Comics You personally can't Understand Cost So Much

[Prince Namor]

I copied and pasted this from JB's byrnerobotics.com forum a couple of weeks back concerning the Dark Phoenix saga:

 

Comment: JB: I was curious if you had anything to add to the origin of the Dark Phoenix Saga, as related by Jim Shooter on his blog. Are there any major discrepancies between your account of this story and his?

 

JB: I have no interest in reading anything Shooter might have written on the subject. Here, for the umpety-umpth time, is the correct and factual story. Compare and contrast as you will:

For several issues, Chris had been playing up Phoenix more and moe, even when I tried to shunt her into a supporting role. The X-Men seemed very much in danger of becoming guest stars in their own book. (Keep in mind that Jean Grey, altho one of the original team members, was not officially an X-Man at this time, having left in issue 94.)

 

Knowing of my grumbles about this, Steven Grant one day suggested that a possible "solution" was to have Phoenix become a villain. That way she could be as powerful as Chris wanted, without it being at the expense of the other characters in the book.

 

Chris passed this idea along to me, and while I did not much like the idea of doing this to one of Marvel's oldest characters (and their second female superhero!) it did present a way around my problems with Phoenix. So I agreed, and, since Chris was at that point unfamiliar with X-Lore beyond the Thomas/Adams issues, suggested Mastermind as the engine by which this transformation would be accomplished.

 

We then set off on a several issue arc in which we laid the groundwork of Jean's downfall. (Of course, Phoenix was still Jean at this point. I have sometimes wondered how things would have played if someone back at that point had suggested that Phoenix was, in fact, an entirely separate being. That way we could have had Jean and Phoenix both. A win-win.)

 

Eventually we reached the point that Phoenix would go "dark", and off she went into space for her debut rampage. As originally plotted, the total extent of destruction was one Shi'ar battle cruiser -- which fired first! So, to up this from an action that was basically self defense, I had her destroy a star, heedless of any inhabited planets that might be orbiting it. To tie this into the Marvel Universe a bit more closely than the destruction of some newly invented alien race, I got editorial permission to make it the "asparagus people" intoduced in AVENGERS 4. At this point Shooter was also told what I planned and approved it. After all this was no "worse" than anything Galactus did on a regular basis -- and at that point Galactus was still being played as nothing more than a cosmic badguy.

 

As planned, we then had the Shi'ar fight and defeat the X-Men, capture Jean, and "psychically lobotomize" her. Since the plan -- also approved by Shooter -- was to have Dark Phoenix become a recurrent villain, this would set it up for us to bring her back when we were ready.

 

The issue was finished, as was the next, which was double sized. I was well into 138, when Shooter declared that Phoenix's crime was too great, and that she must be "taken to a prison asteroid and horribly tortured for all eternity".

 

When Chris passed this edict along to me I saw nothing but complications. Obviously the X-Men would not stand still for this -- especially Scott! -- and I seriously doubted the fans would either. I saw the X-Men becoming mired in an endless series of hopeless attempts to rescue Jean, who, of course, would have to be "horribly tortured" the whole time. And there would be no chance of an actual rescue as long as Shooter was in charge.

 

*spoon* that! I'd rather kill her!"

 

Which, with much redrawing and rewriting of already completed issues, is what we did."

[sckao]

 

That actually pretty much corroborates what Shooter wrote... except for Byrne's alleged call to Shooter after Shooter approved the idea of killing her which totally negates the idea that he was serious about it.

 

And also excludes Chris Claremont's alleged statement at a comic convention in Baltimore:

 

876117bc-8f09-11e0-8ba0-000f20980440 said...

I went to a comic book convention in Baltimore maybe six months after # 137 came out. Claremont was the guest of honor and I decided to attend his panel discussion because the Days of Future Past storyline was really cool and I had questions about it. I will never forget this: as soon as Claremont was introduced, he walked up the podium and said "Let me say this before we start. I didn't kill Phoenix, Shooter did."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[500Club]

I truly don't think it's possible to overstate how big John Byrne was when John Byrne was big.

Sure it is. John Byrne does it all the time.

 

And this, to some extent, explains the diminished goodwill towards JB.

 

Phil Hellmuth occupies the same position in the poker world.

[500Club]

That actually pretty much corroborates what Shooter wrote... except for Byrne's alleged call to Shooter after Shooter approved the idea of killing her which totally negates the idea that he was serious about it.

 

And also excludes Chris Claremont's alleged statement at a comic convention in Baltimore:

 

876117bc-8f09-11e0-8ba0-000f20980440 said...

