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.
,,,
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. ... 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.
I do agree that it is totally tangential to the main topic, but I do find it an interesting discussion and comparison. So, pressing further into the sidebar for a moment--
I'm going to put aside for a moment the outsized personalities of Byrne and Moore, who they have or haven't been nice to, and what they've said in the years since the works we're talking about. Because, I get that influences how people feel about them, and what they want, but intellectually I think it is neither here nor there in regards to the comparison being made. Because, to me, it comes down to the intent and expectations around the kind of thing they were making. And I see them as very different things. Same storytelling medium and language. But very different formats and frames.
I respect that you see it differently. To me, there is a difference in expectations in authorship between beginning a periodical you have no ownership stake or even thin-ice rights reversion deal on- where there is never the expectation (or precedent in the industry) that you will only ever be the only stewards of these characters... and the situation and expectations that Moore and Gibbons created Watchmen under. I didn't read BW, so I can't judge myself how that material might change the context of the characters and their relationships as they go into the actual Watchmen story. I would be surprised though, unless those hundreds of pages of material were were all disposable, monster-of-the-week tales of these characters in the past, that there is not some beats that deviate, or at least add different layers or histories to these characters that affect who they are in Watchmen.
And, regardless, the existence of any of that material as prequel to Watchmen itself is a deviation from intent. There is plenty of material about the pasts of these characters in the book itself. In fact, Watchmen is nearly as much or more about what came before the night the Comedian died as it is about the present tense story of that murder being investigated.
I would argue, there is exactly as much Before Watchmen in Watchmen as was intended. So to pile nearly 40 issues of Before onto a 12 issue work that had already so carefully balanced the Before with the Now, does do something. No matter how carefully the people who piled onto the Before years later may have tread.
Even if there were not facts presented in Before Watchmen that invalidate the facts in Watchmen, in dramaturgical terms, all that prior material affects the status quo of those characters as they head into Watchmen. It can affect how future readers read Watchmen, by changing who the characters were before they were in that story. So, in that way, it does affect the continuity. Not by throwing anything out- which is how we usually talk about continuity- but by changing what has come before.
By contrast, while I can totally get complaints or resistance to Byrne making big changes, or throwing things out, I think the expectation of Kirby and Lee on Fantastic Four, given the history of exactly the kind of thing they were making, is that-- if it is lucky enough to be successful-- that there would be plenty of people to come after they leave, change, throw out, or even contradict what they had done. Because that was the convention of the ongoing company serial. That is simply what that kind of comic was. And had been for decades.
I respect if you disagree with the premise that FF and Watchmen are two different kinds of things, subject to different expectations around issues of integrity or authorship. But I just don't see it that way. To me, they are different things, with different intents, and different histories to what could be expected.
Can I just say I love how this thread has developed into such a thoughtful, insightful, intelligent debate?
I was going to bring up Byrne's X-Men The Lost Years run, but it seems a bit pointless now. For me, I don't care about Byrne's ego, anymore than I'm concerned with Frank Miller's politics, Orson Scott Card's religious views, or any creator's personal persuasions or hang ups or faults as long as they are creating good stories. Not sure how this became a Byrne-bashing thread, but I thought the original poster was merely sharing his response to the material, not the creator.
For what it's worth, I will always be fond of Byrne's FF run, along with his Captain America run, his She-Hulk run, and even his Namor run - and several other things he's done. Maybe part of it these days is nostalgia - but I enjoy his work. And I loved it from the moment I was introduced to it in the Uncanny X-Men nearly four decades ago.
Can I just say I love how this thread has developed into such a thoughtful, insightful, intelligent debate?
I was going to bring up Byrne's X-Men The Lost Years run, but it seems a bit pointless now. For me, I don't care about Byrne's ego, anymore than I'm concerned with Frank Miller's politics, Orson Scott Card's religious views, or any creator's personal persuasions or hang ups or faults as long as they are creating good stories. Not sure how this became a Byrne-bashing thread, but I thought the original poster was merely sharing his response to the material, not the creator.
For what it's worth, I will always be fond of Byrne's FF run, along with his Captain America run, his She-Hulk run, and even his Namor run - and several other things he's done. Maybe part of it these days is nostalgia - but I enjoy his work. And I loved it from the moment I was introduced to it in the Uncanny X-Men nearly four decades ago.
I don't feel I am bashing Byrne, but instead putting the work he did at that time in a context so that people understand it better. Like it or not, publicity and creator intentions play a part in perception. When you do interviews, send out press releases, and use the editorial pages inside a comic will color how it is received by most fans because a story is a complete experience.
To use an example from CGS, there have been a few creators who, when they were on the show, came off as complete toolsheds, crapped on the work of other creators and proclaimed that what they did was SO much better than what had gone before...and then their book came out and was a fairly mediocre comic. Without that interview, I would have said, "Meh, it was OK", but with the interview, my reaction was "This is better than any past work on the character? That's crap" and dropped the comic like a hot rock.
