|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 13, 2018 0:26:24 GMT -5
Huh? Oh yeah, whatever. I'll give it a look sometime, maybe.  Is that just a glare of death, or a sneaky way of saying "b**w me"?  |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Jan 13, 2018 1:36:03 GMT -5
I read your reviews on Byrne's run some time back, shaxper. I have to say that, by-and-large, I agree with your conclusion on his work. It just isn't very good. I've tried reading through his entire run, but past the MOS miniseries and his first few issues on the main titles, my eyes start glazing over. It's all just so very dull and passionless to me.
Byrne brought some good ideas to the table, but it's the writers who came after who took those ideas and made something worth while with them.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 13, 2018 9:57:51 GMT -5
Byrne brought some good ideas to the table, but it's the writers who came after who took those ideas and made something worth while with them. Just last night, I was giving some serious thought to how utterly unique the team that followed him was. I'm in the early stages of planning a post about this. Funny you should mention it! As for Byrne, I think he hit the point many zeitgeist creators do where he no longer knew how to scrutinize his own work because enough people had told him his poop smelt like roses. It's the George Lucas Effect: The genius is still in there somewhere, but he can neither say "no" to any of his own ideas nor recognize that much of his greatness came from collaboration with others. Byrne has a few great contributions to the Post-Crisis Superman mythos -- I still point to Man of Steel #2 as being his very best -- but hitting your apex on the second issue means everything else is downhill from there. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 13, 2018 10:35:40 GMT -5
I often wonder if people who praise Byrne's work on Superman didn't read the whole run. Byrne's work on Superman starts well enough, but it's ultimately sloppy, characterizes Superman poorly, and sometimes comes off as oddly preachy and/or offensive. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but here is mine: I gave John Byrne exactly three As in his entire run Man of Steel #2Superman Annual #1World of Krypton #2And six Fs (a grade I almost never give to anyone): Superman #9Action Comics #592Action Comics #593Action Comics #595Action Comics #600World of Smallville #4Everything else fell somewhere in between, suggesting a mostly unremarkable run that peaked three times and skirted the bottom of the barrel twice as often. I suspect the two big reasons why Byrne's run on Superman still gets so much acclaim (by some) today are: 1: The hype at the time. These were the earliest days of the Direct Market, when comics were first being targeted at adult fanboys, and thus it seems like everything that was hyped in those earliest days still gets celebrated as the best thing ever today: Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, and this. Time doesn't seem able to mute that impact, as if people reading at the time truly believed these must be the best works ever in the history of comicdom because they were being talked about so much. 2. Byrne gets credited for all the major changes the Post-Crisis Superman reboot brought us, even if that credit is incorrectly attributed. He didn't pitch the Luthor as business tycoon idea, for example, nor Lois as more assertive/able to stand on her own, nor Superman being de-powered, nor removing the more ridiculous Silver Age aspects from the franchise. What he did give us was a more obnoxious Krypton and love triangles for both Perry White and Ma and Pa Kent, and those aren't aspects of the reboot that anyone celebrates. Anyway, that's my semi-final take on Byrne and his contribution to the Superman franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by SJNeal on Jan 13, 2018 20:38:58 GMT -5
Anyway, that's my semi-final take on Byrne and his contribution to the Superman franchise. And with that, on to greener pastures! You're about to hit a streak of home runs (imho).  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 13, 2018 20:54:01 GMT -5
Anyway, that's my semi-final take on Byrne and his contribution to the Superman franchise. And with that, on to greener pastures! You're about to hit a streak of home runs (imho). I thoroughly agree! |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 23, 2018 23:25:53 GMT -5
Hey, Shax, Here another one for your Curt Swan file. Looks like Curt was keeping busy during late 1987-early 1988 ...  That's about 38 pages of work right there. Released on May 3, 1988, according to Mike. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 24, 2018 9:34:38 GMT -5
Hey, Shax, Here another one for your Curt Swan file. Looks like Curt was keeping busy during late 1987-early 1988 ... That's about 38 pages of work right there. Released on May 3, 1988, according to Mike. Thanks for this! And since it was an annual, those 30+ pages could have been spaced out over any length of time. Three pages a month for a year, perhaps? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 24, 2018 18:10:36 GMT -5
SYFY Wire interviews Ordway, Stern, Jurgens, and Bodganove on Death of Superman. Nothing here I hadn't already known or suspected, but there are a few interesting quotes: "So here we were, writing and drawing some of the best superhero stories of our lives, but feeling like nobody was really paying attention! It vexed us." "Our own personal frustrations with what was popular in comics at the time, murderers and anti-heroes everywhere, and the persistent labeling of Superman as a "boy scout" and a cornball fueled the death itself. If only murderers and monsters were heroes and you readers were going to take Superman for granted, then you won't mind if we take him away." "I went in with a yellow legal pad that had two ideas on it. One was, "Monster trashes Metropolis" and the other was "Death of Superman." At the time, there was no thought of combining those two ideas and the monster had no name. All I knew is that I wanted a physical confrontation for Superman because most of his villains, from Luthor to Prankster to Toyman to Mr. Z didn't allow for it."  "The issue of Man of Steel before Superman #75 was deemed to be drawn with two panels a page. The issue of Action Comics was to be three panels a page. And the issue of Adventures before Action was to be four panels a page. So what we had was a super-subtle build in the action across the four weeks leading to Superman's death." "No one wanted any of the villains in Superman's rogues' gallery to gain the distinction of ultimately being the one to kill Superman. It couldn't just be Luthor without negating something thematically important. Also, it couldn't be Kryptonite, because that would have been too passive and a crutch from a writing perspective."
