Darker than Scarlet: What Byrne Intended! [Archive]

Kirk G

04-13-2006, 07:44 PM

I would have love Byrne to have finished his mega-story arc...
Hmmmm... I wonder...
If, after all, we are talking about manipulations of the time line by (take your pick) Immortus and/or Kang... and every action or choice creates an alternative timestream...
then SOMEWHERE, there exists a continued-story timestream where John Byrne's plan for the Avengers:West Coast continues....
Wouldn't it be nice to see him pick-up where he left off... ignor the poor stories that followed, and run the Darker than Scarlett storyline out to the end that he had plotted... including whatever bit he had lined up for Kang (see unpublished cover for WCA #59)... and whatever resolution he had. :)

We know he's good at dove-tailing the X-Men: The Hidden Years into existing continuity... Why couldn't he do the same thing... ignoring the crap, and perhaps leaving those elements that he agrees with (possibly Dissembled? possibly not?) and sinking it up with the rest of Marvel continuity. Would Mockingbird have died? Would the West Coast team have quit? Would they have become the Champions? Would they have aided the Great Lake Avengers? What would their role in Family Ties have been? Would Clint have messed around with Jan? Would Jan have become the Growing Woman in the Lion of Avalon? How about Once an Invader? And the big question, would Clint have died at the hands of the Kree(or Wanda's manipulations?) or are some of these events unchangable? (sort of like a What if, isn't it?)

I know, I know... Byrne has pretty much burned his bridges behind him... and the chance of anything remotely like this happening are slim and none....
but it really gets your pulse racing, doesn't it??!!! :D

The Shadow

04-13-2006, 08:17 PM

I wanna know what Byrne meant by this: 13. How do you feel about Kurt Busiek exploring and expanding upon the events you started in your Avengers and Avengers West Coast run?
JB: I did my best to tidy up a lot of confusing and convoluted history. As far as I can tell, Kurt made it even MORE convoluted!

anyone have an idea? I thought Kurt was pretty straightforward in his stories and didn't muddy the waters... :confused:

kcekada

04-13-2006, 08:46 PM

Hmm...

I think Byrne did a good job. Kurt, unfortunately, had to deal with the Crossing wreckage -- and did a decent job of fixing things. The new angle to Vision/Jim Hammond is somewhat confusing (Vision has Jim Hammond's body, but Jim Hammond also exists), but I don't mind it.

I really liked Byrne's run on WCA. It was "the" Avengers book of that time. His run on the flagship title wasn't as interesting.

I can't access the link to his interview currrently, but I'm curious as to why he jumped ship in the middle of a great storyline. Roy Thomas really didn't do his best work on taking over from Byrne.

jam37wcc

04-13-2006, 08:49 PM

Hmmmm... I wonder...
If, after all, we are talking about manipulations of the time line by (take your pick) Immortus and/or Kang... and every action or choice creates an alternative timestream...
then SOMEWHERE, there exists a continued-story timestream where John Byrne's plan for the Avengers:West Coast continues....
Wouldn't it be nice to see him pick-up where he left off... ignor the poor stories that followed, and run the Darker than Scarlett storyline out to the end that he had plotted... including whatever bit he had lined up for Kang (see unpublished cover for WCA #59)... and whatever resolution he had. :)

We know he's good at dove-tailing the X-Men: The Hidden Years into existing continuity... Why couldn't he do the same thing... ignoring the crap, and perhaps leaving those elements that he agrees with (possibly Dissembled? possibly not?) and sinking it up with the rest of Marvel continuity. Would Mockingbird have died? Would the West Coast team have quit? Would they have become the Champions? Would they have aided the Great Lake Avengers? What would their role in Family Ties have been? Would Clint have messed around with Jan? Would Jan have become the Growing Woman in the Lion of Avalon? How about Once an Invader? And the big question, would Clint have died at the hands of the Kree(or Wanda's manipulations?) or are some of these events unchangable? (sort of like a What if, isn't it?)

I know, I know... Byrne has pretty much burned his bridges behind him... and the chance of anything remotely like this happening are slim and none....
but it really gets your pulse racing, doesn't it??!!! :D

He could do this story as an Avengers: The Hidden Years, takes place between such and such issues of WCA and at the end Wanda retcons the whole thing or makes everyone forget about it. NO MORE Darker than Scarlet!!!

XPac

04-13-2006, 09:24 PM

I was a big fan of Byrne's West Coast Avengers run, and legimtately do believe some of Byrnes past stuff really make him one of the best in the history of the business.

That said, I honestly haven't liked anything he's really put out in a long time. So I wouldn't be THAT excited about him doing another Avengers project unless he was just the artist. He's definately one of my favorite Avengers artists (second only to George Perez), so I'd welcome his return in that capacity any day.

Cthulhudrew

04-14-2006, 10:49 AM

I can't access the link to his interview currrently, but I'm curious as to why he jumped ship in the middle of a great storyline. Roy Thomas really didn't do his best work on taking over from Byrne.