When a creator comes onto a book and purposefully tries to undo the work of past creators, it will color my perception of the story, especially in a "shared universe" context.
So, that's why I give the Byrne run on the FF mixed reviews. When he was on, it was great stuff. When he felt the need to undo other creator's work, those scenes make me cringe now, and throw me out of the story violently.
Perhaps "bashing" was a bit strong. Easier to spell than "criticizing" and it rolls of the tongue much easier.
When a kid picks up Byrne FF funny book for the first time, that reader very likely has no idea how conceited Byrne was/is. The reader is simply basing their opinion of the work in regards to the experience of reading it for the first time. That was when I formed my opinion of the work. Had no idea who Byrne was. And I loved his work then, I love it now.
Same thing goes for Frank Miller's work. And Steranko's, Lee's, Morrison's, Grant's. Somehow I am able to separate the oddities or shortcomings of the creator from the creation and let my critique or praise of the work be based on the latter, not the former. Which again, is what the original poster has done. We just agree in our assessment of the body of work.
Perhaps "bashing" was a bit strong. Easier to spell than "criticizing" and it rolls of the tongue much easier.
When a kid picks up Byrne FF funny book for the first time, that reader very likely has no idea how conceited Byrne was/is. The reader is simply basing their opinion of the work in regards to the experience of reading it for the first time. That was when I formed my opinion of the work. Had no idea who Byrne was. And I loved his work then, I love it now.
Same thing goes for Frank Miller's work. And Steranko's, Lee's, Morrison's, Grant's. Somehow I am able to separate the oddities or shortcomings of the creator from the creation and let my critique or praise of the work be based on the latter, not the former. Which again, is what the original poster has done. We just agree in our assessment of the body of work.
This I agree with whole heartedly. I think everyone must separate the art from the artist.. One may disagree with Byrne as a person, but if you discount the work on that basis (repeat: on that basis), it's a slippery slope. Far too many creators have been subject to controversy in their actions, opinions, and personal lives to list. We could also move on to movies, TV, to music (the heat again coming down on Dr. Dre in the wake of the NWA film is just the latest of countless examples).
I think it's an important distinction to make regarding Byrne, in that his wholesale dismissal of prior continuity and development does factor in to what the work actually is. That's a criticism of the work. Factoring in his comments and attitude is more criticism of Byrne the person IMO.
As for the stories- I read 233 and 234 last night as I kicked off the reading for the first time. I did not like the art in those issues as much as other work I've seen from Byrne. The stories were decent- 233 was a pretty good intro to Johnny with a lot of story packed into one ish (these days it would be a whole arc). Also got some good family interactions early on before it got focused on Johnny too. 234 was more setup (surely this Skip guy setup pays off down the road) and was fun to see the family dynamic in action.
Thought both were enjoyable. Good, not great, and some promise for bigger developments down the road as things unfold.
I think everyone must separate the art from the artist.. One may disagree with Byrne as a person, but if you discount the work on that basis (repeat: on that basis), it's a slippery slope.
I agree with this to a point. The way I try to evaluate artistic work of any kind—comics, fine art, literature, whatever—is first by looking at it in strictly technical terms. “Is it a well-crafted story?” etc. Then I look at it on an “emotional” level. There are artists whose work I find to be technically amazing, but I just don't find interesting in the least, just as there are artists whose work is considered below par that I do find interesting. And then I look at the work within the context of the artist and the time it was produced.
Artwork is about communicating ideas, and to fully appreciate the message being communicated, you need to at least have some idea of who the messenger is/was, as well as the context of the time the message was being communicated. The more of that information you know, the more fully you can understand the message. It's why we can go back and read something we hated as a teenager, but end up loving as an adult—and vice versa. But, like you say, even if we hate or disagree with the message of an artistic work, we can still appreciate that work on a basic technical/emotional level, though sometimes it can be very difficult to make that distinction.
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?
The Miller re-assessment came AFTER his work, which is very different than was asked in this thread.
AT THE TIME the reviews were mixed. The FF needed something, and Byrne eventually brought them back to the center of the Marvel Universe, but AT THE TIME it was thought of as jarring and out of step with how creator handoffs were handled. Just go back to when Stan handed the book to Roy Thomas back in the early 70's: Roy retold the origin, then finished off Stan's loose threads before moving to his own brand of storytelling, which led to Gerry Conway's take, which played off of things that both Stan and Roy had built up over the years.
Byrne hit a reset button. You do that, not everyone will like it. Ask Legion of Super-Heroes fans.
I do agree that it is totally tangential to the main topic, but I do find it an interesting discussion and comparison. So, pressing further into the sidebar for a moment--
I'm going to put aside for a moment the outsized personalities of Byrne and Moore, who they have or haven't been nice to, and what they've said in the years since the works we're talking about. Because, I get that influences how people feel about them, and what they want, but intellectually I think it is neither here nor there in regards to the comparison being made. Because, to me, it comes down to the intent and expectations around the kind of thing they were making. And I see them as very different things. Same storytelling medium and language. But very different formats and frames.
I respect that you see it differently. To me, there is a difference in expectations in authorship between beginning a periodical you have no ownership stake or even thin-ice rights reversion deal on- where there is never the expectation (or precedent in the industry) that you will only ever be the only stewards of these characters... and the situation and expectations that Moore and Gibbons created Watchmen under. I didn't read BW, so I can't judge myself how that material might change the context of the characters and their relationships as they go into the actual Watchmen story. I would be surprised though, unless those hundreds of pages of material were were all disposable, monster-of-the-week tales of these characters in the past, that there is not some beats that deviate, or at least add different layers or histories to these characters that affect who they are in Watchmen.
And, regardless, the existence of any of that material as prequel to Watchmen itself is a deviation from intent. There is plenty of material about the pasts of these characters in the book itself. In fact, Watchmen is nearly as much or more about what came before the night the Comedian died as it is about the present tense story of that murder being investigated.
I would argue, there is exactly as much Before Watchmen in Watchmen as was intended. So to pile nearly 40 issues of Before onto a 12 issue work that had already so carefully balanced the Before with the Now, does do something. No matter how carefully the people who piled onto the Before years later may have tread.
Even if there were not facts presented in Before Watchmen that invalidate the facts in Watchmen, in dramaturgical terms, all that prior material affects the status quo of those characters as they head into Watchmen. It can affect how future readers read Watchmen, by changing who the characters were before they were in that story. So, in that way, it does affect the continuity. Not by throwing anything out- which is how we usually talk about continuity- but by changing what has come before.
By contrast, while I can totally get complaints or resistance to Byrne making big changes, or throwing things out, I think the expectation of Kirby and Lee on Fantastic Four, given the history of exactly the kind of thing they were making, is that-- if it is lucky enough to be successful-- that there would be plenty of people to come after they leave, change, throw out, or even contradict what they had done. Because that was the convention of the ongoing company serial. That is simply what that kind of comic was. And had been for decades.
I respect if you disagree with the premise that FF and Watchmen are two different kinds of things, subject to different expectations around issues of integrity or authorship. But I just don't see it that way. To me, they are different things, with different intents, and different histories to what could be expected.
Sorry for the delayed response - moved my oldest into the dorm yesterday. Exciting times for him, but made for a rough night for me - we've been hanging out together every evening after everyone else in the house has gone to bed taking care of some of the housework and laughing a lot. The housework was still there. Laughter not-so-much.
@David_D: I see where you're coming from. I think it comes down to expectation and value statement. I personally hold a higher regard for respecting continuity than I do for respecting that any piece of work should be immune from being revisited. In the case of BW - it feels somewhat like a tribute album. There were some really terrific creators touching on the original story in a way that no more diminishes the quality and achievement of the original than Kate Bush covering Rocket Man diminishes the original work of Elton John and Bernie Taupin. In some ways radically different but still respectful. I also think that the medium itself invites exactly this kind of treatment. The fact that books constantly snake back and forth in time and move from creator to creator provides for something of an expectation for properties to be revisited.
Ultimately, it's a preference/personal value statement/expectation sort of debate, which is, I'm sure a somewhat different set of variables for everyone.
@bralinator: I've stayed on the tangent here primarily to avoid any bashing. No doubt that Byrne has done some spectacular things but, overall, I'm not a fan. That's largely for the reasons that I've addressed above - I don't like patent disregard for continuity, unless there's an in-story reason for it. I'm also not a much of a fan of Byrne as artist. However, I know a lot of people that love his stuff - more power to them.
No doubt that Byrne has done some spectacular things but, overall, I'm not a fan. That's largely for the reasons that I've addressed above - I don't like patent disregard for continuity, unless there's an in-story reason for it. I'm also not a much of a fan of Byrne as artist. However, I know a lot of people that love his stuff - more power to them.
As I mentioned before, obviously I have a huge Byrne bias. I realize that Byrne has an over-inflated ego and basically tried to do whatever he wanted with the books he was working on, but I never really considered Byrne to screw with or disregard continuity. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I never once noticed it. Sure he changed things, but I feel it was done in the service of the story he was telling, and he backed up those "revisions" to Marvel history with a plausible explanation that fit the story. Mind you, I haven't read everything the guy produced, but in the case of the FF, I never once felt that it was just change for sake of change. Sure, the first time I read those stories, they were my first "real" introduction to the FF, but I have since gone back and read everything leading up to the Byrne run. There isn't anything that jumped out at me... maybe I wasn't paying attention. I LOVE continuity in my comics. Stories that reference each other really float my boat. I have never once thought of Byrne as disregarding continuity, at least nothing blatant (and "ham fisted") like we see today with Bendis and Quesada. If anything it feels like many of Bryne's storylines are attempts to fix continuity inconsistencies... The original Human Torch/Vision storyline in West Coast Avengers, the return of Iron Fist in Namor, etc.
Maybe I just had the Byrne blinders on?
Let me know what I missed? (Aside from drawing the Watcher "off book")
No doubt that Byrne has done some spectacular things but, overall, I'm not a fan. That's largely for the reasons that I've addressed above - I don't like patent disregard for continuity, unless there's an in-story reason for it. I'm also not a much of a fan of Byrne as artist. However, I know a lot of people that love his stuff - more power to them.
The original Human Torch/Vision storyline in West Coast Avengers, the return of Iron Fist in Namor, etc.
Maybe I just had the Byrne blinders on?
Let me know what I missed? (Aside from drawing the Watcher "off book")
Don't get me started on how Byrne decided to rewrite 20 years of continuity with that gawdawful mess of a story so he could get to his "The Vision is just a robot" recon.
"The Vision should be emotionless. That's what the original creators wanted!" John Byrne
"Um...the second story I wrote with the character was called even an android can cry, and ended with his leaving the room so he can shed a tear." Roy Thomas. Original creator of The Vision
I'm a few more issues into it now and I filled some gaps. Now I'm only missing #238, so I'm just reading through.
#235 was where the FF battle Ego the Living Planet, which was pretty fun. #232 was next (went back to it after picking it up). #236 the 20th anniversary issue - I read through Byrne's long 2 part story and still have to read the Lee/Kirby part of the issue.
My take: I'm having fun with these stories, but they're not on the level of my absolute favorites of the era. They are good solid stories that for me are introducing me to these characters well, and I find myself wanting to read more. I thought there would be a bit more emphasis on a longer plot thread or two carrying through multiple issues of the run, but everything has been pretty self-contained so far. I have always assumed there would be some larger arc or arcs in this run, a la Simonson's Thor or Miller's DD.. I suppose that could still happen, there are a few dangling threads out there to follow up on.
One trend that seems to bug me some: Things seem to get resolved pretty quickly and easily in these issues. Maybe a little too easily? For example, the FF battle to get to Ego's brain and then quickly it's all over with, since Ego got too close to the sun.. and in #232 the team figured out Diablo's elementals but then wrapped things up quick when they actually faced Diablo himself. Both came out a little anti-climactic for me.
Artwise, things seemed to click for me a bit more starting with #235 which has some pretty out-there visuals, and the double splash in #236 of Doom is definitely something special. I found some humor in #236 too in the characterization of Doom and his over the top arrogance. Although with Doom showing that rather glaring Achilles' heel, I find myself not taking him so seriously as a legit threat (I've taken him more seriously in the other recent times I've come across him, notably in Secret Wars, Waid's Daredevil, and Soule's She-Hulk). Could just be due to my not reading many Doom stories yet.
Overall, still good, not great. I remember other seminal runs grabbing me right from the get go- again, Miller's Daredevil and Simonson's Thor are probably the best examples of that. With those runs, instantly I felt I was reading something special. Byrne's FF is not provoking that reaction from me, but I'm still entertained by it.
I'll probably get at least thru #237 tonight. Will skip the missing #238 and go forward from #239 to the end of the run.
No doubt that Byrne has done some spectacular things but, overall, I'm not a fan. That's largely for the reasons that I've addressed above - I don't like patent disregard for continuity, unless there's an in-story reason for it. I'm also not a much of a fan of Byrne as artist. However, I know a lot of people that love his stuff - more power to them.
Maybe I just had the Byrne blinders on?
Let me know what I missed? (Aside from drawing the Watcher "off book")
The big one (to me, anyway) is the uber petty "Doombot, destroy yourself" scene.
His near constant attacks on Jim Shooter after he came back to Marvel in 1988-9 were pretty damn petty as well.
The big one (to me, anyway) is the uber petty "Doombot, destroy yourself" scene.
His near constant attacks on Jim Shooter after he came back to Marvel in 1988-9 were pretty damn petty as well.
Sure... there are lots of instances where Byrne has been a petty jerk (especially in regards to Shooter), but I loved that "Doombot, destroy yourself" scene! It was a blatant slap in the face to Claremont, but let's face it... the characterization of Doom in that X-Men story was shoddy. For me FF #258 is quintessential Dr. Doom, and that scene fits perfectly in line with reinforcing his character.
I'm not defending Byrne's personality. Unfortunately, I have read too much about what an Asshat the guy is. The less I know, the better. But I do like his work.
There will always be people that show their asses in the comics industry and lose a lot of love in comic fandom, whether it's McFarlane, Liefeld, Chuck Austen, Ellis, Dave Sim, Howard Mackie, Jim Shooter, and of course Byrne. There are plenty more. They're 'artists' for crying out loud. Not the most diplomatic sorts.
FWIW: I actually happen to have liked Byrne's frequent defiance of Shooter.
Wow, I never expected this thread to explode like this! You guys are awesome.
So I'm about a year into Byrne's run at this point; I just got to #246, and am about to read "This Land Is Mine". I'm super into it now. After the rocky, jarring back-to-basics beginning, I feel like it's a part of the ongoing story again, as Byrne is starting to bring in elements from previous runs. The only thing that still irks me a bit is how he draws Reed; I like Reed as the muscular action hero. But these are damn fine comics at the point I'm at right now.
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the contribution of Joe Sinnott. The guy had been inking FF for about 15 years before Byrne took over, and really gave the book a sense of visual continuity. I wonder how much his leaving affected my reaction? Did he leave of his own volition, or was he pushed?
Did he leave of his own volition, or was he pushed?
Byrne wanted to ink the book himself, so Sinnott was moved over to Rom for a few months before going to Incredible Hulk for about a year, and then to Avengers and Thing.
I'll probably get at least thru #237 tonight. Will skip the missing #238 and go forward from #239 to the end of the run.
LOL.. palm to face. As if nothing happens in the one issue I'm missing!
I did read #237 - where of course Johnny finds Frankie Raye distraught, she reveals her secret to him, and we're told the payoff will be next issue.
So yes, I did look up and "spoil" #238 for myself by reading an online recap of it (which included some of the key panels from the issue. Very interesting developments with Frankie. And I see that Thing is "reverted" to his Silver Age form.
With #237, I was far more interested in the followup on the FF keeping Doom in stasis, and in Johnny/Frankie, than I was in the "caper of the month" of Reed & Sue foiling some thieves with help of a wayward "drunk on oxygen" alien whose body doesn't process oxygen like ours do. But I've found that to be true in a lot of comics through the years. Other times creators are more successful in following up on dangling plot threads while weaving in a done-in-one adventure than I think Byrne was here, but I'm still very intrigued by the larger plotlines in the book.
Onward to #239. I'll check in after a few more issues- I won't go issue by issue and bore everyone in this thread. But I did have to laugh at myself for thinking that I could skip the one issue from the run that I don't have, which of course has a major plot point in it.. typical luck.
I'll check in after a few more issues- I won't go issue by issue and bore everyone in this thread. But I did have to laugh at myself for thinking that I could skip the one issue from the run that I don't have, which of course has a major plot point in it.. typical luck.
Some of my favorite issues from this run are coming up for you: #246, 247, & 248. Just mind-blowing stuff. The two Doom issues are fantastic and are then followed by a mind-blowing one & done issue (#248).
Some of my favorite issues from this run are coming up for you: #246, 247, & 248. Just mind-blowing stuff. The two Doom issues are fantastic and are then followed by a mind-blowing one & done issue (#248).
Definitely enjoying the journey. Like I said above it hasn't quite clicked 100% for me, but there's fun in every issue and I'm enjoying my maiden voyage through it.
This is a big step for me, there's science, wacky space travel and no shadowy alleys, dead love interests or ninjas ;)
Some of my favorite issues from this run are coming up for you: #246, 247, & 248. Just mind-blowing stuff. The two Doom issues are fantastic and are then followed by a mind-blowing one & done issue (#248).
I agree. This is the point where Byrne really starts to bring it all together, and the momentum keeps building. You are coming up on some great issues. Out of the next stretch (no pun intended) my next favs are #249 and #250. They rocked my 13 year old world. I distinctly remember pulling #250 out of the pile at my school's annual book sale/fund-raiser. Jackpot!
I can understand the argument against Byrne's disregard for then-current continuity... HOWEVER...
When I started reading FF, it was during Byrne's first few issues... I had read FF before, and loved the characters. I had seen the cartoon, and knew what the back story and character dynamics and relationships were. I did not, however, currently read the mag, and when I picked up that first Byrne issue, I didn't care if it worked within a current continuity or not. It had the right action, the right adventure, the right characterizations, and the right flavor.
And it sold well, and gained a lot more FF fans than previously existed. Maybe ignoring continuity in this way should be seen as a way to create new readers, not trampling on some other creator's work.
I think Wolfman and Wein's protests are maybe more akin to jealousy than a concern for the characters or their legacy.
I think Wolfman and Wein's protests are maybe more akin to jealousy than a concern for the characters or their legacy.
I don't think Wolman or Wein were jealous or overly concerned for the characters and their legacy nearly so much as they felt Byrne insulted their own contributions to the characters, and their friends’ contributions to the characters.
I can understand the argument against Byrne's disregard for then-current continuity... HOWEVER...
When I started reading FF, it was during Byrne's first few issues... I had read FF before, and loved the characters. I had seen the cartoon, and knew what the back story and character dynamics and relationships were. I did not, however, currently read the mag, and when I picked up that first Byrne issue, I didn't care if it worked within a current continuity or not. It had the right action, the right adventure, the right characterizations, and the right flavor.
