John Byrne has formally mandated a cessation of discussion on his site regarding SUPERMAN RETURNS.
JB: "As with Spider-Man, as with the X-Men, Hollywood has once again gutted the mythology, but self-declared "fans" [are] eager to race to the theater and reward them for doing so.
And you know what? I'm tired of it. I'm fed up with it. I am sick to death of opening this thread and finding post after post that clearly shows me that I, and those who think like me, have been wasting our time for the past twenty, thirty, forty years, working on superhero comics. None of the lessons we have tried to teach have sunk in. Superman can desert the Earth. Lois can have a ******* kid. Doesn't matter. Just make it fast and loud and shiny.
No more. I'm shutting down this thread. If you want to discuss this movie, find somewhere else to do it. Such chatter is no longer welcome here."
Keep in mind, folks, this is the same John Byrne who "gutted" Superman in 1986, rebooted him, and insisted for all the world to hear that his Superman would now stand as the definitive Superman.
John Byrne, you sir, are a hypocrite.
Byrne is such a asshole. Facist thread locking goat fucker.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
John Byrne has formally mandated a cessation of discussion on his site regarding SUPERMAN RETURNS.
JB: "As with Spider-Man, as with the X-Men, Hollywood has once again gutted the mythology, but self-declared "fans" [are] eager to race to the theater and reward them for doing so.
And you know what? I'm tired of it. I'm fed up with it. I am sick to death of opening this thread and finding post after post that clearly shows me that I, and those who think like me, have been wasting our time for the past twenty, thirty, forty years, working on superhero comics. None of the lessons we have tried to teach have sunk in. Superman can desert the Earth. Lois can have a ******* kid. Doesn't matter. Just make it fast and loud and shiny.
No more. I'm shutting down this thread. If you want to discuss this movie, find somewhere else to do it. Such chatter is no longer welcome here."
Keep in mind, folks, this is the same John Byrne who "gutted" Superman in 1986, rebooted him, and insisted for all the world to hear that his Superman would now stand as the definitive Superman.
John Byrne, you sir, are a hypocrite.
Amen.
I actually liked Man of Steel (not much of his work before or afterwards, because he's such a douche) but I'm the first to admit that Byrne basically adapted a lot of the first Superman movie into the comics.
And that movie gutted a lot of the comics mythology so he's not only an ass he's a hypocrite.
Quote:
John Byrne said:
I am sick to death of opening this thread and finding post after post that clearly shows me that I, and those who think like me, have been wasting our time for the past twenty, thirty, forty years, working on superhero comics. None of the lessons we have tried to teach have sunk in.
I think the lesson of how to fuck up continuity is well learned by now, Mr. Byrne.
Ok so giving Lois a kid is bad.
Superman leaving Earth is bad (even though that happened in the comics).
Writing a story where Supermans adopted parents lived isnt bad.
Making Superman not be Superboys isnt bad.
Making Luthor fat isnt bad.
Three things spring to mind here.
1) Byrne is a fucking hypocrite.
2) Byrne doesnt understand that movies have to appeal to more than just comic book fans
3) Rob is gay
I'm waiting for Rob to make John Byrne a mod of the Deep Thoughts forum!
a few years back Byrne and PAD had a tiff where PAD said changing the security guard to a cop in Spider-man's origin was a mistake because no cop would ask a civilian to stop a robber (for obvious liability reasons).
Byrne shot back that PAD supported police being beaten to death.
Ah, Peter David. Very often, the sole voice of FUCKING REASON AND COMMON GODDAMN SENSE in comics.
Quote:
Tobias Christopher said:
Quote:
John Byrne said:
I am sick to death of opening this thread and finding post after post that clearly shows me that I, and those who think like me, have been wasting our time for the past twenty, thirty, forty years, working on superhero comics. None of the lessons we have tried to teach have sunk in.
I think the lesson of how to fuck up continuity is well learned by now, Mr. Byrne.
TC sighting! 
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
John Byrne has formally mandated a cessation of discussion on his site regarding SUPERMAN RETURNS.
JB: "As with Spider-Man, as with the X-Men, Hollywood has once again gutted the mythology, but self-declared "fans" [are] eager to race to the theater and reward them for doing so.
And you know what? I'm tired of it. I'm fed up with it. I am sick to death of opening this thread and finding post after post that clearly shows me that I, and those who think like me, have been wasting our time for the past twenty, thirty, forty years, working on superhero comics. None of the lessons we have tried to teach have sunk in. Superman can desert the Earth. Lois can have a ******* kid. Doesn't matter. Just make it fast and loud and shiny.
No more. I'm shutting down this thread. If you want to discuss this movie, find somewhere else to do it. Such chatter is no longer welcome here."
Keep in mind, folks, this is the same John Byrne who "gutted" Superman in 1986, rebooted him, and insisted for all the world to hear that his Superman would now stand as the definitive Superman.
John Byrne, you sir, are a wonderful man.
And my I also say that I love the way you do your hair.
Quote:
King Snarf said:
Ah, John Byrne. Very often, the sole voice of FUCKING REASON AND COMMON GODDAMN SENSE in comics.
And he has nice hair.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Peter David is a scum sucking talentless hack and everything John Byrne says about him is true.
John Byrne has a beard so that makes him great.
Quote:
Ultimate Jaburg53 said:
Facist thread locking goat fucker.
are you talking about byrne or the media/deep throat mods?
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
Ok so giving Lois a kid is bad.
Superman leaving Earth is bad (even though that happened in the comics).
Writing a story where Supermans adopted parents lived isnt bad.
Making Superman not be Superboys isnt bad.
Making Luthor fat isnt bad.
Three things spring to mind here.
1) Byrne is a fucking hypocrite.
2) Byrne doesnt understand that movies have to appeal to more than just comic book fans
3) Rob is gay
Agree with you on the first two points. As for the third...only Rob himself knows the answer to that one.
P.S. John Byrne sucks.
you should apologize to John Byrne asshole.
PJP, sometimes you take things too far!
John Byrne is guilty of many sins but in this case, I don't hypocrisy is one of them.
Byrne is seemingly not criticizing the film for making minor changes in the "legend" (ie, the depiction of Krypton, the circumstances of Ma or Pa's death, Lex's fondness for idiot sidekicks, a career as Superboy) but for depicting Lois and Superman acting in ways that he feels are directly contradictory to how they've behaved more or less consistently for sixty years, including under his watch.
Whats contradictory about the things Byrne points out?
He doesnt mention the way Lois acts, he mentions she has a child.
How is this any different to the changes he made to canon?
He also states that Superman leaving the Earth for an exile in space is wrong, yet sometime in the 90s, thats exactly what Superman did.
Byrne also fails to aknowledge that movies have to change things so they can appeal to the masses!
If they went too out there, like say Catwoman did, then he'd have every right to piss n moan, but a few revisionist moves is almost identical to a Byrne style retcon!
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
He also states that Superman leaving the Earth for an exile in space is wrong, yet sometime in the 90s, thats exactly what Superman did.
Byrne wasn't writing Superman in the 90s. How does someone else's story make him a hypocrite?
Right or wrong, Byrne believes that Lois's beliefs and morals (for lack of better term) would not have an illegitimate child. He also believes that Superman would not leave Earth for an extended period of time.
I'm not sure whether I agree with him on the first.
I tend to agree with him on the latter, however. The same Superman who closed out "Superman II" by telling the President--and the world-- "don't worry, I won't leave you again" thereafter decided to abandon his homeworld for FIVE YEARS?!?!
That one I don't buy.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
He also states that Superman leaving the Earth for an exile in space is wrong, yet sometime in the 90s, thats exactly what Superman did.
Byrne wasn't writing Superman in the 90s. How does someone else's story make him a hypocrite?
Well, Byrne's "Superman Kills" storyline (when he executed the Phantom Zone criminals) specifically set up the Exile from Earth storyline, so Byrne is still being a hypocrite on that point.
Plus, isn't this the same guy who made Superman and Big Barda pornstars?
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
He also states that Superman leaving the Earth for an exile in space is wrong, yet sometime in the 90s, thats exactly what Superman did.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Byrne wasn't writing Superman in the 90s. How does someone else's story make him a hypocrite?
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
Well, Byrne's "Superman Kills" storyline (when he executed the Phantom Zone criminals) specifically set up the Exile from Earth storyline, so Byrne is still being a hypocrite on that point.
Just because someone wrote something later that played off an earlier Byrne story doesn't mean that Byrne's at fault. That's like blaming Jim Starlin for Judd Winnick's "Red Hood" story and Marv Wolfman for Superboy-Prime punching a wall.
Furthermore, even if Byrne had intended to do an 'exile in space' story, there is a significant difference between a distraught Superman, who thinks he's a dangerous killer, going into space to protect the earth from a Superman who abandons earth for what is basically a selfish mission.
Quote:
Plus, isn't this the same guy who made Superman and Big Barda pornstars?
This is the same guy who had a mind-controlled Superman and Big Barda act in ways they wouldn't have acted if they weren't mind controlled.
But that's not the same thing as having the character make a concious, voluntary, decision to act in a way that seems contrary to his or her established morals and beliefs.
Again, its the characterization that's troubling, not the storyline.
And again, Byrne had no problems changing shit that conflicted with 50 years of Superman history, which also included changing various character traits, for his revisionist image of Superman, but when a movie does it, which isnt even canon, he bitches and moans!
Its not just Superman, look at all the shit he changed in the Spiderman origin!
A movie is not part of the DCU/Marvel universe, so it does not have to adhere to every facet of a comic book, where as a comic book set within the main universe should stay as true to the origins as possible!
I for one found Byrnes reinvention of Superman to be fresh & actually made me enjoy reading a character I'd always disliked, but for him to make these comments about the movie is just laughable!
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
Byrne had no problems changing shit that conflicted with 50 years of Superman history, which also included changing various character traits
What character traits did he change in Superman and, if so, were those traits important to the character?
If you love Byrne so much you should marry him.
ZING!
I'm just curious to find out if John Byrne has actually seen the movie yet...Or if he's just doing what most creators seem to rail against, fans pre-judging something based on "what they hear" instead of waiting to actually check out the final product...
And wasn't he involved in one of the prequel comics at one point?
His main reason for bitching about it is that he's a grouchy old man. All other reasons are secondary.
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
Byrne had no problems changing shit that conflicted with 50 years of Superman history, which also included changing various character traits
What character traits did he change in Superman and, if so, were those traits important to the character?
So what makes Lois having a baby such a bad thing?
She's a woman who felt abandoned, and probably sought solace in the arms of another man, are you & Byrne saying that Lois is not allowed to be human?
And as for character traits, just compare the pre-Byrne Luthor to the Byrne Luthor.
Both very different characters!
As for important character traits, the fact that the Kents did not die changed one very huge character trait in Superman as he no longer had that sense of loss that came with losing his parents.
It made Clark a very different character, especially when you see him in his teens!
Pre-Byrne Clark was the nerdy character we knew for years, masking the alter ego of Superboy, but under Byrne there was no Superboy, and Clark was a jock!
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
So what makes Lois having a baby such a bad thing?
She's a woman who felt abandoned, and probably sought solace in the arms of another man, are you & Byrne saying that Lois is not allowed to be human?
I said I did not necessarily agree with Byrne's assessement of how Lois would act. I simply noted that I did not find his criticism hypocritical per se.
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
And as for character traits, just compare the pre-Byrne Luthor to the Byrne Luthor.
Both very different characters!
Both Luthors were evil, scheming, genius bastards out to get revenge on Superman.
The only thing Byrne changed there was the motivation, not Luthor's core beliefs.
Yes he did!
The whole motivation for why he hated Superman changed which changed his basic character.
He also went from a guy who was a hands on Supervillain to a scheming manipulator, pulling strings of others.
He also became a pervert.
The original Luthor was the kinda guy who wanted world domination by blowing shit up n stuff but the Byrne Luthor wasnt interested in world domination but was all about power.
He changed from Luthor into the Kingpin!
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
The original Luthor was the kinda guy who wanted world domination ...but the Byrne Luthor ...was all about power.
I think wanting world domination is "all about power."
Yes, but he isnt about world domination anymore, at least not in the way he was back in the pre-Byrne days!
When was the last time you saw Luthor flying around in a supervillain costume blowing shit up?
About a month or so ago, in the pages of "Infinite Crisis."
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
The original Luthor was the kinda guy who wanted world domination ...but the Byrne Luthor ...was all about power.
I think wanting world domination is "all about power."
I think its more about public knowledge. Bryne Luthor was as much into controlling things by any means necessary but he wanted to do it from behind the scenese. Pre-Crisis Luthor was a known villain, post-crisis he was on magazine covers and got awards for charities while all his crimes were a secret.
I think doing this made Byrne's Luthor the true antithesis to Superman, secret identity and all.
Byrne's hypocrisy comes into play when he derides evidence of change between a "current/recent" incarnation of a character or event and its previous history.
He disliked SPIDER-MAN, on one point, because Raimi et al. gave Peter organic web-producing ability. This was a change in a current/recent incarnation that did not match up with its previous incarnation/history. On face, this does not make Byrne a hypocrite. However, Byrne revamped Superman and the entire Superman "Family" and Universe. As just one example (and to me, one example suffices), Byrne eradicated Superboy. Superboy, in 1986, had about 40 years of existence and an entire Universe of characters unto himself. But it was OK for Byrne to get rid of that character regardless of whatever canonical damage it did to Superboy's Universe. This is Byrne's hypocrisy. His position is clearly "do as I say, not as I have done."
If Byrne wishes to extract himself from the quagmire of his hypocrisy, he needs, at least, to apologize for his SUPERMAN, and to say that he was wrong to have done it.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Byrne's hypocrisy comes into play when he derides evidence of change between a "current/recent" incarnation of a character or event and its previous history.
