|
Post by badwolf on Aug 1, 2021 17:23:49 GMT -5
My first impression of Byrne was, "Does this guy even know how to draw?" NO, REALLY. It took Dan Adkins to clean him up enough that I was able to let his work grow on me. I genuinely think I put up with X-MEN because I'd gotten used to it, more than ever liking it. I mean, he was never as good as Dave Cockrum. Wow. It’s amazing how two people can look at the exact same thing and have opposite opinions. Cockrum was never an artist I felt lacked talent, but I definitely preferred Byrne’s art over Cockrum’s no matter whom was inking Byrne’s pencils. Though, by the early 90’s, Johnny definitely started cutting corners. Yeah, Cockrum was decent - what I would call "solid, reliable" - but I was never attracted to his work.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Aug 1, 2021 17:49:18 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with anything Byrne did after his first two years on FF or anything Starlin did after The Death of Captain Marvel, so can only judge based on that. But I'm definitely in the camp that Starlin was the better creator, Byrne the better artist.
(As for Dave Cockrum, he was serviceable but not great. Better than, say, a Mike Grell, but not by much and nowhere near the level of Byrne, or even Starlin for that matter.)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 1, 2021 19:16:56 GMT -5
I liked Cockrum better on X-Men and loved his Legion stuff and would prefer him over Byrne, on that. Would have liked to see him do a sustained cap run, would rather see Byrne do FF and/or Avengers than him. Cockrum doing a swashbuckling character or series is great; also, sci-fi and war comics. Definitely prefer him over Byrne in those genres.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 1, 2021 21:31:25 GMT -5
At their best - for me the 70s to very early 80s - I'd say that I liked Byrne's work a lot but I loved Starlin's - Warlock and Captain Marvel, obviously, but also his independent stuff like Darklon the Mystic. I wish he'd had a chance to bring his style to a few more Marvel series without having it cut short or obliterated by incompatible inks like it was on Dr. Strange.
I don't rate Byrne as a writer at all - though I admit I'm mostly going by samples or things I've heard about on the internet. I find very little of interest from either guy after the mid-80s or so.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 7:23:50 GMT -5
Cockrum's art was pure eye candy, also didn't hurt that nobody could design a costume better than him (easily one of my favorite Bronze Age artists), he just had an amazing aesthetic sense: Looking back now at Byrne, his actual artistic talent has become a bit more qualified to me. If he hadn't had the benefit of Austin's inks on X-Men, would he have ascended as high as he did? To some extent, I'll still say yes, though he never looked better than during that run to me. In his prime he really had a lot of talent, but also some quirks. He was not the master of drawing faces IMO, including that quirk that made a lot of them look the same. As the FF progressed, his take on Sue seemed to continue to get worse such as this later example: I'm cherry-picking a less than flattering example of course, but does highlight what I increasingly didn't care for in his art. At his best, Byrne did have a knack for creating his own style of eye candy. I think of it more as somewhat "cartoony fun", and while cartoony can often be associated with more minimalist renderings, he had a more technical flair for illustration that made the end product often quite compelling. And now to do Mr. Byrne more justice, stuff like this I think captures his better side and why he was, as commented earlier, particularly well-suited for super-hero fare: Starlin is the slicker style for me, and overall more in line with what I love about the Bronze Age from an art standpoint:
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 2, 2021 7:51:17 GMT -5
John Byrne could not draw children. His children used to scare the crap out of me when I was a kid.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 2, 2021 8:09:55 GMT -5
Byrne was top tier in the 70's -80's but he never did mind blowing page designs like this -
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 2, 2021 8:37:46 GMT -5
Byrne was adept for providing action and excitement on the page without it being a static posed or talking head. Since he more or less learned from reading comics he has both the good and bad aspects of comic book artistry. He knows how to lay out and tell a story that can be followed from panel to panel. His characters are usually in some form of movement and only more posed when necessary for artistic impact. He lacks the imagination or creativity of Starlin, who has more design and cinematic approach to his artistry. Starlin willingly will play with traditional concepts in telling his stories, jumping scenes or action while providing psychedelic mind blowing pages.