And it sold well, and gained a lot more FF fans than previously existed. Maybe ignoring continuity in this way should be seen as a way to create new readers, not trampling on some other creator's work.
I think Wolfman and Wein's protests are maybe more akin to jealousy than a concern for the characters or their legacy.
I was with you until the last sentence.
Byrne was allowed to work under a different set of rules than Wolfman and Wein were. Calling their feelings at being treated as second-class employees "jealousy" is disrespectful.
I can see why Wolfman would upset but why would he have been jealous? At the same time Byrne was writing FF, wasn't Wolfman writing one of the top books at DC? (New Teen Titans)
I can understand the argument against Byrne's disregard for then-current continuity... HOWEVER...
When I started reading FF, it was during Byrne's first few issues... I had read FF before, and loved the characters. I had seen the cartoon, and knew what the back story and character dynamics and relationships were. I did not, however, currently read the mag, and when I picked up that first Byrne issue, I didn't care if it worked within a current continuity or not. It had the right action, the right adventure, the right characterizations, and the right flavor.
And it sold well, and gained a lot more FF fans than previously existed. Maybe ignoring continuity in this way should be seen as a way to create new readers, not trampling on some other creator's work.
I think Wolfman and Wein's protests are maybe more akin to jealousy than a concern for the characters or their legacy.
I was with you until the last sentence.
Byrne was allowed to work under a different set of rules than Wolfman and Wein were. Calling their feelings at being treated as second-class employees "jealousy" is disrespectful.
Jealousy is probably the wrong word... they felt personally slighted. Still, not with the property's best interests in mind.
Comments
I'm going to put aside for a moment the outsized personalities of Byrne and Moore, who they have or haven't been nice to, and what they've said in the years since the works we're talking about. Because, I get that influences how people feel about them, and what they want, but intellectually I think it is neither here nor there in regards to the comparison being made. Because, to me, it comes down to the intent and expectations around the kind of thing they were making. And I see them as very different things. Same storytelling medium and language. But very different formats and frames.
I respect that you see it differently. To me, there is a difference in expectations in authorship between beginning a periodical you have no ownership stake or even thin-ice rights reversion deal on- where there is never the expectation (or precedent in the industry) that you will only ever be the only stewards of these characters... and the situation and expectations that Moore and Gibbons created Watchmen under. I didn't read BW, so I can't judge myself how that material might change the context of the characters and their relationships as they go into the actual Watchmen story. I would be surprised though, unless those hundreds of pages of material were were all disposable, monster-of-the-week tales of these characters in the past, that there is not some beats that deviate, or at least add different layers or histories to these characters that affect who they are in Watchmen.
And, regardless, the existence of any of that material as prequel to Watchmen itself is a deviation from intent. There is plenty of material about the pasts of these characters in the book itself. In fact, Watchmen is nearly as much or more about what came before the night the Comedian died as it is about the present tense story of that murder being investigated.
I would argue, there is exactly as much Before Watchmen in Watchmen as was intended. So to pile nearly 40 issues of Before onto a 12 issue work that had already so carefully balanced the Before with the Now, does do something. No matter how carefully the people who piled onto the Before years later may have tread.
Even if there were not facts presented in Before Watchmen that invalidate the facts in Watchmen, in dramaturgical terms, all that prior material affects the status quo of those characters as they head into Watchmen. It can affect how future readers read Watchmen, by changing who the characters were before they were in that story. So, in that way, it does affect the continuity. Not by throwing anything out- which is how we usually talk about continuity- but by changing what has come before.
By contrast, while I can totally get complaints or resistance to Byrne making big changes, or throwing things out, I think the expectation of Kirby and Lee on Fantastic Four, given the history of exactly the kind of thing they were making, is that-- if it is lucky enough to be successful-- that there would be plenty of people to come after they leave, change, throw out, or even contradict what they had done. Because that was the convention of the ongoing company serial. That is simply what that kind of comic was. And had been for decades.
I respect if you disagree with the premise that FF and Watchmen are two different kinds of things, subject to different expectations around issues of integrity or authorship. But I just don't see it that way. To me, they are different things, with different intents, and different histories to what could be expected.
I was going to bring up Byrne's X-Men The Lost Years run, but it seems a bit pointless now. For me, I don't care about Byrne's ego, anymore than I'm concerned with Frank Miller's politics, Orson Scott Card's religious views, or any creator's personal persuasions or hang ups or faults as long as they are creating good stories. Not sure how this became a Byrne-bashing thread, but I thought the original poster was merely sharing his response to the material, not the creator.
For what it's worth, I will always be fond of Byrne's FF run, along with his Captain America run, his She-Hulk run, and even his Namor run - and several other things he's done. Maybe part of it these days is nostalgia - but I enjoy his work. And I loved it from the moment I was introduced to it in the Uncanny X-Men nearly four decades ago.