He disliked SPIDER-MAN, on one point, because Raimi et al. gave Peter organic web-producing ability. This was a change in a current/recent incarnation that did not match up with its previous incarnation/history. On face, this does not make Byrne a hypocrite. However, Byrne revamped Superman and the entire Superman "Family" and Universe. As just one example (and to me, one example suffices), Byrne eradicated Superboy. Superboy, in 1986, had about 40 years of existence and an entire Universe of characters unto himself. But it was OK for Byrne to get rid of that character regardless of whatever canonical damage it did to Superboy's Universe. This is Byrne's hypocrisy. His position is clearly "do as I say, not as I have done."
If Byrne wishes to extract himself from the quagmire of his hypocrisy, he needs, at least, to apologize for his SUPERMAN, and to say that he was wrong to have done it.
In his defense he's said from the start that he offered to take Superman's continuity and go with it, DC wanted him to do the reboot.
And while I liked Man of Steel, he did change it drastically and make it unlike anything before, so he has no place to bitch about Singer doing it.
And as I already mentioned, fucking with comic book continuity affects the books where as fucking with things for a movie has absolutely no effect on the books, unless DC/Marvel decides to incorporate it!
Things have to be different for movies as it has to appeal to a different audience!
And as for:
Quote:
the G-man said:
About a month or so ago, in the pages of "Infinite Crisis."
Well I can just use your defence & say that that has nothing to do with Byrne!
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
He also states that Superman leaving the Earth for an exile in space is wrong, yet sometime in the 90s, thats exactly what Superman did.
Byrne wasn't writing Superman in the 90s. How does someone else's story make him a hypocrite?
Actually, that was in the 80's, and while Byrne didn't write the Exile in Space itself, he did come up with the idea and put things in motion to start it. Superman exiled himself because he felt guilty over killing the Phantom Zone criminals, which happened in Byrne's last issue. He was supposed to write the rest, but he quit and left the books in an akward position. Luckily, Jerry Ordway turned out to be a damn good writer, and Roger Stern jumped in to help too.
Quote:
the G-man said:
What character traits did he change in Superman and, if so, were those traits important to the character?
He completely turned Superman around. Pre-Crisis, Clark Kent was a goofy identity made up by Superman. Post-Crisis, Superman was the identity created by Clark. The self-confidence was the act, not the shyness.
As mentioned, Luthor was also completely reworked. Pre-Crisis Luthor hated Superman because he made him bald. Post-Crisis Luthor hated Superman for ridiculing him in front of the city and replacing him as its "saviour".
On top of everything, if killing the Phantom Zone criminals was not a huge change in Supermans character, I dont know what was!
Quote:
Nowhereman said:
On top of everything, if killing the Phantom Zone criminals was not a huge change in Supermans character, I dont know what was!
The killing of the Phantom Zone villains is the worst thing that Byrne did. Byrne claimed he did it so that Superman would formulate a code of ethics against killing. Pre-reboot, the code had been installed in Superman during his upbringing by Ma and Pa Kent, in Byrne's version, we're led to believe that Ma and Pa never taught Clark that killing is bad. Shouldn't that be considered a drastic change to his character right there?
unless you irrgaydiated anyone can see that....
Is Superman making a porno with Big Barda "gutting the mythos"?
reminds me of Byrne's bitching about KC and the rumors of Supes and WW having a kid out of wedlock.
Again, while I think the "Big Barda" story was simply terrible on any number of levels, since it was a "mind controlled" Superman, I don't see how that "guts the mythos" any more than the dozens of stories over the years depicting a "mind controlled" Superman who does any number of unsavory or villainous acts.
Interestingly enough, the best support for a charge against Byrne that he damaged the mythos or was not true to the character is the fact he made Clark into something of a jock as opposed the "silver age bumbler" which, ironically, is a change that many of you seem to applaud.
All of which does nothing to alter the fact that Byrne is being hypocritical in his criticisms of the film.
Byrne also had an amnesiac Superman take a suggestive naked bath with Amazing Grace, implying that they had sex. He sure liked creating situations where Superman did "immoral" things... I remember another issue where he lost control of his powers and accidentally used his x-ray vision on not only Cat Grant, but her underage son!
and now the reason g-man likes byrne is revealed!
Quote:
the G-man said:
Interestingly enough, the best support for a charge against Byrne that he damaged the mythos or was not true to the character is the fact he made Clark into something of a jock as opposed the "silver age bumbler" which, ironically, is a change that many of you seem to applaud.
I don't applaud it.
I would assume for the same reason I wouldn't. A lot of us think the "Clark/Superman dichotomy" is the heart and soul of the character. Without that, he's just a generic superhero with funny red underoos on the outside of his costume.