I'm sure someone else could point out the exact location of the interview/s where he discussed it, but as I recall, he jumped ship over changes editorial wanted to make to his Darker Than Scarlet storyline. Some artwork changes, but mostly just a difference of opinion on where the story should go.

Dangit- I know I've read about his take in at least one place online, but darned if I can find it now.

Kirk G

04-14-2006, 02:12 PM

I think JB's comment in the interview might have been in response to Kurt's work in Avengers Forever where he basicly undid Byrne's fix and made it possible that there were TWO human torch bodies to be used: One for the Mad Thinker to bury in Toro's grave and a second for Ultron to have taken for conversion into the Vision.
Brilliant, but confusing. Ditto, he has Kang and Immortus split into two versions of the same being, always at war, always at odds forevermore. Frankly, I liked Byrne's fix, but understand what Avengers Forever attempted to do also.

JulianPerez

04-14-2006, 04:04 PM

Reading this interview, it strikes me as the work of a creatively bankrupt, titanically arrogant man.

Byrne justifies the unjustifiable with his destruction of the Vision's humanity by giving a statement to the effect that "he only finds characters interesting when they first appear." I disagree and find that entire attitude wrongheaded, because it doesn't take into account a character's history and what has happened to them that can make them better and stronger than a character than one that just pops out of the ether.

This is why Spider-Man will always be a better character than Gravity. Not because of the talent writing them, or because of their popularity, but because things have happened to Spider-Man and he has fought battles and grown up and changed on camera, which always makes his stories fascinating to read about.

A character like the Vision when he first appeared was just a robot synthetic being. However, over time, the Vision, under writers like Roy Thomas and Steve Englehart, acquired a human "soul," if there is such a thing, and human emotions. He was able to transcend his artificial origins to find love and a marriage and even children, and went from the Avengers outsider, to being someone in a place where he belonged.

Writers from Thomas to Stern aknowledged the Vision's growth, and validated his humanity. Thomas had the Vision fall in love with the Scarlet Witch. Their romance was the most poignant love story of the Silver Age, second only to the Thing and Alicia. Why did it work?

Because back in Kree/Skrull Wars when the Vision confesses his love, it was done amid humiliation - Ronan the Accuser LAUGHS at him cruelly. Then the Vision apologizes to Wanda. Because he isn't a "real" man. Why was that a powerful moment?

Because we the reader, felt like shouting the Vision down. No, Vision! You are wrong. You ARE human. You are worthy. You have grown beyond your origins.

Busiek's fix was complicated, how could it not have been? But he was making lemonade with the lemons that Byrne gave him. The fact is, the Vision NEEDED to have previously been the Human Torch. The reason is that if the Vision suddenly went from being a robot cobbled together by Ultron from nothing, to previously having been one of the greatest heroes in the world, one who was accepted as human. Suddenly the Vision acquired a sense of his own value, a sense that yes, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for his search for humanity, because hey, the Torch had found it. He was actually able to propose marriage to the Scarlet Witch shortly after.

This Human Torch/Vision revalation was not some cute fact that was thrown around, but something that profoundly altered the Vision's characterization forever after and its negation is the epitome of vanity and lack of understanding of the character.

When the Scarlet Witch snapped at the Vision during the "Serpent Crown" run as being a false man and said "God forbid I ever...CHEAPENED myself with a THING like you!" The Vision did not hesitate for a second in saying he knew she was under the control of the Serpent Crown. He stopped beating himself up because he was secure and knew the Scarlet Witch's true feelings for him - note how different this response is than the despair back in "Kree-Skrull Wars."

And the whole notion of robot characters being "just machines" is a very common Byrne theme: an absolutely vile, dehumanizing notion when applied to pre-existing characters whose worth and humanity have been established. Remember the story where the Metal Men teamed up with Superman? Afterward, despite their deeds and valor and the many times the Metal Men gave their lives to help people, Superman gave them a statement to the effect of, "you are just machines."

XPac

04-14-2006, 06:12 PM

For me, what Byrne did to Vision was all good in the long run.

He lost the humanity he had achieved, but slowly regained it anyways. But more importantly, it elevated Scarlet Witch from just window dressing on the side and allowed her to grow as more than just Visions armpiece.

So in the final analysis Vision lost nothing he didn't get back, while Scarlet Witch gained a LOT. The net gain far exceeds the net loss.

Dial Tone

04-14-2006, 07:09 PM

I LOVED Byrne's WCA, and even though I really enjoyed Roy Thomas with Paul Ryan, and later with Dave Ross, there's no question that I would have preferred Byrne to remain.

Carlton Donaghe

04-14-2006, 09:40 PM

kcekada

04-15-2006, 12:38 PM

Reading this interview, it strikes me as the work of a creatively bankrupt, titanically arrogant man.

