|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 10:01:22 GMT -5
It's a Byrne problem. not because publishers have decided he's obsolete, because he's dug himself a hole of obsolescence that destroyed his credibility (and cache) with many members of his former customer base that he needed to remain relevant. If he had that credibility, if he had that cache, if he was a winning bet, he'd have projects coming out. He doesn't. And instead of working to fix the credibility issues, he doubles down on it thinking past success entitles him to continued opportunities, taking no ownership as to why he has lost that credibility. As much as Byrne wants to point fingers at publishers and blame them, he has 3 fingers pointing back at himself when he does that, and that tells the true story, not his scapegoating of publishers. No disagreement from me on any of that. This is true in any line of work pretty much...no matter how high your star was at any point, you mouth off enough and people stop wanting to work with you, and then when it finally it hits you don't have that star power any more, doubling down and being angry just aggravates things that much more. Alex Ross not only has the creative talent, but he's a likeable guy and seems to have had enough savvy to navigate business relationships knowing when he can flex his opinions a little but still be someone easy to work with overall. Byrne most certainly does NOT have Metallica/Ross status at this point and for the reasons you mentioned, and yes, as a result it's a much bigger financial gamble at this point to hand him a mainstream project and expect similar sales outcomes (and why nobody is knocking his door down for that). But no matter how much baggage he carries, no matter how much his star had faded mostly due to his own actions, he WAS a former mega star. And going back to the original question of how he could be relevant in 2023, not necessarily the likelihood of it, I'm just saying IF he could and did tap into his former creative well, the relevance would simply be "old school John" showing shades of his former brilliance. The odds are always against this kind of scenario, a troubled creator remerging after so many years and surprising people with some semblance of a return to form. But I think he can as a minimum still draw well, and if the stars magically aligned and he had a positive attitude (I know, I know, don't bet on that), he might have a "relevant" creative statement still to make. I think he's probably his own worst enemy, and that's more a factor here than anybody wanting to hire him to draw a project based on his artistic abilities alone (though yes, I agree with others his creative output for many years overall has not continued to maintain what made him so great back in the day). The fact that other art styles are more fashionable these days certainly compounds how many potential offers there would be (it's going to be a much much narrower field at this point), but again I think he can at least draw still. And I still like his art style.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 10:14:22 GMT -5
It's a Byrne problem. not because publishers have decided he's obsolete, because he's dug himself a hole of obsolescence that destroyed his credibility (and cache) with many members of his former customer base that he needed to remain relevant. If he had that credibility, if he had that cache, if he was a winning bet, he'd have projects coming out. He doesn't. And instead of working to fix the credibility issues, he doubles down on it thinking past success entitles him to continued opportunities, taking no ownership as to why he has lost that credibility. As much as Byrne wants to point fingers at publishers and blame them, he has 3 fingers pointing back at himself when he does that, and that tells the true story, not his scapegoating of publishers. No disagreement from me on any of that. This is true in any line of work pretty much...no matter how high your star was at any point, you mouth off enough and people stop wanting to work with you, and then when it finally it hits you don't have that star power any more, doubling down and being angry just aggravates things that much more. Alex Ross not only has the creative talent, but he's a likeable guy and seems to have had enough savvy to navigate business relationships knowing when he can flex his opinions a little but still be someone easy to work with overall. Byrne most certainly does NOT have Metallica/Ross status at this point and for the reasons you mentioned, and yes, as a result it's a much bigger financial gamble at this point to hand him a mainstream project and expect similar sales outcomes (and why nobody is knocking his door down for that). But no matter how much baggage he carries, no matter how much his star had faded mostly due to his own actions, he WAS a former mega star. And going back to the original question of how he could be relevant in 2023, not necessarily the likelihood of it, I'm just saying IF he could and did tap into his former creative well, the relevance would simply be "old school