Talk:John Byrne (comics)/Archive 2

message: Moved Temp changes to the main page.  Have at it, all.  Let's just be sure to label our changes and then discuss any disputes.  --JRT 01:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Source material previously discussed, see talk page archive. N. Caligon
I think much of the info in Jason's biography is worthwhile, but perhaps it should be incorporated into other sections of the article. I actually agree with N.C. that this article is fairly bloated, but it seems Wikipeidia encourages articles to be as big as possible. I wouldn't be suprised if some future Wiki admin took a look at this article and hacked it down to five sentences because the sheer size makes Byrne look like the most important creator in the history of comics! Take a look at legend Will Eisner's article to see what I mean. RodOdom 15:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Other than its missing any discussion of the most controversial storyline of the run, which is a small loss only in the most technical sense? N. Caligon 16:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which storyline was that?  --JRT 16:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The pregnancy/miscarriage storyline, ending in a story titled "A Small Loss."  As far as I know, it's still unique as far as major comics titles go. N. Caligon 15:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add that under the Sue Storm paragraph. Thanks N.C. RodOdom 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article content discussion

message: I've edited the Legend imprint info to remove references to Byrne creating it with Miller.  I've read an interview with Mignola where he mentions he brought Byrne into it, so I think it's disputable he created the imprint.
That change is certainly correct; Byrne wasn't one of the initial movers behind Legend. Legend didn't even exist when Byrne began Next Men -- assuming the cover stats at Byrne's site are accurate, the logo didn't even appear until JBNM 19. So I've fixed the paragraph up a little, since it implies all Byrne's DH work was published as Legend. N. Caligon 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend imprint 

message: Regarding Captain America, I believe was Byrne who followed Stern's lead to leave the book. Also, there is more to those events. Take a look here:
http://p081.ezboard.com/fsterntalkfrm2.showMessage?topicID=213.topic 
Please also take a look at the rewritten final paragraph in the section RodOdom 19:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless 198 breaks the 3RR, there isn't much that can be done beyond protecting the article again. Gamaliel 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks. RodOdom 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Shooter 

message: Interesting and useful addition. But you just know it's one of those sections that going to get a lot of opinions. The second and third paragraphs are problematic - I don't dispute the intention, but describing the inking as rough is a POV. It may be a widely held POV, but we need a reference or quote, to establish it. Has Terry Austin or any other pro said anything substantive about Byrne's work that can be quoted. 
::A good place to bring up something that hasn't been discussed here yet, the major change in Byrne's work when he becames a penciler-inker.  He said in several interviews that he didn't work in the conventional mode, but instead produced very rough pencils (at best) for whatever editorial approval was required, then essentially "drew" the book in ink -- at one point using fine-point felt-tip markers rather than standard inkers' pens and inks. This was very negatively received, and may have marked the beginning of Byrne's commercial decline.  (Not coincidental, I think, that DC wouldn't let him do Superman this way.) I don't think the roughness of his inks, at least pre-Superman, is at all subjective. He produced work that was technically adequate for the reproduction/printing processes used on the monthly comics at the time, but in higher-quality formats, like the FF "Visionaries" TPBs, the roughness is conspicuous. N. Caligon 15:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to describe what can be perceived as a rough style, in an objective manner.  His line-work was either "shakey" or "rocky" when he inked his own work in the early FFs.  I don't think this is a subjective statement--maybe I am using the wrong terminology.  I just know his line-work wasn't as smooth at that time.  --JRT 18:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that Byrne's earlier work had strong manga/anime influences was often expressed in the late 70s/early 80s. I'm surprised Byrne rejected it.  My period zines are packed away, so I can't elaborate. N. Caligon 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Art Style

message: The article makes it sound like Gerations 2 sold poorly. I agree that 3 tanked, but didn't 2 sell fine.--198.93.113.49 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Generations

message: If there is a neutrality problem it won't be resolved if it isn't made clear what's supposedly wrong on the talk page.--198.93.113.49 17:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by Mikko I believe.  His disputes are above.  He also stated factual errors, but I don't believe there are any.  I've tried discussing it with him.  --JRT 17:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He put the factual error tag back up but I reverted it. He's supposed to create a disputed section on the talk page and describe what he thinks is wrong if he puts a factual dipute tag on a page. We should not have to waid through all of his old comments to try to figure out what he thinks is factually wrong. He he can't bother to start a disputed sectino explaining why he's tagging the article factually inacurate then I see no reason for the tag to stay in the article. I've left the neutralily dispute tag, though I still not sure what the issue is their either.--198.93.113.49 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's creating it now.  Along with several dubious tag templates.  --JRT 18:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there a nuetrality dispute tag on this page?

message: Just wanted to thank you.  You're doing a much better job with the rewrites and keeping NPOV than any of us seem to have been, as well as keeping the article consise.  --JRT 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks N. Caligon 

message: Well, it wasn't just sarcasm, and it technically was NPOV, but it certainly deserved removal.  I was trying to illustrate the point, though, that Byrne vowing never to work for Marvel's current management is a non-event. He's not a market force any more. N. Caligon 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm 

message: Added info on sales of FF and X-Men at time of Byrne takeover of FF. Source is Byrne on his message board, FWIW, but it's consistent with what I remember from reports at the time. N. Caligon 00:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also consistent with the circulation statements. The Standard Catalog of Comics Books is a great source for this, capital city figures, and later diamond estimates. Circs were 300k plus during the 1960s and slowly dropped to 178k in 1978. The 193k figure is for 1981. The previous two years had circs of 267k and 243k, but Byrne did some art in 1979 before taking over writing for part of 1980. There was a grap at the start of 1981 and Byrne returned in August of that year. The circ peaked in 1984 at 269k and was 251k for his final year in 1986. The 1984 circ for X-Men was 378k. --Jason Kirk 02:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales on older projects 

message: I've removed the following sentence from the "Marvel phase 3" section:
It is unknown why he never established a blood relationship between Reed Richards and Stephen Strange, both of whom are white males with graying temples. 
Though I agree with the sentiment, it seems to be mostly a cheap shot and unnecessarily distracting. Manticore 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed snarky comment about richards & strange 

message: ... is missing a "Lost Generation" listing. The work, however, is mentioned in the article.
Lost Generation was published in reversed numerical order from issue 12 which was cover dated March 2000.
Additionally, I draw your attention to the fact that John Byrne is attempting to "set the record straight" about his article on Wikipedia. He is having difficulty getting through. Seeing as this article is about him, perhaps a little facilitation is in order.
Jesusgarcia 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Marvel Bibliography Section ...