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 24, 2018 20:20:59 GMT -5
SYFY Wire interviews Ordway, Stern, Jurgens, and Bodganove on Death of Superman.
"No one wanted any of the villains in Superman's rogues' gallery to gain the distinction of ultimately being the one to kill Superman. It couldn't just be Luthor without negating something thematically important. Also, it couldn't be Kryptonite, because that would have been too passive and a crutch from a writing perspective." I knocked The Death of Superman over on the Knightfall at 25 thread, but this recognition that you couldn't have Luthor (or Brainiac or Parasite or Metallo or whoever) kill Superman without having that constant elephant in the room with every subsequent battle (or even mentioning of the killer's name) was very astute. I think with the death of Jason Todd at the hands of The Joker, future writers felt a need to constantly reaffirm how deadly the villain was every time he reappeared by way of a higher body count, more sadistic methods, and tedious flashbacks to Todd's death. A villain who had once been defined by any number of classic storylines and personalities had now been reined in as "the guy who killed Jason Todd". I'm sure the realisation that "Hey, if someone new kills Superman then we could milk that guy forever" factored into their decision, but the sentiments Bogdanove expresses here are still appreciated. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 24, 2018 20:38:06 GMT -5
I knocked The Death of Superman over on the Knightfall at 25 thread, but this recognition that you couldn't have Luthor (or Brainiac or Parasite or Metallo or whoever) kill Superman without having that constant elephant in the room with every subsequent battle (or even mentioning of the killer's name) was very astute. I think with the death of Jason Todd at the hands of The Joker, future writers felt a need to constantly reaffirm how deadly the villain was every time he reappeared by way of a higher body count, more sadistic methods, and tedious flashbacks to Todd's death. A villain who had once been defined by any number of classic storylines and personalities had now been reined in as "the guy who killed Jason Todd". I'm sure the realisation that "Hey, if someone new kills Superman then we could milk that guy forever" factored into their decision, but the sentiments Bogdanove expresses here are still appreciated. Funny, this is really my least favorite aspect of both Death of Superman and Knightfall. If you're going to kill the established hero after so many decades, shouldn't it come from a villain who has earned the right? Otherwise, the established and beloved rogues gallery begins to look inept compared to these newcomers who came out of left field and took down our heroes on the first try. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 24, 2018 22:41:48 GMT -5
I knocked The Death of Superman over on the Knightfall at 25 thread, but this recognition that you couldn't have Luthor (or Brainiac or Parasite or Metallo or whoever) kill Superman without having that constant elephant in the room with every subsequent battle (or even mentioning of the killer's name) was very astute. I think with the death of Jason Todd at the hands of The Joker, future writers felt a need to constantly reaffirm how deadly the villain was every time he reappeared by way of a higher body count, more sadistic methods, and tedious flashbacks to Todd's death. A villain who had once been defined by any number of classic storylines and personalities had now been reined in as "the guy who killed Jason Todd". I'm sure the realisation that "Hey, if someone new kills Superman then we could milk that guy forever" factored into their decision, but the sentiments Bogdanove expresses here are still appreciated. Funny, this is really my least favorite aspect of both Death of Superman and Knightfall. If you're going to kill the established hero after so many decades, shouldn't it come from a villain who has earned the right? Otherwise, the established and beloved rogues gallery begins to look inept compared to these newcomers who came out of left field and took down our heroes on the first try. That's a good point, but where does said villain go from there? How does a Lex Luthor who has already killed Superman respond to the obvious question "Haven't you killed this guy before?" every time he tries to kill him thereafter? It would be like having Joe Chill around as a recurring villain - he's fulfilled his purpose, time to move on. Killing Superman/crippling Batman and having them come back makes Doomsday and Bane one-trick ponies who have outstayed their welcome - at least Luthor/Joker/whoever can still claim that if they killed their foe, they'd do it properly. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 25, 2018 3:41:49 GMT -5
Pertaining to the above discussion, in the case of Doomsday coming out of nowhere to kill Superman, that was kinda what made him so scary and threatening as the tale unfolded month by month. Who the hell was this monstrosity? Where had he come from? Why was he buried alive like that at the start?
It's a classic horror movie trick: the less you know about a villain and their motives, the scarier they are. You simply wouldn't have been able to create such nail-biting suspense from an encounter with Lex Luthor or Brainiac because we've seen them go up against Supes hundreds of times. Even if they ultimately killed Superman, the build up to his death could never be as edge-of-your-seat gripping as a brand new, scarily powerful unknown villain coming out of nowhere.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,870
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 25, 2018 7:56:49 GMT -5
It's a classic horror movie trick: the less you know about a villain and their motives, the scarier they are. You simply wouldn't have been able to create such nail-biting suspense from an encounter with Lex Luthor or Brainiac because we've seen them go up against Supes hundreds of times. Even if they ultimately killed Superman, the build up to his death could never be as edge-of-your-seat gripping as a brand new, scarily powerful unknown villain coming out of nowhere. Killer point. You have officially boosted my enjoyment of this story. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 25, 2018 15:48:35 GMT -5
I feel like they could have used the Parasite, who was originally close to human but has evolved into monstrous form in the past. Just keep him from attaining that level of power again in the future. Or kill him off.
|
|