Perhaps both are specific to their changing times? Starlin with the wildly transformative 60's to early 70's of experimentation in society, clothing, drugs, sex and life in general while Byrne is the later 70's/80's where things began to swing back towards moderation and more conformist attitudes? Fantasy versus reality so to say? Both were well suited and enjoyable for different reasons for the time they premiered in. Starlin has shown more adaptability to evolving his art and writing within the boundaries of his own personal preferences where Byrne succeeds in living in his own bubble letting his viewpoints turning away fans.
Where you can either like or hate both of these creators, it feels like Byrne takes joy and delights in his arrogance and agenda while Starlin is simply expressing personal thoughts and beliefs he is truly questioning in seeking answers for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 2, 2021 8:40:54 GMT -5
I find Starlin to be one of the most overrated comics creators…possibly ever. So I guess Byrne by default. But I’m not a big fan of him either.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 2, 2021 8:50:22 GMT -5
For earth based stories and characters John Byrne hands down but for star spanning stories Jim Starlin.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 2, 2021 10:00:50 GMT -5
Byrne was top tier in the 70's -80's but he never did mind blowing page designs like this - Not even the Psycho-Man-induced nightmare sequence or the battle with Mephisto in his FF run?
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 2, 2021 10:03:09 GMT -5
Looking back now at Byrne, his actual artistic talent has become a bit more qualified to me. If he hadn't had the benefit of Austin's inks on X-Men, would he have ascended as high as he did? To some extent, I'll still say yes, though he never looked better than during that run to me. Austin looked great but I'd put it second to Byrne inking himself. The earlier part of his FF run is probably the best I've seen from him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 10:14:35 GMT -5
Looking back now at Byrne, his actual artistic talent has become a bit more qualified to me. If he hadn't had the benefit of Austin's inks on X-Men, would he have ascended as high as he did? To some extent, I'll still say yes, though he never looked better than during that run to me. Austin looked great but I'd put it second to Byrne inking himself. The earlier part of his FF run is probably the best I've seen from him. It's interesting though that Byrne did not consider himself a strong inker, and did so more out of necessity. Here's an excerpt from his site many years ago: I have never considered myself my own best inker. I started inking my own work (after the Charlton days, at least) because Terry Austin bowed out as inker on FANTASTIC FOUR, and there were no acceptable choices available. (Top of the list was Vinnie Colletta, okay?) I didn't have much clue what I was doing when I started, and so did the best I could to imitate Terry -- with less than satisfying results. Over the following years, I kept messing about with the process, changing tools, changing line weight, changing paper size. I'd hit what I felt was a pretty good stride -- NAMOR, for instance, for most of the run -- and then some inner demon would compell me to try something new, and the results were not always to my own satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2021 10:27:38 GMT -5
Despite all my comments, Byrne's FF run from about 81-84 is one of my all-time favorites, period. Age is no doubt a factor as that was some prime reading time for me as a kid, but that and the other usual suspects (Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans, Levitz/Giffen Legion, etc.) was an amazing period. For the FF specifically, only classic Lee/Kirby/Sinnott would I rank higher. I think Byrne stayed on the series a little too long (can be said of many creators).
I have also wondered what he would have done with Superman if he had arrived a couple years earlier, including not being bound to post-Crisis continuity. I think he did well with what he had to work with initially. I feel like increasingly his personality started tainting his work. His return to Marvel and treatment of the Vison and Scarlet Witch seemed really negative to me, but then he'd do something like Elseworlds Generations and it seemed like he was having fun and I really enjoyed his work again.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Aug 2, 2021 11:41:20 GMT -5
John Byrne could not draw children. His children used to scare the crap out of me when I was a kid. Haha - so true! Lots of comic book artists seem to struggle drawing children. They usually look like they wandered in from the uncanny valley. Michael Golden was a memorable exception.
|
|