John" showing shades of his former brilliance. The odds are always against this kind of scenario, a troubled creator remerging after so many years and surprising people with some semblance of a return to form. But I think he can as a minimum still draw well, and if the stars magically aligned and he had a positive attitude (I know, I know, don't bet on that), he might have a "relevant" creative statement still to make. I think he's probably his own worst enemy, and that's more a factor here than anybody wanting to hire him to draw a project based on his artistic abilities alone (though yes, I agree with others his creative output for many years overall has not continued to maintain what made him so great back in the day). The fact that other art styles are more fashionable these days certainly compounds how many potential offers there would be (it's going to be a much much narrower field at this point), but again I think he can at least draw still. And I still like his art style. that's all well and good. The question is, how many people who aren't buying it because they liked it back in the day would like it today? Audience tastes change and evolve. Some very rare styles are timeless. Most aren't. Byrne's style isn't timeless. It appealed in the context of the time it was in its prime. It doesn't necessarily appeal to current audiences, in fact it doesn't even appeal to some who liked it back in the day. It's no longer commercial, and in a commercial art field like comics that's a kiss of death, no matter how commercial it used to be. Liefeld use to be a commercial darling in comics. Enough that it spawned an army of imitators. Liefeld can still produce art in that style, and it has some appeal in the market to a certain select audience, but it doesn't have the commercial cache it once had. But there are still people who like it (our own icctrombone among them). Doesn't make it commercial still despite being a former megastar. Past performance is not a future predictor, especially in comics. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 10:18:46 GMT -5
@mrp - yep, completely fair question/point. Don't disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 9, 2023 10:37:53 GMT -5
Both @jaska and @mrp make good points. If someone is commercially viable past their " era" , they can continue to get work. Liefeld was sited and he does work occasionally for Marvel revisiting his creations and he even did a successful Snakes eyes mini for IDW that sold well. Alan Davis still gets work and he's 66 years old. If you can still put butts in the seats , you will get work. As it's been mentioned before, Byrne has made many enemies and his art style has become much more cartoony. Even BWS had trouble getting work because of his attitude until Valiant saved him.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 9, 2023 11:17:40 GMT -5
When an Alex Ross or Darwyn Cooke (rest his soul) go full on retro, it's somehow cool and "modern chic", but if John Byrne does it's obsolete? Ross is a fine artist who approaches comic book subjects (superheroes in particular) as a photographer would: capturing subjects as he imagined they would appear in real life, whether the story is set in the past or present; his unique talent merges seamlessly with older subjects so the reader does get a sense of a quasi-"real" world. That's not Ross being "modern chic" but an artist who placed superheroes in his world (perception + talent) so they were and are elevated to a visual level rarely seen with superheroes, making it a timeless interpretation, which was not to be found in the cartoony, faux Golden Age scribblings of Byrne's Batman/Captain America TPB.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 13:03:28 GMT -5
The likes of @mrp have articulated it far better than I could have, but I do feel Byrne is a product of his era in so many ways. In fact, on a subjective level, only Man of Steel has retained a “timeless quality” (with the exception of hairstyles and fashions, which are always dated at some point).
Could I enjoy reading his FF through 2023 eyes? I’m not so sure. Not in the same way as I still enjoy reading Peter David’s Hulk run, or Lee/Ditko Spider-Man. Like an 80s cartoon that I might not enjoy if I watch it in 2023, Byrne’s FF, which is great, might not elicit emotion out of me in the same way. And that’s fine. It’s not even really a criticism. More a semi-objective statement. I didn’t particularly enjoy 80s cartoon M.A.S.K. when I revisited it on DVD a while back; it doesn’t make it bad, it just means the world has moved on, as have I.
I do feel that if Byrne was a viable option for a publisher, they’d approach him. Wrestling has taught me how no bridge can ever be fully burned. Some wrestlers went as far as suing Vince McMahon - even beating him in court - but that didn’t stop him bringing them back into the fold to make money out of them, whether that be in the ring or as part of some Legends/merchandising contract. McMahon knew they had a value, and that meant he was able to “over-ride” his ego because the wrestlers could make money for him.
