Byrne/Claremont JLA

[awe4one]

OK...for all of you that can get comics on time.....how was their first issue?

 

Jim

[Zonker]

(minor spoiler, maybe)

 

Jim, there are a couple of threads on here with some comments about JLA 94. As far as I'm concerned, it was just okay. Felt like I'd seen a lot of these same moves before, and it turns out this arc is a set-up for Byrne's upcoming relaunch of an old DC series. From all indications, that relaunch is going to once again wreck continuity, but hey, we're not supposed to care about all that...

 

The Byrne/Claremont/Ordway storyline is certainly an improvement over the most recent JLA arc. I just think the bar was raised so high with the Grant Morrison re-launch of this title. Did you ever get around to checking out the TPBs of the early Morrison/Porter/Dell JLA? I read recently that Jeph Loeb uses those issues as his template for the wild goings-on in the new Superman/Batman book-- the sense that anything can happen, and that there are an infinite number of rabbits for the writer to pull out of his hat.

 

After Morrison left, even the Waid/Hitch/Neary JLA issues looked quite tame by comparison. JLA 94 doesn't measure up, I'm afraid to say.

[Illiterati-migration]

OK...for all of you that can get comics on time.....how was their first issue?

 

Jim

 

Blah.

 

Byrne's art, I'm sorry to say, seems rather anachronistic now. I'm afraid time is passing him by. Claremont has sucked for years, though, so he's right in step.

 

I suppose if someone's in for a real "old-school" feel ("old-school crappy", I'm sorry to say), then they'll be exceedingly pleased with the quality of the book. Otherwise, blah.

 

I would love a contemporary book with a contemporary feel from a couple of "greats" like these two, but this crapola where they're doing some sort of homage to threadbare plotlines of times gone by is... blah.

[s-man]

it was no Pheonix saga, but I gave it a....

[justiceleaguer]

....story was ok, but the art was top notch...well....for us "old school" enthusiasts at least, right MK ?

[blowout]

Byrne's art, I'm sorry to say, seems rather anachronistic now. I'm afraid time is passing him by. Claremont has sucked for years, though, so he's right in step.

 

I think it is fair to say that the glory days are long behind them.

[blutobc]

Book was just okay. Of course there are worse books being published right now. Warning possible spoiler!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think supes would ever consider wearing a charm against magic. I mean this stuff is just OLD. What made Luthor and Brainaic good villans is that they try to outsmart him.

[uclapeterg]

I bought the first 22 issuesc of JLA and loved them!

[hobbes]

I read Morrison's run on JLA in tpb form and it was awesome. The cool thing about Morrison is the volume of stuff he crams into a single issue. DC has had a hard time finding someone to follow him up on JLA and that apparently isn't going to change anytime soon.

[awe4one]

Did you ever get around to checking out the TPBs of the early Morrison/Porter/Dell JLA?

 

Yes.....and I quite enjoyed them. After reading, it seemed they would read better as TPBs than as individual issues. I obviously didn't read them individually but it's something that struck me after finishing them.....

 

Jim

[RTBrandy]

Not to knock Denny O'Neil (ever), but after the last JLA arc, this is pulitzer prize material!!

 

 

Seriously, though, I still love Byrne's pictures, and I'm hoping this'll revamp Claremont....(pun intended, again)

[THE_BEYONDER]

Why?

 

Why?

 

Why?

 

Why would they get Jerry Ordway to ink the book?

[Zonker]

Waste of Ordway's considerable talents on a lost cause?

 

-or-

 

Beyonder not an Ordway fan?

[rob_react]

Waste of Ordway's considerable talents on a lost cause?

 

-or-

 

Beyonder not an Ordway fan?

 

Ordway isn't my favorite Byrne inker (although I do like Ordway's inks over Byrne), but if the alternative is Byrne inking himself, then Ordway is the man.

 

One of Byrne's biggest problems over the past twenty years has been him inking his own stuff. He's an awful inker for his own pencils.

[awe4one]

One of Byrne's biggest problems over the past twenty years has been him inking his own stuff. He's an awful inker for his own pencils.

 

OK I need to chime in here, and I'm not singling you out Rob as I've heard this same thing from others. Where exactly can I find bad self inked Byrne art to justify this? And I'm talking bad here because I have followed Byrne around to his various projects and have yet to see where his art isn't better than 80% of the bozos currently drawing comics. I will admit that his art isn't as clean as his X-Men stuff but jeez, that's over 20 years ago. There aren't many artists out there whose art stays the same over time. Neal Adams being a perfect example.....

 

Jim

[RTBrandy]

JRJR being another example..............

[uclapeterg]

His art on Wonder Woman seemed sloppy and incomplete. Did he ink himself on that one?

[THE_BEYONDER]

One of Byrne's biggest problems over the past twenty years has been him inking his own stuff. He's an awful inker for his own pencils.

 

OK I need to chime in here, and I'm not singling you out Rob as I've heard this same thing from others. Where exactly can I find bad self inked Byrne art to justify this? And I'm talking bad here because I have followed Byrne around to his various projects and have yet to see where his art isn't better than 80% of the bozos currently drawing comics. I will admit that his art isn't as clean as his X-Men stuff but jeez, that's over 20 years ago. There aren't many artists out there whose art stays the same over time. Neal Adams being a perfect example.....

 

Jim

 

Am I allowed to respond?

 

I totally agree. When I look at the art in JLA, I try to envision what Byrne's pencils really look like.

 

Ordway butchered his art. Aside from Austin, there are very few inkers who can do Byrne's art justice.

 

I would much rather have had him ink his own pencils....then let Ordway destroy them.

[Kevin Boyd]

I don't think it's a case of Byrne's art looking awful when he inks himself, it's just that his work looks BETTER when inked by another professional... like Ordway, who I thought did a great job on JLA 94.

 

There have been many occasions where Byrne has drawn his pages in ink (in other words he did not pencil the page first) and the resulting work has not been as successful as one might have hoped when compared to a fully pencilled and inked Byrne page.

 

Kev

[rob_react]

One of Byrne's biggest problems over the past twenty years has been him inking his own stuff. He's an awful inker for his own pencils.

 

OK I need to chime in here, and I'm not singling you out Rob as I've heard this same thing from others. Where exactly can I find bad self inked Byrne art to justify this? And I'm talking bad here because I have followed Byrne around to his various projects and have yet to see where his art isn't better than 80% of the bozos currently drawing comics.

 

If you don't see it as a problem then I can't point you towards any work that will convince you . Based on the above statement, I could point you to any of the work he's done in the past 20 years where he's inked himself and you won't see the same things I do. Perception is an interesting thing and this is an illustration of it in action. You don't see it as a problem, I see it as a reason to put the book down.

 

 

I will admit that his art isn't as clean as his X-Men stuff but jeez, that's over 20 years ago. There aren't many artists out there whose art stays the same over time. Neal Adams being a perfect example.....

 

This is all meaningless to me. What you're saying about people's styles is true, but just because it's true that doesn't mean that I have to like the later style. It all boils down to this- I don't like Byrne's art as much as I used to, regardless of who inks him and when he inks himself I simply put the book down. I'm not that much of a fan of ANY artist in any artform that I will blindly follow them if I think their work is subpar. For another comic example, I don't really buy Neal Adams or Bernie Wrightson's later work either and I like both of those guys a lot more than I like John Byrne. That's the reality for me. The rest of it- who they're still better than, etc. doesn't factor into it for me. I either like the art of I don't. History counts for nada.

 

As for him being better than 80% of the people out there... he may be, but to me that just means there's 20% out there that I'll be more interested in than this guy in decline.