There has been discussion of how his approach was received, in response to a question asked in the original post.
To use an example from CGS, there have been a few creators who, when they were on the show, came off as complete toolsheds, crapped on the work of other creators and proclaimed that what they did was SO much better than what had gone before...and then their book came out and was a fairly mediocre comic. Without that interview, I would have said, "Meh, it was OK", but with the interview, my reaction was "This is better than any past work on the character? That's crap" and dropped the comic like a hot rock.
When a creator comes onto a book and purposefully tries to undo the work of past creators, it will color my perception of the story, especially in a "shared universe" context.
So, that's why I give the Byrne run on the FF mixed reviews. When he was on, it was great stuff. When he felt the need to undo other creator's work, those scenes make me cringe now, and throw me out of the story violently.
When a kid picks up Byrne FF funny book for the first time, that reader very likely has no idea how conceited Byrne was/is. The reader is simply basing their opinion of the work in regards to the experience of reading it for the first time. That was when I formed my opinion of the work. Had no idea who Byrne was. And I loved his work then, I love it now.
Same thing goes for Frank Miller's work. And Steranko's, Lee's, Morrison's, Grant's. Somehow I am able to separate the oddities or shortcomings of the creator from the creation and let my critique or praise of the work be based on the latter, not the former. Which again, is what the original poster has done. We just agree in our assessment of the body of work.
I think it's an important distinction to make regarding Byrne, in that his wholesale dismissal of prior continuity and development does factor in to what the work actually is. That's a criticism of the work. Factoring in his comments and attitude is more criticism of Byrne the person IMO.
As for the stories- I read 233 and 234 last night as I kicked off the reading for the first time. I did not like the art in those issues as much as other work I've seen from Byrne. The stories were decent- 233 was a pretty good intro to Johnny with a lot of story packed into one ish (these days it would be a whole arc). Also got some good family interactions early on before it got focused on Johnny too. 234 was more setup (surely this Skip guy setup pays off down the road) and was fun to see the family dynamic in action.
Thought both were enjoyable. Good, not great, and some promise for bigger developments down the road as things unfold.
Artwork is about communicating ideas, and to fully appreciate the message being communicated, you need to at least have some idea of who the messenger is/was, as well as the context of the time the message was being communicated. The more of that information you know, the more fully you can understand the message. It's why we can go back and read something we hated as a teenager, but end up loving as an adult—and vice versa. But, like you say, even if we hate or disagree with the message of an artistic work, we can still appreciate that work on a basic technical/emotional level, though sometimes it can be very difficult to make that distinction.
AT THE TIME the reviews were mixed. The FF needed something, and Byrne eventually brought them back to the center of the Marvel Universe, but AT THE TIME it was thought of as jarring and out of step with how creator handoffs were handled. Just go back to when Stan handed the book to Roy Thomas back in the early 70's: Roy retold the origin, then finished off Stan's loose threads before moving to his own brand of storytelling, which led to Gerry Conway's take, which played off of things that both Stan and Roy had built up over the years.
Byrne hit a reset button. You do that, not everyone will like it. Ask Legion of Super-Heroes fans.
@David_D: I see where you're coming from. I think it comes down to expectation and value statement. I personally hold a higher regard for respecting continuity than I do for respecting that any piece of work should be immune from being revisited. In the case of BW - it feels somewhat like a tribute album. There were some really terrific creators touching on the original story in a way that no more diminishes the quality and achievement of the original than Kate Bush covering Rocket Man diminishes the original work of Elton John and Bernie Taupin. In some ways radically different but still respectful. I also think that the medium itself invites exactly this kind of treatment. The fact that books constantly snake back and forth in time and move from creator to creator provides for something of an expectation for properties to be revisited.
Ultimately, it's a preference/personal value statement/expectation sort of debate, which is, I'm sure a somewhat different set of variables for everyone.
@bralinator: I've stayed on the tangent here primarily to avoid any bashing. No doubt that Byrne has done some spectacular things but, overall, I'm not a fan. That's largely for the reasons that I've addressed above - I don't like patent disregard for continuity, unless there's an in-story reason for it. I'm also not a much of a fan of Byrne as artist. However, I know a lot of people that love his stuff - more power to them.
I LOVE continuity in my comics. Stories that reference each other really float my boat. I have never once thought of Byrne as disregarding continuity, at least nothing blatant (and "ham fisted") like we see today with Bendis and Quesada. If anything it feels like many of Bryne's storylines are attempts to fix continuity inconsistencies... The original Human Torch/Vision storyline in West Coast Avengers, the return of Iron Fist in Namor, etc.
Maybe I just had the Byrne blinders on?
Let me know what I missed?
(Aside from drawing the Watcher "off book")
"The Vision should be emotionless. That's what the original creators wanted!" John Byrne
"Um...the second story I wrote with the character was called even an android can cry, and ended with his leaving the room so he can shed a tear." Roy Thomas. Original creator of The Vision
#235 was where the FF battle Ego the Living Planet, which was pretty fun.