So I do feel that Byrne could get work if a publisher (Marvel, IDW, anyone) thought he had something to offer. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 9, 2023 13:10:50 GMT -5
For me I can separate the artist/creator from their work. But I agree Byrne's art style has fallen out of favor with modern comics.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 9, 2023 13:23:15 GMT -5
The likes of @mrp have articulated it far better than I could have, but I do feel Byrne is a product of his era in so many ways. In fact, on a subjective level, only Man of Steel has retained a “timeless quality” (with the exception of hairstyles and fashions, which are always dated at some point). Then being a "product of his era" is his own fault, as other artists were not trapped in the style choices (of a period), or were chained to one perception of the world around them, so they avoided illustrating people in the then-present day as they were doing decades earlier. Byrne's not the only artist to suffer from this fault, but he's a glaring example. Perhaps he was too in love with his own work to feel he needed to reflect changing eras, and as a result, paid a price for it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2023 13:28:59 GMT -5
The likes of @mrp have articulated it far better than I could have, but I do feel Byrne is a product of his era in so many ways. In fact, on a subjective level, only Man of Steel has retained a “timeless quality” (with the exception of hairstyles and fashions, which are always dated at some point). Then being a "product of his era" is his own fault, as other artists were not trapped in the style choices (of a period), or were chained to one perception of the world around them, so they avoided illustrating people in the then-present day as they were doing decades earlier. Byrne's not the only artist to suffer from this fault, but he's a glaring example. Perhaps he was too in love with his own work to feel he needed to reflect changing eras, and as a result, paid a price for it. Any specific examples of Byrne being stuck in the past? I don’t disagree, just curious about any specifics.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 9, 2023 14:02:35 GMT -5
Then being a "product of his era" is his own fault, as other artists were not trapped in the style choices (of a period), or were chained to one perception of the world around them, so they avoided illustrating people in the then-present day as they were doing decades earlier. Byrne's not the only artist to suffer from this fault, but he's a glaring example. Perhaps he was too in love with his own work to feel he needed to reflect changing eras, and as a result, paid a price for it. Any specific examples of Byrne being stuck in the past? I don’t disagree, just curious about any specifics. There's a sameness to his work that gives the impression that he's trying to approach art in the same way he did in the 80s. I had the same problem with Moldoff on Batman where the world he illustrated looked so stuck in one period (and never reflected the world around him as the years moved on), and it took me out of the experience. As a contrast, take George Perez: by the time he began illustrating The New Teen Titans, his work was in a transition period no longer looking like his Avengers art, and it progressed yet again only a few years later on Crisis on Infinite Earths, with noticeable changes to anatomy, even architecture, though it was still "all Perez". Byrne just delivered more of the same, no matter the project, and truth be told, there's only a handful of comic artists who had talent so high on the scale that it was applicable to many subjects. Byrne was not among their number.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 9, 2023 16:20:48 GMT -5
Pipe dream! And don’t EVER accidentally type “than” rather than “then” (or vice versa) because he does not approve of that. This from a guy who uses "tho" and "thru" in place of "though" and "through."
|
|
|
Post by commond on Apr 9, 2023 16:30:08 GMT -5
I still think his writing is more of a problem than his art.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 9, 2023 16:38:56 GMT -5
I still think his writing is more of a problem than his art. Mostly agree. But whenever I look at Spider-Man: Chapter One....
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 9, 2023 17:46:45 GMT -5
His X-Men Elsewhen fan fiction from a few years back was great, he can still do nice work for sure (I like it better than any X-title on the market today and for some time at that). If the market embraced some retro titles and folks were willing to work with him, his relevance to me would be simply bringing his classic game back to what he's always done best. www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55094&PN=3&totPosts=35Is that done? Where do I read the whole work? And I’ve never understood how that works. Byrne, or anyone for the matter, doing a marvel or dc work when they are no longer with the company. I assume that written into their contracts.
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 9, 2023 17:48:10 GMT -5
I think Byrne doing Elseworld or anything else not in current continuity would be a boon for either company
|
|