Writers from Thomas to Stern aknowledged the Vision's growth, and validated his humanity. Thomas had the Vision fall in love with the Scarlet Witch. Their romance was the most poignant love story of the Silver Age, second only to the Thing and Alicia. Why did it work?

In my opinion, it didn't work. Yeah, you could accept it at face value as a kid, but no matter what -- Vision is an artifical being. He's highly advanced, but he's still a machine. Being that Wanda fell in love with him speaks highly of her issues with actual people. I thought what Byrne did in WCA was brilliant.

In this era of technology, you can actually imagine that artifical humans will be on the market some day. To think that someone would actually marry one, well -- eww.

RonnieThunderbolts

04-15-2006, 12:47 PM

In my opinion, it didn't work. Yeah, you could accept it at face value as a kid, but no matter what -- Vision is an artifical being. He's highly advanced, but he's still a machine. Being that Wanda fell in love with him speaks highly of her issues with actual people. I thought what Byrne did in WCA was brilliant.

See I disagree, he isn't a machine, he is a synthetic man. He isn't a toaster, and he has never before Byrne been portrayed as a "machine" alone. He was made by unnatural means, but the idea of earning a soul, or humanity has been in fiction and mythology for years. Whether it is the story of Pygmalion, Pinnochio, Data from Star Trek, the Vision, Frankenstein's monster, and the list goes on, these are stories of what it means to be human. It has nothing to do with being a kid, its a wonderful idea to explore, can an entity that seems like a machine become a man? Whether or not you enjoy the WCA is a matter of opinion that on some level I agree with you on (I liked some, and disliked some of what he did while reading the issues when the came out originally) but the question of whether or not Vision is simply a machine I disagree with a lot. He has often, as Allan Heinberg put it wonderfully, been the most human of the Avengers, despite the fact that he wasn't truly human. Of course, that is only one man's opinion.

Flying Fruitbat

04-15-2006, 01:42 PM

For the most part, I agree with Julian.

Roy Thomas created the Vision. Any changes that took place in the Vision-- that is, his growing emotions-- were put there by his *creator*. I always thought Byrne considered the original creator's vision of a character sacrosanct. In fact, Thomas established that the Vision had feelings right from the very beginning. The conclusion to his two-part introduction was titled, "Even an Android Can Cry." Therefore, Byrne was ignoring the way the Vision was written from his very first appearance.

The Vision was already my favorite character when Steve Englehart wrote his "true" origin in the Avengers and Giant-Size Avengers. Much better than anything Byrne did with the character.

John Byrne always likes to trumpet himself as someone who pays attention to continuity, who knows how to write stories that are true to established characterization. He's full of crap.

I think Byrne wanted the Vision to return to his roots as a hero that is aloof, not trusted, and not one of the gang. As mentioned here, the Human Torch became fully accepted in his day and then what happened? He was just another superhero that fought the bad guys, saved his girl and joked with his sidekick. He was a dime a dozen.

That was the Vision's fate, too. He was just another superhero. He lived in the suburbs with his wife and kids. Commuted to work at the mansion and maybe complained about the pot holes. In children's stories, "The END" would appear next. Do comic book readers really want to spend their money on a character that lives happily everafter?

Bryne did not think so. He wanted the flawed Marvel hero concept for the Vision . Back to basics, indeed. West Coast sales soared. Perhaps the readers wanted this, too? What interests you the most- an artificial man that is struggling with his world or one that is just one of the guys and everything is peaches?

We do have both. Wonder Woman is accepted in her world. I have yet to read an "eww" comment about this clay figure turned to flesh having a human love interest. We have so many heroes, but so few of them are like the aloof Vision.

JulianPerez

04-15-2006, 04:35 PM

I think Byrne wanted the Vision to return to his roots as a hero that is aloof, not trusted, and not one of the gang.

I disagree. It is much better to see the Vision as, as you put it, "one of the guys." Why? Because he earned this status through brilliant stories, where even the Avengers' biggest chauvanist like Pietro admits and respects the Vision.

The most interesting thing about the Avengers, and to a lesser extent about the Fantastic Four, is that despite the quarrels between Captain America and Hawkeye, or between USAgent and Hawkeye, or between Quicksilver and Hawkeye, the Avengers deep down REALLY liked each other. When the Vision was having women problems, he could turn to Iron Man. This is why a team like the Avengers triggers such an unusually strong sense of identification: because they like each other, because they have a bond. Which is why a lot of people are bothered with NEW AVENGERS, where there is no such bond.

(Teams like the Defenders work because they DON'T like each other. But something can work and not work for different reasons.)

And the fact the Vision becomes closer and closer to humanity does not mean he ceases to be "Roy Thomas's Vision" any more, no more than your sister marrying and becoming pregnant means she ceases to be your sister.

Also, the Vision's growth was hardly over, because there's so much to learn about being human that his search for humanity by definition doesn't ever end. By retarding the Vision and throwing him back, Byrne essentially meant that all that was going to happen was we were going to see the same stories over and over that we saw before, which John Byrne himself did not do. He tore the Vision down, and replaced him with nothing.

Tons of stories about the Vision can be told about him becoming a Father, for example, which we will never see because Byrne eliminated his children in his very vicious anti-Vision vendetta.

And that's another thing. Eliminating a character's children, and his marriage, and destroying his humanity and then calling him a "toaster" very famously, this is not something a writer who writers a character does. This is something a thirteen year old kid writing a fanfic about how he hates Cyclops does.

As mentioned here, the Human Torch became fully accepted in his day and then what happened? He was just another superhero that fought the bad guys, saved his girl and joked with his sidekick. He was a dime a dozen.

No, no he wasn't, because we saw Johnny Storm mature on camera. He changed, he was not stuck in a perpetual status quo, like Charlie Brown who always, always will be 10 years old and will never, ever kick that football. Notice how profound a moment it was back at the start of Johnny's quest to free Crystal from the Negative Zone, when Reed called Johnny a MAN for the very first time.

Good writers advance a character and take into account change. Bad writers make characters regress. This is why Steve Englehart, a true professional and a genius, was a far superior writer to Byrne: come Byrne's FF run, Johnny Storm was inexplicably immature and seventeen years old again. Come Steve Englehart, Johnny Storm was a responsible mature adult, who despite obvious temptation with Crystal, he would never be with her, because he was an adult that had responsibilities that he could not ignore.

It was not up to Byrne to turn back the clock. The character had grown and progressed. Eliminating this growth not only rendered these beautiful stories by far, far greater writers irrelevant, but also diminished the Vision as a character, and also, the very idea that got me and others into Marvel comics: these characters are real people that grow, change and progress with time.

XPac

04-15-2006, 09:30 PM

I think the person being ignored here is Wanda. Vision grew a lot during his relationship with Vision... but Wanda did not. Byrne's actions to the Vision was really a profound catalyst in terms of allowing the Wanda character to grow and evolve.

She became her own character rather than just being Visions wife. And for those that had problems with what Byrne did with Vision, like I said in an earlier thread he regained his lost humanity anyways, so there wasn't that big a loss.

Prior to Byrne Vision and Scarlet Witch were married with kids living in the suburbs... if ANY characters needed to be shaken up massively to make them interesting again it was them.

JulianPerez

04-15-2006, 11:07 PM

I think the person being ignored here is Wanda. Vision grew a lot during his relationship with Vision... but Wanda did not.

Actually, the thing I liked best about the Vision/Scarlet Witch relationship is how well it characterized the Scarlet Witch as being brave and independent. Notice that here was Wanda, who previously was the shyest of all the Avengers, who had a cute little crush on Captain America, suddenly finding in herself the COURAGE to admit, in defiance of all that is conventional, that she loves an artificial man. Take this exerpt from from GIANT SIZED AVENGERS #4 (1974):

VISION: Wanda, you're the ONLY WOMAN for me! I...I can make you HAPPY! Forget all the HUMAN RULES and PLEASE, MARRY ME.

SCARLET WITCH: TO BLAZES WITH THE RULES! Don't you see? Love is for SOULS, not for BODIES!

This courage was tested again only a few issues later, when their marriage was interrupted by the Human Bombs (arguably the first instance of suicide bombers in comic books) who were gunning to interrupt what they saw as a perverse mutant/robot marriage.

Young Avenger

04-15-2006, 11:19 PM

VISION: Wanda, you're the ONLY WOMAN for me! I...I can make you HAPPY! Forget all the HUMAN RULES and PLEASE, MARRY ME.

SCARLET WITCH: TO BLAZES WITH THE RULES! Don't you see? Love is for SOULS, not for BODIES!

I mean no disrespect to whoever wrote that but that line very sucked. I almost spilt out the water I was drinking when I read that. You gotta love tear jerkers.

StoneGold

04-16-2006, 01:14 AM

It's funny. Byrne's post-change reasoning for why he can change stuff and no one else can is total BS, but I like white, penis-less Vision better than fruit salad colored, penis having Vision.

XPac

04-16-2006, 09:50 AM

Actually, the thing I liked best about the Vision/Scarlet Witch relationship is how well it characterized the Scarlet Witch as being brave and independent. Notice that here was Wanda, who previously was the shyest of all the Avengers, who had a cute little crush on Captain America, suddenly finding in herself the COURAGE to admit, in defiance of all that is conventional, that she loves an artificial man. Take this exerpt from from GIANT SIZED AVENGERS #4 (1974):

VISION: Wanda, you're the ONLY WOMAN for me! I...I can make you HAPPY! Forget all the HUMAN RULES and PLEASE, MARRY ME.

SCARLET WITCH: TO BLAZES WITH THE RULES! Don't you see? Love is for SOULS, not for BODIES!

This courage was tested again only a few issues later, when their marriage was interrupted by the Human Bombs (arguably the first instance of suicide bombers in comic books) who were gunning to interrupt what they saw as a perverse mutant/robot marriage.

I won't disagree that dating an android doesn't take guts... but that said, I think Wanda experienced the most profound growth as a character after Byrne broke them up.

Really it's not unlike what happened to the Wasp after she and Hank Pym broke up. They become more than just love interests for a male counterpart, and grew to arguably even overshadow those characters by becoming stronger dominant leaders in the Avengers (or Wandas case Force Works).

XPac

04-16-2006, 09:51 AM

It's funny. Byrne's post-change reasoning for why he can change stuff and no one else can is total BS, but I like white, penis-less Vision better than fruit salad colored, penis having Vision.

My fave Vision was actually the one right after the white one... the pre-Heroes Reborn one that was white and green with the high colar. To me anyways the color scheme was a bit less bling-ish than his classic look.

kcekada

04-16-2006, 01:26 PM

can an entity that seems like a machine become a man?

Short answer...no.

Yeah, I'm familiar with all of those romantic notions of machine acquiring emotions and that. It's all fanciful, and not very believable. Maybe I'm too much of a realist, but how can anything that is artificial really have emotions? Sure, something can be programmed to fake it, but not acquire the actual emotion.

Again, living in this techonological age should give us a bit more insight. If a machine can really develop emotions, instincts, etc. then the human race may as well just disappear.

RonnieThunderbolts

04-16-2006, 01:48 PM

can an entity that seems like a machine become a man?

Short answer...no.

Uh... fiction. Fantasy fiction. To imply at all that there is an objective romanticism/ridiculousness that exists in an artifical being earning a soul as opposed to say, a many flying, is an implication without any merit. There is nothing childish or immature to enjoy or appreciate a metaphor for our own existence. The idea is that these things AREN'T faked, or programmed, they don't emulate, they replicate the human experience of living out with random factors (emotions) driving them instead of programmed imperatives. These are characters that are so human because they suggest that perhaps we aren't born with a soul, but earn a soul through thought, introspection, suffering and experiences.

I find it funny that this is so hard to accept, the artificial man becoming something more, because it is SUCH an old idea. Yes, it is just as impossible as vampires, werewolves, demigods and superheroes, and yet, it is just persistent, and has just as many metaphorical applications to the human experience.

StoneGold

04-16-2006, 02:23 PM

For that matter, if you can create an algorithm that will sufficiently simulate emotions to the point where they are indistinguishable from the real thing, does the lack of hormones causing a specific chemical electrical response in an organic brain make them not emotions?

Frank

04-17-2006, 07:00 AM

Shellhead

04-17-2006, 08:11 AM

Many years ago, I gradually noticed that Byrne seems stuck in the past. His favorite version of every character seems to be the version that he encountered the first time he saw them in a comic book. That's a common enough accusation amongst fans, but I believe that most of us are capable of enjoying changes that are interesting, well thought out, and executed with quality and respect for the characters involved. But not Byrne, he is only happy when he is turning back the clock to day one.

West Coast Avengers is an odd case, though. I was a big fan of Englehart's work before WCA, but his writing on WCA was extremely corny. The villains were unbelievably lame and gimmicky, which detracted from the relatively decent characterization of the heroes. And the artwork was mediocre at best. Then Byrne came along, and suddenly the writing and the art was intense and interesting. I hated what he did with Vision and Scarlet Witch, but it was well done and absolutely necessary after previous writers shoved them into a stagnant life in suburbia.

When he first appeared, the Vision was fascinating. He had strange powers, an eerie appearance, and was programmed by an evil mastermind to kill the Avengers. Despite his hollow voice and artificial origin, Vision wanted to be human. And that was enough to make him really popular with Avengers fans for years to come. But by the time Byrne did his WCA run, everything that could be done with the Vision's developing humanity had already been done. It was as good a time as any to shake things up, and taking Vision back to his original spooky self was the right idea.

Kirk G

04-17-2006, 12:39 PM

I loved the WCA Byrne run a lot. And my regret as a fan is that he didn`t finish up his run properly. Esp. all that was connected to Wanda. I wish Byrne would have stayed and had reformed the Brother of Evil Mutants with Magneto, Wanda, Pietro.

I did too! And in my heart of hearts, I hope that JB hears the longing and devotion that such fans hold in their hearts for this time period and storyline, and that through some miracle of miracles, he finds a way to continue/finish what was obviously intended to continue. (hense, the covers of WCA #58, 59 illustrating that interview)
...which was my point in beginning this thread.... not to argue over the Vision.... but that's OK, I don't mind as long as it's a good discussion and no name calling... :D

Babylon23

04-20-2006, 12:12 AM

Byrne's "back to the creator's vision" is rather strange in the case of the Vision. The Vision was created by Roy Thomas, and Thomas established early on (#58) that the Vision could experience emotions. It was Thomas that developed the emotional development of the Vision, including his relationship with the Scarlet Witch. By the end of Thomas' run, the Vision had developed a full set of emotions, and a very distinct personality.

So really, by undoing all of this, it could be argued that Byrne was completely ignoring the creator's vision.

Having said that, I really enjoyed Byrne's run on WCA, and wish he'd been given the chance to finish off his storyline.

I disagree with him regarding Busiek's origin for the Vision. I think Byrne's origin detracted from the Vision a little, and left a few plot holes that Busiek incorporated into Avengers Forever. Busiek's idea may have been a little complicated, but it worked.

Rich L

04-20-2006, 05:54 AM

No, no he wasn't, because we saw Johnny Storm mature on camera. He changed, he was not stuck in a perpetual status quo, like Charlie Brown who always, always will be 10 years old and will never, ever kick that football. Notice how profound a moment it was back at the start of Johnny's quest to free Crystal from the Negative Zone, when Reed called Johnny a MAN for the very first time.

Good writers advance a character and take into account change. Bad writers make characters regress. This is why Steve Englehart, a true professional and a genius, was a far superior writer to Byrne: come Byrne's FF run, Johnny Storm was inexplicably immature and seventeen years old again. Come Steve Englehart, Johnny Storm was a responsible mature adult, who despite obvious temptation with Crystal, he would never be with her, because he was an adult that had responsibilities that he could not ignore.

I believe that Fruitbat was referring to the original android Human Torch, not to Johnny Storm.

I kind of liked the idea of the de-humanising of the Vision. It created a great emotional arc for him, Wanda and Wondy. Not only that but it made the character interesting for the first time in years. The only time since the 70s that the Vision had any kind of interesting depth before that was during the Ultimate Vision storyline that had him taking over the world.

Its a shame that Byrne never got to finish his WCA work - and more of a shame that he won't be working for Marvel anytime soon. He does his best work there, no matter what you think of the man's public persona.

JulianPerez

04-20-2006, 10:05 AM

I kind of liked the idea of the de-humanising of the Vision. It created a great emotional arc for him, Wanda and Wondy. Not only that but it made the character interesting for the first time in years. The only time since the 70s that the Vision had any kind of interesting depth before that was during the Ultimate Vision storyline that had him taking over the world.

The fact that writers hadn't found much to do with the Vision can't be pointed to as evidence of the fact there was nothing that could be done with the character. In terms of his humanity, he had a lot to do and a way to go, and so his arc there was not finished. And there are dozens of stories that can be told with the Vision as a Father.

I do agree with you that something needed to be done with the character, but it was not so much what Byrne did, but HOW he chose to do it: the Vision's destruction, the dissolution of his marriage, the harebrained explanation for why his children vanished, all indicated a viciousness that is totally inappropriate for a professional comic book creator.

I could hear the voice of Billy Friday in my head: "We have Omnidog gassed, and then the next issue we have the Undersea City succumb to Mercury Poisoning..."

A common Byrne theme that he employs when writing machine characters from the Vision and the Metal Men is that they are not "real" beings. Despite the fact that they have been characterized as treated as being just as "human" as anybody else. Use of one's personal view of how characters are instead of how they have been established by writers as being, is not professional.

Having said that, I really enjoyed Byrne's run on WCA, and wish he'd been given the chance to finish off his storyline.

I liked moments of his WCA run. The idea of Tigra wrassling Kraven the Hunter was an interesting one. Kraven is one of the better foes of the Marvel Universe and in that particular story he was used in an interesting way.

However, Byrne wanted Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch to rejoin the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Just as his treatment of the Vision was regressive and innappropriate, so would this. Wanda was a member of the Brotherhood during a point in her personality where she was a shy wallflower that is dominated by others. Come Englehart, the Scarlet Witch ceased to be that person. It is unthinkable that a confident Wanda would make the choices that a young and underconfident Wanda would have in her early career.

If Byrne did not finish writing his arc, I shed no tears.

Its a shame that Byrne never got to finish his WCA work - and more of a shame that he won't be working for Marvel anytime soon. He does his best work there, no matter what you think of the man's public persona.

I have never met Byrne, so I have absolutely no idea what his "public persona" is or not. Anyway, nobody's talking about his public persona - only the creative decisions that he has made.

Kirk G

04-20-2006, 03:08 PM

At times, he's been cocky, usually pleasant, flamboyant, confident, and always entertaining. The multiple times I have seen him at the Mid-Ohio-Con, his presentations and panel comments are always laced with jokes, barbs, puns, and clever wit. He's one of the major reasons why I have attended year after year.
I can see why/where he might rub other creators the wrong way with his attitudes.

Babylon23

04-20-2006, 05:53 PM

However, Byrne wanted Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch to rejoin the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Just as his treatment of the Vision was regressive and innappropriate, so would this. Wanda was a member of the Brotherhood during a point in her personality where she was a shy wallflower that is dominated by others. Come Englehart, the Scarlet Witch ceased to be that person. It is unthinkable that a confident Wanda would make the choices that a young and underconfident Wanda would have in her early career.

While I agree to a certain extent, I believe this could have worked in the short term. Byrne had established a clear enough reason for Wanda's descent into the dark side (the dismantling of the Vision, the loss of her children, her manipulation by the the mutant hive mind thingee, Wonder Man's refusal to share his thought patterns with The Vision). It's certainly a better explaination than the one given for Avengers Disassembled.

Haunt

04-20-2006, 06:20 PM

Babylon23

04-20-2006, 08:08 PM

that and the storyline would have already reversed itself by now/stopped Bendis from using the Witch as his catalyst for disbanding the team.

Which, IMO, would have been a good thing

Sharcque

04-20-2006, 09:03 PM

28. Do you have any advice for struggling artists and writers trying to break into the field of comics?
JB: Don't. At least, not now. Wait to see if comics, as an industry and an art form, can survive this horrible depression into which we have flung ourselves.

:rolleyes: I've been reading Byrne interviews since the 70s, and he's never once told aspiring creators to "follow their dreams" or whatever.

Kirk G

04-20-2006, 09:04 PM

Well, we can hope...

Maybe the powers that be at Marvel will hear our plea....

Harold of the Rocks

04-21-2006, 05:18 AM

Its a shame that Byrne never got to finish his WCA work - and more of a shame that he won't be working for Marvel anytime soon. He does his best work there, no matter what you think of the man's public persona.I have never met Byrne, so I have absolutely no idea what his "public persona" is or not. Anyway, nobody's talking about his public persona - only the creative decisions that he has made.At times, he's been cocky, usually pleasant, flamboyant, confident, and always entertaining. The multiple times I have seen him at the Mid-Ohio-Con, his presentations and panel comments are always laced with jokes, barbs, puns, and clever wit. He's one of the major reasons why I have attended year after year.
I can see why/where he might rub other creators the wrong way with his attitudes.Let me preface everything I have to say on the subject with the following:
1. I am not a 'classic' Avengers historian at all. I can't speak to plotlines by any of the writers with any significant credibility and won't attempt to do so.
2. I am not particularly familiar with John Byrne's writing. Not enough to have any opinion on his relevance as a writer or what his merits and inadequacies are in his writing.
3. I know nothing of him as a person, other than what I have gleaned from information on the net. He seems to be at times, an a$$h*l@, a bigot, and an unappreciative and childish person. Others have come to his defense. The truth is possibly somewhere in between, but again I have no idea what he is really like.

With that said:

Isn't it great when everything 'comes together', and one's favorite artists or entertainers are also good (or even great) human beings? It feels even more rewarding when the money spent on entertainment 'rewards' someone of noble heart and spirit. Hey, entertainment is what it is, and I love the work of some musicians (for instance) who are known to be less than upstanding citizens. Sometimes their craft is so unique and compelling, that one wants to enjoy it (and therefore 'reward' the individual) regardless of their persona. I don't pretend to be so sanctimonious that I make my entertainment decisions exclusively based on the persona of the creators/entertainers involved. If I like something enough, I invest my time, money, attention, and maybe even praise on it. Yet I do care about financially rewarding people who have a morality contrary to mine. All things being equal, I would rather reward the person(s) who entertain me that also are in harmony with my morality. The question for me is whether what a specific entertainer brings to me is irreplacable or not. Can I get the same satisfaction/sensations from another creator that is more 'in line' with my thinking? Do I even know what kind of person this entertainer/artist is? Sometimes the answer is no. And I reward the entertainer/artist whom I either do not entirely respect as a person, or that I do not know enough about to comment on. Because it is just that, entertainment. The same can be true outside the entertainment industry. I would feel better about tipping the Starbucks barista that is a good person over the one that is morally decrepit. But, I don't know, and so I tip regardless.

So, the questions to those here that are knowledgable on Byrne and his creative works would be:

Do you know what kind of person John Byrne is?Do you care what kind of person John Byrne is?If so, are his works 'irreplacable', his talents unique enough to overlook his character flaws?
My answers to these would be 'No, Yes*, No'.

Of course, if the answer to the first two is 'No', then there's no need to answer the third question.

* 'Yes' because my opinion on his art is that it is usually pretty good, but I have gotten by fine without his writing to this point, so there's no need to invest in him at this point unless he creates something I 'must have'. Maybe he's done something I 'must have' and haven't been exposed to... but for now, I haven't been. That's why I followed up with the 'No' (nor do I consider his art so unique as to merit special consideration).

I think some of you have answered these (or some of these) questions already by your comments. I would be interested in some of y'all's direct answers to these, if you'd be so kind. ;)

Hombre

04-21-2006, 05:37 AM

In terms of his humanity, he had a lot to do and a way to go, and so his arc there was not finished. And there are dozens of stories that can be told with the Vision as a Father.