I went to a comic book convention in Baltimore maybe six months after # 137 came out. Claremont was the guest of honor and I decided to attend his panel discussion because the Days of Future Past storyline was really cool and I had questions about it. I will never forget this: as soon as Claremont was introduced, he walked up the podium and said "Let me say this before we start. I didn't kill Phoenix, Shooter did."

 

 

Tough to say. He may have been implying that Shooter forced a resolution that ultimately meant the death of Phoenix.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I truly don't think it's possible to overstate how big John Byrne was when John Byrne was big.

Sure it is. John Byrne does it all the time.

 

And this, to some extent, explains the diminished goodwill towards JB.

 

Phil Hellmuth occupies the same position in the poker world.

 

.

 

There was no one bigger than John Byrne, when John Byrne was it. He may be riding that train to the end of time, but when he was hot, he was burning the house down. I'm not commenting on his ability, or even his body of work right now...just on how he was received by comics fandom at that time.

 

Love the guy, hate the guy, whatever...John Byrne packed them in in the early 80's, moreso than any artist before or since.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

[This is water]

All comics cost too much.

[Logan510]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

[Logan510]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No, that's the wuss way out.

 

Dark Knight Returns #1 stands alone. People who know nothing about the story are drawn to it because it is a POWERFUL image.

 

Same with Batman #404.

 

Same with Bats #428.

 

Punisher #1, Web #31. Etc.

 

These covers are powerful in their own right, and have created followings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story inside.

 

These are powerful, DYNAMIC covers that imply motion, drama, and power. Sure X-Men #141 implies drama....but not so much in the others, and certainly not very original.

 

Sorry, but John Byrne covers have never come close to Miller, or Mazz, or Bolland, or Adams, or Sienkewicz...forget Frazetta...or even Perez or McFarlane or Lee. They are GOOD covers, and they do their job well, but stand alone? Powerful simply as images?

 

Not really.

 

Tell me how many covers of John Byrne have been merchandised......

 

[Logan510]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No, that's the wuss way out.

 

Dark Knight Returns #1 stands alone. People who know nothing about the story are drawn to it because it is a POWERFUL image.

 

Same with Batman #404.

 

Same with Bats #428.

 

Punisher #1, Web #31. Etc.

 

These covers are powerful in their own right, and have created followings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story inside.

 

These are powerful, DYNAMIC covers that imply motion, drama, and power. Sure X-Men #141 implies drama....but not so much in the others, and certainly not very original.

 

Sorry, but John Byrne covers have never come close to Miller, or Mazz, or Bolland, or Adams, or Sienkewicz...forget Frazetta...or even Perez or McFarlane or Lee. They are GOOD covers, and they do their job well, but stand alone? Powerful simply as images?

 

Not really.

 

Tell me how many covers of John Byrne have been merchandised......

 

 

It's not the wuss way out. I'm not going to argue something as arbitrary as personal taste. In the end, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine

 

I never claimed JB was a "great" cover artist, he doesn't even think he's a great cover artist. I just came up with an example of an iconic cover image that he's done.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No, that's the wuss way out.

 

Dark Knight Returns #1 stands alone. People who know nothing about the story are drawn to it because it is a POWERFUL image.

 

Same with Batman #404.

 

Same with Bats #428.

 

Punisher #1, Web #31. Etc.

 

These covers are powerful in their own right, and have created followings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story inside.

 

These are powerful, DYNAMIC covers that imply motion, drama, and power. Sure X-Men #141 implies drama....but not so much in the others, and certainly not very original.

 

Sorry, but John Byrne covers have never come close to Miller, or Mazz, or Bolland, or Adams, or Sienkewicz...forget Frazetta...or even Perez or McFarlane or Lee. They are GOOD covers, and they do their job well, but stand alone? Powerful simply as images?

 

Not really.

 

Tell me how many covers of John Byrne have been merchandised......

 

 

It's not the wuss way out. I'm not going to argue something as arbitrary as personal taste. In the end, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine

 

I never claimed JB was a "great" cover artist, he doesn't even think he's a great cover artist. I just came up with an example of an iconic cover image that he's done.

 

I'm not arguing personal taste. Personal taste is utterly unassailable.

 

[500Club]

I truly don't think it's possible to overstate how big John Byrne was when John Byrne was big.

Sure it is. John Byrne does it all the time.

 

And this, to some extent, explains the diminished goodwill towards JB.

 

Phil Hellmuth occupies the same position in the poker world.

 

.

 

There was no one bigger than John Byrne, when John Byrne was it. He may be riding that train to the end of time, but when he was hot, he was burning the house down. I'm not commenting on his ability, or even his body of work right now...just on how he was received by comics fandom at that time.

 

Love the guy, hate the guy, whatever...John Byrne packed them in in the early 80's, moreso than any artist before or since.

 

We're in full agreement on that point. (thumbs u

 

The ancilliary point, which has come up in this thread, is the fact that JB doesn't seem to be remembered proportionately to his monster early 80s popularity. I can't help but think his boastfulness has played a role, and Bedrock's comment very cleverly captures this.

[Logan510]

I truly don't think it's possible to overstate how big John Byrne was when John Byrne was big.

Sure it is. John Byrne does it all the time.

 

And this, to some extent, explains the diminished goodwill towards JB.

 

Phil Hellmuth occupies the same position in the poker world.

 

.

 

There was no one bigger than John Byrne, when John Byrne was it. He may be riding that train to the end of time, but when he was hot, he was burning the house down. I'm not commenting on his ability, or even his body of work right now...just on how he was received by comics fandom at that time.

 

Love the guy, hate the guy, whatever...John Byrne packed them in in the early 80's, moreso than any artist before or since.

 

We're in full agreement on that point. (thumbs u

 

The ancilliary point, which has come up in this thread, is the fact that JB doesn't seem to be remembered proportionately to his monster early 80s popularity. I can't help but think his boastfulness has played a role, and Bedrock's comment very cleverly captures this.

 

 

Perception is reality. Some people think he has a huge ego or are rubbed the wrong way by him. others are not. I'm sure in time he'll eventually get his due. Sometimes memories are short as in the case of 70's Jack " Jack the hack" Kirby. Thankfully Kirby was still alive to see the tide turn.

[500Club]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No, that's the wuss way out.

 

Dark Knight Returns #1 stands alone. People who know nothing about the story are drawn to it because it is a POWERFUL image.

 

Same with Batman #404.

 

Same with Bats #428.

 

Punisher #1, Web #31. Etc.

 

These covers are powerful in their own right, and have created followings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story inside.

 

These are powerful, DYNAMIC covers that imply motion, drama, and power. Sure X-Men #141 implies drama....but not so much in the others, and certainly not very original.

 

Batman 428? Drama, yes, not so much in the others. Original?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

In terms of that being Byrne's Artistic Masterpiece, the covers to X-men #136 and #137 weren't his best work and actually detract from the story art in my opinion.

 

 

Byrne's never been one for breathtaking covers. It's hard to think of iconic John Byrne covers that stand alone as masterpieces, a la Mazz on Batman #404, Miller on DK #1, Mignola on Bats #426-429, McFarlane on Spidey #316, Zeck on Punisher Ltd #1, 3, Web #31, etc. However, as far as storytelling goes, it's very, very hard to find a better one than Byrne. See: Batman #433 (yes, Aparo drew it, but Byrne wrote it.)

 

He is, and always has been, one of the best storytellers in the business.

 

Just off the top of my head is X-Men 141 which has been homaged to death.

 

Sure, but that's because of the story, not the cover. The cover's pretty standard fare, and not even a very original concept:

 

 

 

 

You can make the same argument for several covers on your list as far as it being about the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No, that's the wuss way out.

 

Dark Knight Returns #1 stands alone. People who know nothing about the story are drawn to it because it is a POWERFUL image.

 

Same with Batman #404.

 

Same with Bats #428.

 

Punisher #1, Web #31. Etc.

 

These covers are powerful in their own right, and have created followings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story inside.

 

These are powerful, DYNAMIC covers that imply motion, drama, and power. Sure X-Men #141 implies drama....but not so much in the others, and certainly not very original.

 

Batman 428? Drama, yes, not so much in the others. Original?

 

 

You have something it was based on...?

 

[500Club]

As a follow up to Byrne's covers, he didn't tend to produce the simple iconic image, as per Lee's Batman 608.

 

His covers tended to hint at the interiors, to interest and draw the reader in, and in that vein, X-Men 141 is one of the finest examples. How, as a follower of the X-Men, could you see that cover, and not want to read the story?

[whomerjay]

 

Chew #1 - WTF is this book anyways..

 

 

 

because I will have to admit I ask myself that question about so many books, ones I know nothing about and don't even care to find out

[CR]

 

Chew #1 - WTF is this book anyways..

 

 

 

because I will have to admit I ask myself that question about so many books, ones I know nothing about and don't even care to find out

 

 

Having only seen the cover, I can only assume it's about a deranged cop who arrests people and then eats them.