#232 was next (went back to it after picking it up).
#236 the 20th anniversary issue - I read through Byrne's long 2 part story and still have to read the Lee/Kirby part of the issue.
My take: I'm having fun with these stories, but they're not on the level of my absolute favorites of the era. They are good solid stories that for me are introducing me to these characters well, and I find myself wanting to read more. I thought there would be a bit more emphasis on a longer plot thread or two carrying through multiple issues of the run, but everything has been pretty self-contained so far. I have always assumed there would be some larger arc or arcs in this run, a la Simonson's Thor or Miller's DD.. I suppose that could still happen, there are a few dangling threads out there to follow up on.
One trend that seems to bug me some: Things seem to get resolved pretty quickly and easily in these issues. Maybe a little too easily? For example, the FF battle to get to Ego's brain and then quickly it's all over with, since Ego got too close to the sun.. and in #232 the team figured out Diablo's elementals but then wrapped things up quick when they actually faced Diablo himself. Both came out a little anti-climactic for me.
Artwise, things seemed to click for me a bit more starting with #235 which has some pretty out-there visuals, and the double splash in #236 of Doom is definitely something special. I found some humor in #236 too in the characterization of Doom and his over the top arrogance. Although with Doom showing that rather glaring Achilles' heel, I find myself not taking him so seriously as a legit threat (I've taken him more seriously in the other recent times I've come across him, notably in Secret Wars, Waid's Daredevil, and Soule's She-Hulk). Could just be due to my not reading many Doom stories yet.
Overall, still good, not great. I remember other seminal runs grabbing me right from the get go- again, Miller's Daredevil and Simonson's Thor are probably the best examples of that. With those runs, instantly I felt I was reading something special. Byrne's FF is not provoking that reaction from me, but I'm still entertained by it.
I'll probably get at least thru #237 tonight. Will skip the missing #238 and go forward from #239 to the end of the run.
His near constant attacks on Jim Shooter after he came back to Marvel in 1988-9 were pretty damn petty as well.
I'm not defending Byrne's personality. Unfortunately, I have read too much about what an Asshat the guy is. The less I know, the better. But I do like his work.
FWIW: I actually happen to have liked Byrne's frequent defiance of Shooter.
So I'm about a year into Byrne's run at this point; I just got to #246, and am about to read "This Land Is Mine". I'm super into it now. After the rocky, jarring back-to-basics beginning, I feel like it's a part of the ongoing story again, as Byrne is starting to bring in elements from previous runs. The only thing that still irks me a bit is how he draws Reed; I like Reed as the muscular action hero. But these are damn fine comics at the point I'm at right now.
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the contribution of Joe Sinnott. The guy had been inking FF for about 15 years before Byrne took over, and really gave the book a sense of visual continuity. I wonder how much his leaving affected my reaction? Did he leave of his own volition, or was he pushed?
I did read #237 - where of course Johnny finds Frankie Raye distraught, she reveals her secret to him, and we're told the payoff will be next issue.
So yes, I did look up and "spoil" #238 for myself by reading an online recap of it (which included some of the key panels from the issue. Very interesting developments with Frankie. And I see that Thing is "reverted" to his Silver Age form.
With #237, I was far more interested in the followup on the FF keeping Doom in stasis, and in Johnny/Frankie, than I was in the "caper of the month" of Reed & Sue foiling some thieves with help of a wayward "drunk on oxygen" alien whose body doesn't process oxygen like ours do. But I've found that to be true in a lot of comics through the years. Other times creators are more successful in following up on dangling plot threads while weaving in a done-in-one adventure than I think Byrne was here, but I'm still very intrigued by the larger plotlines in the book.
Onward to #239. I'll check in after a few more issues- I won't go issue by issue and bore everyone in this thread. But I did have to laugh at myself for thinking that I could skip the one issue from the run that I don't have, which of course has a major plot point in it.. typical luck.
To quote @wildpigcomics, "enjoy the journey," @hornhead
This is a big step for me, there's science, wacky space travel and no shadowy alleys, dead love interests or ninjas ;)
When I started reading FF, it was during Byrne's first few issues... I had read FF before, and loved the characters. I had seen the cartoon, and knew what the back story and character dynamics and relationships were. I did not, however, currently read the mag, and when I picked up that first Byrne issue, I didn't care if it worked within a current continuity or not. It had the right action, the right adventure, the right characterizations, and the right flavor.
And it sold well, and gained a lot more FF fans than previously existed. Maybe ignoring continuity in this way should be seen as a way to create new readers, not trampling on some other creator's work.
I think Wolfman and Wein's protests are maybe more akin to jealousy than a concern for the characters or their legacy.
Byrne was allowed to work under a different set of rules than Wolfman and Wein were. Calling their feelings at being treated as second-class employees "jealousy" is disrespectful.