• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

So, why did John Byrne's work decline in quality?

Started by RedRaven,

125 posts in this topic

RedRaven

RedRaven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not to knock you taste in covers, but isn't this just a representation of what JC mentioned ealirer?

 

more "white space", and everything just "got big"

 

I think it's a perfect example of what JC mentioned. :sick:

 

This is not the same. This ASM cover shows very good composition and and rendering.

 

Are we looking at the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dale Roberts

Dale Roberts

Posted
Posted

Some of it is just simply the fact that as guys get older, their styles change and many times so does there ability. Neal Adams, while still quite good, does not draw as well now as he did in the 1970s. Byrne can't write worth a , so I don't know why he even bothers. I would guess the ego has something to do with it as well, and also the fact that guys get paid whether it is great or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grandz-migration

grandz-migration

Posted
Posted
Not to knock you taste in covers, but isn't this just a representation of what JC mentioned ealirer?

 

more "white space", and everything just "got big"

 

I think it's a perfect example of what JC mentioned. :sick:

 

This is not the same. This ASM cover shows very good composition and and rendering.

 

Are we looking at the same thing?

 

Yes sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sckao

sckao

Posted
Posted
Yes, and it got even worse.

 

Byrne himself was complaining about that, as his work has degenerated to the point where Marvel was only paying him for break-downs rather than finished pencils.

 

I believe this was because he was penciling AND inking his own work. Because he was inking the work, he felt he didn't need to supply tight pencils.

 

In the 80's, I remember all the brouhaha about John Byrne doing over 2-3 breakdown/inked pages a day (for a total of over 50-60 pages a month.) Wasn't he drawing 2 monthly books and then doing enough pages to piece together some sort of graphic novel during that time?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I believe this was because he was penciling AND inking his own work. Because he was inking the work, he felt he didn't need to supply tight pencils.

 

Maybe that got tossed in too, but it started because of pencilled work he submitted but did not ink. Otherwise, why would they care or even know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fastballspecial

fastballspecial

Posted
Posted

Personally I always thought he just began to take shortcuts whenever he could. You can just see his artwork slowly over time erode. The last books I thought were any good at all were Alpha Flight and only the 1st few issues. The Snowblind issue is a perfect example. I always wanted to believe that Byrne would make a return similiar to Perez has done, but the too are on opposite extremes. Perez is so detailed its ridiculous and it shows up in his work. Byrne on the other hand is hurry up get it out anymore. His JLA stuff with Claremont was awful for both of them, Doom Patrol sank almost as soon as it came out, I have not heard any praise for the man in years and I think it sucks.

 

His X-men, Avengers and FF were awesome.(Okay the last 12 issues of FF it showed already.) Terry Austin did help him immensely I think, but Austin inked him later too and it still looked bad. He needs to stop writing and focus on his art again. Its not like he doesnt have the talent I just dont think he wants to take the time to do it right and add the details that made him a star in the early 80s.

 

He doesnt do shows anymore. He did one in Ohio I think 2 years ago as a personal favor. He seems content to live on his board, do commissions and occaisionally work these days. I hate to see someone with so much talent just not apply it anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MedicAR

MedicAR

Posted
Posted

 

Is there even a general consensus that John Byrne's work has declined?

 

ACTION827.jpg

 

A decline of Kirby-esque proportions. The anatomy/pose of Superman even looks a bit like late Kirby. So does the pose of the character behind Supes. So do the speed lines around the debris.....the whole thing makes me think of Kirby late in his career.

 

I'm not ripping on "The King" I'm just pointing out the decline is very similar and in this particular case, even the art is similar. IMO

 

I'd still love to get at least a sketch from Byrne, a Doom Patrol/FF commission would rock. rockin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MedicAR

MedicAR

Posted
Posted
many artists aspire to write their own stories, in John Byrne's case, it was a mistake.

 

It's been a long time since I read his stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think he had some great ideas, but the final execution was always lacking. I liked his Man of Steel (I'm at work and lack my usual pile of references) in the way it updated the Superman origin story, but the final product just lacked something. I didn't "pop" for me like say a Dark Knight Returns or even a Batman: Year One did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted

When I think of Byrne stories, I always remember characters sitting or standing around blabbing for page after page - a huge no-no for an action-oriented medium like comics - and a real surprise for perhaps the best action sequence man in comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

Byrne was the new Neal Adams. Everything he touched was on fire. I agree that FF #232 was the beginning of the end. Heads where too big, bodies small...he looked overworked and rushed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Austin really was a great inker and not to be underrated in this discussion.[/img]

 

I don't know about that. Much of the Byrne-Layton stuff is awesome, as is his Iron Fist work (various), his work looked very good with Dave Hunt and Dan Green in MTU/Avengers, and while some of the inkers were definitely better than others, Austin didn't make Byrne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing