Comics You personally can't Understand Cost So Much

[Juswuh]

I always thought FF #66 and 67 were way overpriced... the first appearance of someone later made famous by Jim Starlin as Warlock. The original story wasn't so bad, just not as good as the preceding two years worth of FF classics. But the character?

 

Imagine the deadline drama.

Stan: "What do you call him?"

Jack: "I still haven't named him."

Stan: "Well, we gotta come up with something for him."

Jack: "Let's see... for him... let's call him..."

Stan: "Time's up! Him! The power of Him!"

 

Legend has it that those two issues were the last straw in Kirby's relationship with Marvel in the Sixties - in drawing 66 he had a plot in mind, but Stan's dialogue took it in a completely different direction. Kirby cut the story short in 67 and thereafter pretty much gave up introducing new characters and concepts.

[Bronty]

Spoiler - long, effusive post ahead. Read at your peril!

 

 

Listen...I never read comics as a kid. Don't know why, but I didn't. The only comic I ever remember reading is Rom #47.

 

I didn't seriously get into comics until my 18th year. And I'm a fairly smart, fairly well educated guy. I do not have the emotional attachment to comics that a lot of fans do, because I wasn't 9 or 10 or 11 when I read them.

 

I am like that with movies. I saw Poseidon Adventure when I was 8 on some Saturday afternoon matinee thing on TV, and LOVED it. Thought it was the greatest movie ever made. And I was, and remain, a HUGE fan of action suspense films.

 

So, when I saw it on VHS at Costco around 1994, I bought it. Then I watched it.

It was awful. Just hideous.

 

And that sullied the memory for me, in a way. I don't do that anymore.

 

So I can understand how things may not hold up. I enjoyed Dark Phoenix, but it wasn't the earth shattering experience that most folks who read it as a kid thought. The dialogue is stunted and hideous, and painful to read. The PLOTTING is EXCELLENT, and the plot elements were fantastic...but as a work of literature, it falls very short.

 

Born Again has no such issues. I read it the first time when I was 19-20 or so. I have read it a couple of times since then. It has none of the issues that Claremont suffered dramatically from, and even Byrne to an extent.

 

It.

 

Is.

 

Perfection.

 

If you haven't read it...go ahead, do yourself a favor, and pick up the issues. They are CRIMINALLY cheap for what they are.

 

I completely agree. I have nothing to add other than I blame DD 228 being one of my earliest comics for my inability to read most vintage stuff.

 

Think how I feel.

 

As an adult, the very first comics I read were:

 

Born Again

Killing Joke

Animal Man (Grant Morrison)

Miracleman

Swamp Thing (Alan Moore)

Giffen and DeMatteis' Justice League

Batman Year One

Dark Knight Returns

Watchmen

Sandman

 

These were MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO COMICS.

 

I mean, really, what chance did the older stuff have...?

 

I haven't read the ones in bold. I should get on that. I assume you're talking Vertigo Sandman?

 

saga of the swamp thing 21 is probably one of the 10 best comics ever published. Its criminal that you haven't read that or miracleman.

 

Some of the impact may be lost because hey those books are now 25 years old after all and what was groundbreaking then is less so today. But those are some incredible books you missed out on and you should rectify immediately!

[Bronty]

Oh, and nobody really cares that DD #168 is Frank Miller's first writing.

 

They really don't.

 

The book is valuable because it introduces Elektra, who was about the most kickass female character introduction in the entire Marvel U up to that point.

 

Where Frank Miller's writing starts to matter is Ronin, then DD #227-233, then Dark Knight. Then Year One. Then Sin City. Then 300.

 

And that's about it.

 

They might not care now ( though I doubt that ), but at the time it came out it was a big deal.

 

See, when I read the fan and professional literature of the time, I just don't see any reference to "Miller's writing!" being any reason to pick the books up. Sure, by the time #168 had come out, #158 had been out for over a year and a half, and people were really digging the art...but there's nothing I see about people reacting to his writing until Ronin. DD #181 was a big deal, but that was because Elektra had proved to be so very, very popular, and back then, death was still a big deal (having just killed off Phoenix not a year earlier.)

 

Remember, it wasn't until Alan Moore and Swamp Thing that anything was broken out because of the writer. Sure, artist, absolutely, starting with Neal Adams. But for writing, it would take the mid 80's for that to happen, long after Miller's first stint.

 

 

definitely true that 168 wasn't initially broken out due to his writing, although I have to say that in reading the 158 - 190whatever block years and years ago, I specifically noticed the change and improvement in the writing and began even then to value 168 above 158 for that reason. I get your point; the writing wasn't initially a selling point. But I think it became a bit of a selling point as time went on.

[Bronty]

Spoiler - long, effusive post ahead. Read at your peril!

 

 

Listen...I never read comics as a kid. Don't know why, but I didn't. The only comic I ever remember reading is Rom #47.

 

I didn't seriously get into comics until my 18th year. And I'm a fairly smart, fairly well educated guy. I do not have the emotional attachment to comics that a lot of fans do, because I wasn't 9 or 10 or 11 when I read them.

 

I am like that with movies. I saw Poseidon Adventure when I was 8 on some Saturday afternoon matinee thing on TV, and LOVED it. Thought it was the greatest movie ever made. And I was, and remain, a HUGE fan of action suspense films.

 

So, when I saw it on VHS at Costco around 1994, I bought it. Then I watched it.

It was awful. Just hideous.

 

And that sullied the memory for me, in a way. I don't do that anymore.

 

So I can understand how things may not hold up. I enjoyed Dark Phoenix, but it wasn't the earth shattering experience that most folks who read it as a kid thought. The dialogue is stunted and hideous, and painful to read. The PLOTTING is EXCELLENT, and the plot elements were fantastic...but as a work of literature, it falls very short.

 

Born Again has no such issues. I read it the first time when I was 19-20 or so. I have read it a couple of times since then. It has none of the issues that Claremont suffered dramatically from, and even Byrne to an extent.

 

It.

 

Is.

 

Perfection.

 

If you haven't read it...go ahead, do yourself a favor, and pick up the issues. They are CRIMINALLY cheap for what they are.

 

I completely agree. I have nothing to add other than I blame DD 228 being one of my earliest comics for my inability to read most vintage stuff.

 

Think how I feel.

 

As an adult, the very first comics I read were:

 

Born Again

Killing Joke

Animal Man (Grant Morrison)

Miracleman

Swamp Thing (Alan Moore)

Giffen and DeMatteis' Justice League

Batman Year One

Dark Knight Returns

Watchmen

Sandman

 

These were MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO COMICS.

 

I mean, really, what chance did the older stuff have...?

 

I haven't read the ones in bold. I should get on that. I assume you're talking Vertigo Sandman?

 

really? Those are what comic should be.

 

Although, I've never read Animal Man. Anyone care to explain what is the premise?

 

I haven't read many comics. I haven't owned many comics. I don't know why I'm here.

 

[Bronty]

Byrne WAS huge and it does probably seem strange to people who weren't around for it.

 

And he was a superstar for all of the right reasons; he wasn't afraid to take chances these characters who had gotten stagnant, solid craftsmanship, solid storytelling skills, work horse ethic....

 

But unlike Miller, JB never really had a masterpiece .

 

Sure he did.

 

Dark Phoenix IS a masterpiece, as badly dialogued as it is.

 

And Man of Steel comes pretty damn close.

 

There were other extremely high points as well - such as the FF/Galactus trilogy 242-244, and the tragic FFs 265 and 285.

 

As you said a couple pages back, Dark Phoenix is hurt by the dialogue - the Claremont part of the equation. Ultimately, Byrne left X-Men partly due to CCs expositive storytelling style.

 

I always thought the byrne FF run was his 'masterpiece'. They are incredible books.

[Bronty]

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.

 

ff257 comes to mind for me, as does 236 and some others like 247 and 243. but you are right that his covers were mostly straight-ahead, low-risk affairs. The few where he went outside that formula are great though. Nobody took risks like miller and moore and they had the talent to pull it off. JB had all the talent in the world but he was more of a kirby type at the end of the day.... more of a steady craftsman than a risk taker. And, unlike kirby, his drawing most certainly didn't get better as time passed

[Bronty]

I always thought FF #66 and 67 were way overpriced... the first appearance of someone later made famous by Jim Starlin as Warlock. The original story wasn't so bad, just not as good as the preceding two years worth of FF classics. But the character?

 

Imagine the deadline drama.

Stan: "What do you call him?"

Jack: "I still haven't named him."

Stan: "Well, we gotta come up with something for him."

Jack: "Let's see... for him... let's call him..."

Stan: "Time's up! Him! The power of Him!"

 

+4000. warlock is a cool enough character but ff 66 and 67 are utterly meaningless

[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.

 

ff257 comes to mind for me, as does 236 and some others like 247 and 243. but you are right that his covers were mostly straight-ahead, low-risk affairs. The few where he went outside that formula are great though. Nobody took risks like miller and moore and they had the talent to pull it off. JB had all the talent in the world but he was more of a kirby type at the end of the day.... more of a steady craftsman than a risk taker. And, unlike kirby, his drawing most certainly didn't get better as time passed

 

Well...it really did, and it peaked at Superman.

 

His X-Men stuff was good, his style established...but his FF run you can see him really fine tuning and playing with shading, light, color, perspective, and by Supes, he was chugging at full speed. Artistically, his Supes run is probably the one thing you can point at as "this is the best stuff John Byrne ever drew", and you'd be close to the mark. That period, from about 1984-1987, was really the best art he ever did, for all the usual reasons.

 

FF #243 was a highlight, but the quality dipped a little bit again until you get to around the late 260's, especially #267, at least until Ordway took over as inker.

 

You can tell that the man was in love with his work, at the absolute height of his career. It's just not possible to read FF and Supes from the era and be unaffected by the love this guy had for the work he was doing. It very clearly shows, on every single page. Byrne single-handedly rescued FF from second-tier obscurity. Quick...name a single FF story after Kirby left that made an impact on anyone. FF floundered for a DECADE with no direction. Shooter was writing Korvac in Avengers, Claremont and Byrne were redefining the X-Men, Michelinie and Jr. were crafting Iron Man greatness, Gerry Conway was at least TRYING to make Spidey relevant, but FF was in the tank, along with Hulk, Thor, and several of the other Marvel stalwarts.

 

Byrne dragged the FF into the 80's, kicking and screaming, and made them relevant again. No small feat. And his run is nearly always cited as the second best run of the last 50 years, after Lee and Kirby.

 

After he left Supes, he took over AWC, which isn't horrid, then She-Hulk, where he started to get very obviously lazy (seriously, you could tell he was fighting with Bobbi Chase the whole time), then he started dabbling with computer graphics with Wolverine, and next thing you know, he's laying down ultra heavy inks in Next Men...and it was never the same again.

 

Man of Steel is Byrne's masterpiece, and while maybe not in quite the same league as DKR or Watchmen, it's at least in the same ballpark.

[500Club]

Man of Steel is Byrne's masterpiece, and while maybe not in quite the same league as DKR or Watchmen, it's at least in the same ballpark.

This is a bold, bold statement... I'm gonna have to re-read the mini-series. When discussing Byrne's 'masterpiece', both the art and the story need to be considered...

[jjonahjameson1]

Man of Steel is Byrne's masterpiece, and while maybe not in quite the same league as DKR or Watchmen, it's at least in the same ballpark.

This is a bold, bold statement... I'm gonna have to re-read the mini-series. When discussing Byrne's 'masterpiece', both the art and the story need to be considered...

 

I found Watchmen boring and much preferred the Byrne Man of Steel mini. However, I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.

[VintageComics]

I always thought FF #66 and 67 were way overpriced... the first appearance of someone later made famous by Jim Starlin as Warlock. The original story wasn't so bad, just not as good as the preceding two years worth of FF classics. But the character?

 

Imagine the deadline drama.

Stan: "What do you call him?"

Jack: "I still haven't named him."

Stan: "Well, we gotta come up with something for him."

Jack: "Let's see... for him... let's call him..."

Stan: "Time's up! Him! The power of Him!"

 

Legend has it that those two issues were the last straw in Kirby's relationship with Marvel in the Sixties - in drawing 66 he had a plot in mind, but Stan's dialogue took it in a completely different direction. Kirby cut the story short in 67 and thereafter pretty much gave up introducing new characters and concepts.

 

I had heard that it was the Surfer that broke the camel's back.

 

It appears that Stan gave Kirby the last issue of a dying title to try to appease Kirby (Kirby took the title into a completely new direction) and then the title got cancelled.

 

Kirby was an outer space, extra terrestrial intergalactic battle of the planets type of guy and Stan was always pulling towards the human side and humanity.

 

Check out the last page of Surfer #18.

 

 

 

[500Club]

After he left Supes, he took over AWC, which isn't horrid, then She-Hulk, where he started to get very obviously lazy (seriously, you could tell he was fighting with Bobbi Chase the whole time), then he started dabbling with computer graphics with Wolverine, and next thing you know, he's laying down ultra heavy inks in Next Men...and it was never the same again.

 

In reading the recent byrnerobotics thread, and looking at some of the commission pieces posted, it makes me wonder if there wasn't a Randian sort of 'withdrawal of talent' going on with his 90's work onward. The Avengers piece is tightly inked and more reminiscent of the FF/Superman period than any Byrne stuff I've seen in almost 20 years.

[Bronty]

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.

 

ff257 comes to mind for me, as does 236 and some others like 247 and 243. but you are right that his covers were mostly straight-ahead, low-risk affairs. The few where he went outside that formula are great though. Nobody took risks like miller and moore and they had the talent to pull it off. JB had all the talent in the world but he was more of a kirby type at the end of the day.... more of a steady craftsman than a risk taker. And, unlike kirby, his drawing most certainly didn't get better as time passed

 

Well...it really did, and it peaked at Superman.

.

 

I think we are talking about the same thing... when I say "over time" I mean... over the decades. Byrne was great for roughly one decade and then that was kind of all she wrote. kirby's art from the 60's on the other hand is better than his stuff from the 40s or 50s

[Logan510]

After he left Supes, he took over AWC, which isn't horrid, then She-Hulk, where he started to get very obviously lazy (seriously, you could tell he was fighting with Bobbi Chase the whole time), then he started dabbling with computer graphics with Wolverine, and next thing you know, he's laying down ultra heavy inks in Next Men...and it was never the same again.

 

In reading the recent byrnerobotics thread, and looking at some of the commission pieces posted, it makes me wonder if there wasn't a Randian sort of 'withdrawal of talent' going on with his 90's work onward. The Avengers piece is tightly inked and more reminiscent of the FF/Superman period than any Byrne stuff I've seen in almost 20 years.

 

Did you ever read his OMAC series from the early 90's? Excellent stuff IMHO. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think he peaked with MoS.

[supapimp]

i can't believe you left out DD 191, prolly the best miller issue after DD 181.

[Logan510]

i can't believe you left out DD 191, prolly the best miller issue after DD 181.

 

Pretty heady stuff for a kid when I first read that. One of the things I absolutely love about Miller's DD and a lot of other stuff at the time was how layered it was. Reading it 10 or even 20 years after first reading it off the stands was such a different experience.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Man of Steel is Byrne's masterpiece, and while maybe not in quite the same league as DKR or Watchmen, it's at least in the same ballpark.

This is a bold, bold statement... I'm gonna have to re-read the mini-series. When discussing Byrne's 'masterpiece', both the art and the story need to be considered...

 

MoS gets short shrift specifically because it was so massively overordered. It was, after all, the reason why DC beat Marvel in dollar and unit shares for the first time since 1971, a feat they wouldn't pull off again until 1993 with Reign of the Supermen.

 

Because it's not (and can't be) a back issue juggernaut, it gets dismissed a lot more easily than other books. But MoS accomplished the amazing...it successfully re-defined Superman for the modern age, and, as we all know, Supes wasn't the most relevant character at the time.

 

And yes, of course it is a package, not just the art, which must be considered.

 

It is the ultimate retcon, because it is essentially the first one that ever happened. Alan Moore took Swamp Thing, changed nothing, and changed everything. Byrne took Superman, and just changed everything, while leaving in place the basic framework that made Superman so popuilar in the first place. He got rid of the Super Monkeys, and Super Horses, and the silly nonsense with Lois Lane and Lana Lang fighting over who got to date Supes....and much, much more of the illogical baggage that had been tying Supes down for decades.

 

He springboarded off Crisis, (re)starting the character from scratch, and forced DC to give him carte blanche...which they did.

 

As a direct result, for good or for ill, "retcons" became standard in the industry, with later creators jettisoning anything they didn't like about whatever character they were working on, and many of them cited Byrne's smashing success with Superman as the justification.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

After he left Supes, he took over AWC, which isn't horrid, then She-Hulk, where he started to get very obviously lazy (seriously, you could tell he was fighting with Bobbi Chase the whole time), then he started dabbling with computer graphics with Wolverine, and next thing you know, he's laying down ultra heavy inks in Next Men...and it was never the same again.

 

In reading the recent byrnerobotics thread, and looking at some of the commission pieces posted, it makes me wonder if there wasn't a Randian sort of 'withdrawal of talent' going on with his 90's work onward. The Avengers piece is tightly inked and more reminiscent of the FF/Superman period than any Byrne stuff I've seen in almost 20 years.

 

Did you ever read his OMAC series from the early 90's? Excellent stuff IMHO. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think he peaked with MoS.

 

Neither do I. You've read Superman #22? Amazing stuff.

[Logan510]

After he left Supes, he took over AWC, which isn't horrid, then She-Hulk, where he started to get very obviously lazy (seriously, you could tell he was fighting with Bobbi Chase the whole time), then he started dabbling with computer graphics with Wolverine, and next thing you know, he's laying down ultra heavy inks in Next Men...and it was never the same again.

 

In reading the recent byrnerobotics thread, and looking at some of the commission pieces posted, it makes me wonder if there wasn't a Randian sort of 'withdrawal of talent' going on with his 90's work onward. The Avengers piece is tightly inked and more reminiscent of the FF/Superman period than any Byrne stuff I've seen in almost 20 years.

 

Did you ever read his OMAC series from the early 90's? Excellent stuff IMHO. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think he peaked with MoS.

 

Neither do I. You've read Superman #22? Amazing stuff.

 

Phantom Zone villains right? Great issue and IIRC very controversial at the time...Byrne took a lot of heat for that one ever years after the fact.

[VintageComics]

Man of Steel is Byrne's masterpiece, and while maybe not in quite the same league as DKR or Watchmen, it's at least in the same ballpark.

This is a bold, bold statement... I'm gonna have to re-read the mini-series. When discussing Byrne's 'masterpiece', both the art and the story need to be considered...

 

MoS gets short shrift specifically because it was so massively overordered. It was, after all, the reason why DC beat Marvel in dollar and unit shares for the first time since 1971, a feat they wouldn't pull off again until 1993 with Reign of the Supermen.

 

Because it's not (and can't be) a back issue juggernaut, it gets dismissed a lot more easily than other books. But MoS accomplished the amazing...it successfully re-defined Superman for the modern age, and, as we all know, Supes wasn't the most relevant character at the time.

 

And yes, of course it is a package, not just the art, which must be considered.

 

It is the ultimate retcon, because it is essentially the first one that ever happened. Alan Moore took Swamp Thing, changed nothing, and changed everything. Byrne took Superman, and just changed everything, while leaving in place the basic framework that made Superman so popuilar in the first place. He got rid of the Super Monkeys, and Super Horses, and the silly nonsense with Lois Lane and Lana Lang fighting over who got to date Supes....and much, much more of the illogical baggage that had been tying Supes down for decades.

 

He springboarded off Crisis, (re)starting the character from scratch, and forced DC to give him carte blanche...which they did.

 

As a direct result, for good or for ill, "retcons" became standard in the industry, with later creators jettisoning anything they didn't like about whatever character they were working on, and many of them cited Byrne's smashing success with Superman as the justification.

 

I was heavily leaning towards Marvel when this came out and with the exception of Batman didn't read much DC anymore but what you are saying seems to ring true. I remember it being a good read but because it wasn't all that "collectible" (ie. very abundant) I think it got overlooked by many.

 

I'm going to check it out eventually.

 

Does this tie into what Shooter was saying about Marvel wanting to buy DC and Byrne being gung ho about it? Seems like it....