rules era. (Though he may not realize he has done so.)

Hex · August 2015

hornhead said:
Plus, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): as interesting as this discussion is, it's a little worse for us all missing out on whatever Jamie D would have added to it.

Amen.

WetRats · August 2015

Hex said:

hornhead said:
Plus, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway): as interesting as this discussion is, it's a little worse for us all missing out on whatever Jamie D would have added to it.
Amen.

*sniff*

bralinator · August 2015

Hex said:

bralinator said:

This poster graced my walls for well over a decade. It is one f my favourite images of all time.
(BTW- the new colouring introduced in this version is atrocious.)

Agreed. Here's this...

WetRats · August 2015

Hex said:
(BTW- the new colouring introduced in this version is atrocious.)

Especially Sandman.

SolitaireRose · August 2015

bralinator said:
I was only pointing out that while many herald Byrne's run as being the only true successor of the Lee/Kirby era, .

Byrne spent a lot of interviews saying he was the "modern day Jack Kirby". Knowing how he constantly put the mouth of Kirby's work from 1976 - 1978, there is no way to put into words how angry that makes me. "Jack the Hack" indeed.

SolitaireRose · August 2015

At the time, it was a big deal. Byrne was coming off of his X-Men run and promised to bring the FF back to the basics (and that because Byrne's common stated approach). The first year or so, however, was not well received by most of the fans I knew at the time...to the point where one of the people I knew said that they should just have Byrne re-draw the old Lee/Kirby stories from before issue 12, since that seemed to be what he wanted to do anyway.

I think he was quite measured in resetting the table and then moving forward and the stories hold up well. In fact, I can make the case that it was Byrne's last solid run on comics.

Hex · August 2015

bralinator said:
Agreed. Here's this...

MUCH better. Thanks.
LOVED that poster. Stared at it for hours. And then it meant so much more after I finally got around to reading the first 100 issues of FF.

Mod_Polybius · August 2015

Just a few quick thoughts. Byrne is one of my favorite creators. As a reader who first fell in love with comics in the late 1970s, his X-Men from I think 109 to 141 are definitive for me. I discovered his FF much later, as an adult actually because I had moved on from comics to Tolkien and other geekery as a teen. When I rediscovered comics in college, I was naturally drawn to Byrne's FF run and was not disappointed! I agree that the artwork near the end of the run is less to my liking than the early stuff but overall the art and stories are excellent in my view. I likewise recommend the Claremont-Byrne run on Iron Fist, which is also definitive to me, despite the excellent Brubaker-Fraction run. It is a shame that his FF run is not yet on Comixology! Last but not least, Jamie's passion for this run is one of the things I found most endearing in him.

WetRats · August 2015

Mod_Polybius said:
Just a few quick thoughts. Byrne is one of my favorite creators. As a reader who first fell in love with comics in the late 1970s, his X-Men from I think 109 to 141 are definitive for me. I discovered his FF much later, as an adult actually because I had moved on from comics to Tolkien and other geekery as a teen. When I rediscovered comics in college, I was naturally drawn to Byrne's FF run and was not disappointed! I agree that the artwork near the end of the run is less to my liking than the early stuff but overall the art and stories are excellent in my view. I likewise recommend the Claremont-Byrne run on Iron Fist, which is also definitive to me, despite the excellent Brubaker-Fraction run. It is a shame that his FF run is not yet on Comixology! Last but not least, Jamie's passion for this run is one of the things I found most endearing in him.

All true. The work is great.

My problems with Byrne's strong belief in the superiority of his vision and his tendency to run roughshod over his colleagues in no way diminish my fondness for the comics you mentioned.

hauberk · August 2015

David_D said:

hauberk said:

David_D said:
A later, older Len Wein seemed to have a very different take on "tampering" (to borrow his word) with what has come before when it was time to do Before Watchmen. Some of the statements Wein made in the last few years were defensive (sometimes overly dismissive and rude, I think) responses to exactly the kind of criticism he is making of Byrne in that past statement of his.

Which is not to say views don't change over time. But interesting to see.
I think that the distinction is less than subtle. Byrne was disregarding whole reams of continuity in story and costuming. Wein was responding to an attitude that Watchmen was so utterly complete that there was no need to revisit the world and characters. There's no doubt that Watchmen was a complete work, but that doesn't mean that there aren't still stories which could be told with those characters. Nor does it mean that telling those stories, in a manner that maintains the continuity of the source material is out of bounds.
Except that Before Watchmen-- unlike FF under Byrne (as well as the various creators on FF between Kirby/Lee and Byrne)-- wasn't continuing to tell stories about what happened next. They were not the next era of a periodical. They were telling stories that came before the completed novel, and therefore in ways small and large, changed the context and the nature of the characters that were in that novel. And Before Watchmen did this against the express wishes of one of the two co-authors. (As opposed to FF, which clearly Kirby and Lee knew they were handing off to others to continue and, I would guess, always intended that to be the case with the periodical they started).

So, I agree the differences are substantial. But, to me, if we are talking about "tampering", to use Wein's word, then I see what Before Watchmen was as a worse example of tampering than anything that any creator to follow Kirby and Lee on FF could do. As I think the nature of the ongoing, never-ending corporate superhero serial is that things get retooled, continuity gets dumped, new things are thrown at the wall, etc. I think history at both DC and early Marvel show that was just part of the game when you are working in the era of the audience that is expected to turn over every few years. Heck, even Kirby and Lee pretty much rebooted FF just a few issues in, where they went from a kind of mystery-solving club to a uniformed and branded team of capital-S Superheroes. They themselves didn't seem that precious about committing and keeping every detail and decision they made (and, don't get me wrong, I think that was great-- and clearly was the right idea for what they were doing at that time.

But Watchmen had a very different intent behind it. And it a relentless, perhaps obsessively, detailed, specific, and complete novel. So those who tampered with that, were doing a different, and I think, bigger thing.

(And, again, it is not like I now boycott those creators, or that I think Len Wein and Brian Azzarello should be shot at sunrise, you know what I mean? I just couldn't resist what I see as the ironic dissonance between 1981 Len Wein's feelings about tampering with what is established, and the Len Wein of the last five years, and what he has said in defense of Before Watchmen.)

Also, and maybe it is too soon to compare, and we'll wait and let history judge, but also putting the relative merits and results of Byrne's "tampering" with the run on FF he had, and the results of Before Watchmen...?

Realizing that this is completely tangential to the main topic, I'm not sure that I agree with the premise. I don't see that the Before Watchmen stuff was at all impactful on the original story. Certainly, it showed how the characters got to the places where they were for the start of the story. Before Watchmen didn't do anything to deviate from the original story. I'm not sure how else to respond - BW falls, primarily in the time between the Minute Men flashbacks and the main story line and falls in line with both points.

As for the Bearded One, I feel very little concern for what he did or didn't want. I've seen too many quotes of him whining about other people building off of his characters and works while many of his own works are based on predicates. I get that he thought that he was going to get rights reverted and that didn't happen. I'm not sure that that was a matter of ill intention on the part of DC when the contracts were drafted any more than I think that anyone anticipated the way distribution rights issues would muddy other media (and screw with screenwriter residuals), trades were, at that point, a relatively new concept and, I think, the idea of evergreen titles was likely not on anyone's radar. Trying to bring it back on topic, it seems like using Stan as a support for this position seems a little off given the way he was treated by Marvel and his whole work-for-hire fight.

Ultimately, I guess that, as long as the continuity is respected, I've got no issues with the stories being expanded upon. I don't get that from Byrne.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Reading Byrne's FF for the first time

Comments