Byrne to Marvel: "Let's see some new ideas"
Over on his forum, John Byrne reminisced about the "good old days" at Marvel and posted a challenge to the House of Ideas:
So, hey, Marvel -- how about some real innovation. The 400th turn on "Days of Future Past" isn't innovative, in case you don't know. Frank Miller blew apart stiff and staid ol' DAREDEVIL and that's why you remember those issues. Copying them is not a route to immortality. Shock and Suspense, as Hitchcock pointed out, are two different things. As are Sensationalism and Controversy. And in both cases, the first one is easy. The second one takes work. And talent.
Let's see some new ideas, "House". At least as new as what Lee, Kirby and Ditko gave us when they created the company you're merrily plundering and pillaging.
In the back-and-forth between Byrne's defenders and detractors, poster Dave Farabee somehow sneaks in a pretty good point:
I've come to the conclusion over the years that fans don't want "new and original" from Marvel and DC. New and original tends to get eaten up or, at best, struggle with sales, whether its RUNAWAYS, LIVEWIRES, HUMAN DEFENSE CORPS, FALLEN ANGEL, Kyle Baker's PLASTIC MAN, GOTHAM CENTRAL, Ed Brubaker's CATWOMAN (practically did for that character what Miller did for DAREDEVIL), or JB's own GENERATIONS. I think the closest I've seen to a successful new concept is James Robinson's STARMAN, and of course one of the things that made it innovative is that the writer brought the story to a finale.
D'oh!
My sense is that it's all tied up in the graying of the audience. The rise of the direct market slowly cut off the influx of new blood into the industry, so we were left with largely the hardcore fans running the show. And for better or worse, the hardcore fans are largely the Marvel/DC devotees, largely attached to sticking with those familiar titles that kept 'em in the biz when others were dropping out. I see it everyday at my shop: folks complain about the lack of originality, but they keep buying every safe new iteration of the X-Men, or Spider-Man, or Batman, rather than trying out newer books or riskier approaches. There seems to be a comfort zone with the old characters and readers are drawn to them time and again.
So is Byrne right ... or does he just need a copy of the Runaways hardcover and a hug?
posted by JK Parkin @ 7:12 AM
6 Comments:
Byrne is oh so very right! And Dave Farabee's response pin-points the reason why we need to see the stranglehold of the direct market broken and find new ways and places to distribute our art form.
Weird. I actually agree with Byrne. Kinda.
hmmmm. well, that's prolly why he wanted to do Doom Patrol then.
to try something new.
feh.
And Etrigan, The Demon.
And Superman.
And...
Interestingly enough, this is precisely what Erik Larsen was saying in his CBR column two, three months ago (without, of course the cursing and name calling). But yeah, he’s right, I, as a Spider-Fan liked the idea of Ben Reilly as Spidey’s clone fighting crime as the Scarlet Spider, but hated the thought (and the stories) of Ben being the “real” Peter parker and fighting crime in the Spidey costume as Spidey.
I also am not crazy about the fact that every single preview that I read has some catastrophic event occurring in the life of the main characters (someone dieing, becoming disillusioned, beat up, getting divorced, etc.) Where are the days — I wonder — when stuff just happened? Under Stan, Spidey went for like 100 issues just “doing stuff.” No enormous revelations, no massive cast changes, no life-altering events, just a superhero fighting crime and making it through each issue.
Where is that? Or, does it just seem that way because there were momentous events, but no hype each and every month trying to top what happened last month?
Don’t really know any more.
Still, am I the only one who has noticed that this is what Larsen said back in August?
You know, after reflecting on this post, and then coming back and re-reading it I can’t help but to think, “Hey, isn’t Byrne calling for innovation in the field something akin to the pro calling the kettle black.
I mean, after all, isn’t Byrne the one who famously re-booted so many series by “bringing them back to their roots” (Superman, Spidey, the FF, et. ad. nausium)? So how does he get off dissing people who prefer the status to remain quo?
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Post a Comment
<< Home