The significance of the Vision is a fairly complex thing to grasp. To me, he represented a paradox in that an artificial being could teach a real human about humanity's better istincts, which ultimately come down to employing its gift for reason to recognize the problems and overcome them without needless pain and brutality.

The Vision, like the mutants or any number of classic characters, can be pointed to as a metaphor for man's own misguided sense of superiority placed on physical, exterior qualities such as one's class, origin or skin color. The Vision was not even human, he was radically different, but he had inner qualities that defined his worth beyond the mechanical reality of him being an android.

Harold of the Rocks

04-21-2006, 05:51 AM

The significance of the Vision is a fairly complex thing to grasp. To me, he represented a paradox in that an artificial being could teach a real human about humanity's better istincts, which ultimately come down to employing its gift for reason to recognize the problems and overcome them without needless pain and brutality.

The Vision, like the mutants or any number of classic characters, can be pointed to as a metaphor for man's own misguided sense of superiority placed on physical, exterior qualities such as one's class, origin or skin color. The Vision was not even human, he was radically different, but he had inner qualities that defined his worth beyond the mechanical reality of him being an android.Nice call. Some others have also already touched on this theme here. As far as the metaphor, I can reference Data from Star Trek TNG. Mechanical constructs that desire to either be 'more human' or understand humanity often can teach 'us' humans plenty, because they have a unique filter through which they percieve us, and often pose questions to us about humanity that can truly make us pause and reflect on the tapesty that is human experience and history. Questions that may at first seem utterly absurd that we rarely question our own preconceived notions until confronted by them by an 'outsider' trying to understand. Those stories are cool and resonate with me. I can't speak to whether Byrne did or did not appreciate this type of story that Vision would be an excellent conduit for or not. If he didn't, then he may have missed a golden opportunity... that is, if that type of story is 'in him' and he was capable of telling it.

tricksterpup

04-21-2006, 09:46 AM

You know, I no longer have this run and I would like to pick it up again. I remember enjoying his WC run when it did come out.

Zero Hunter

04-21-2006, 01:55 PM

You know, I no longer have this run and I would like to pick it up again. I remember enjoying his WC run when it did come out.

Issues 42-50 are availiable in a trade called Avengers Weat Coast: Vision Quest.

chicagokmc

04-22-2006, 08:25 AM

DOOM2099

04-23-2006, 04:15 PM

He could do this story as an Avengers: The Hidden Years, takes place between such and such issues of WCA and at the end Wanda retcons the whole thing or makes everyone forget about it. NO MORE Darker than Scarlet!!!

This is a really good idea. Its not as if continuity isn't so totally f**'d up that you couldnt sneak some stuff in there... Marvel has published their own line of toilet paper for so long it doesn't matter what they publish anymore. So why not?

Well, I don't think Byrne or mainstream fans would be interested at this point.

Edit:I miss Bobbi, I am probably alone here, but... why? I thought the dynamic between her and Hawkeye was very interesting. Made him seem more like an adult, and less like the 2nd fiddle that being on the east coast team made him feel like.

Babylon23

04-23-2006, 07:35 PM

This is a really good idea. Its not as if continuity isn't so totally f**'d up that you couldnt sneak some stuff in there... Marvel has published their own line of toilet paper for so long it doesn't matter what they publish anymore. So why not?

It's not a bad idea at all. However, I'd prefer to see either Byrne or some other writer come along and fix the current Wanda problem, rather than looking back at a 15 year oly story.

Well, I don't think Byrne or mainstream fans would be interested at this point.

Agreed.

Edit:I miss Bobbi, I am probably alone here, but... why? I thought the dynamic between her and Hawkeye was very interesting. Made him seem more like an adult, and less like the 2nd fiddle that being on the east coast team made him feel like.

I loved Bobbi, and was really annoyed when she died. Unfortunately, I don't think Roy Thomas really knew what to do with her.

FrogMan

04-23-2006, 08:04 PM

Rich L

04-24-2006, 01:31 AM

So, the questions to those here that are knowledgable on Byrne and his creative works would be:

Do you know what kind of person John Byrne is?Do you care what kind of person John Byrne is?If so, are his works 'irreplacable', his talents unique enough to overlook his character flaws?

As you asked so nicely, I would say:

No. I've read things - as most of us have - on the net and have, several years ago, interacted briefly on fourms regarding his Lost Generation mini. He seems very passionate about his work; on the other hand he's a little blunt and not very politically correct. Thing is, the internet breeds that. It breeds it from fans so why not from creators?
No. I don't care what his opinions are. I don't care what anyone's opinions are. If I enjoy their work, I'll buy their comic. I enjoy some people's interviews and think they seem like genuinely nice people - I don't go out and buy a book because of it. I differentiate the art from the artist.
NA because I answered No to the second question. But then, I would argue that his FF run at the very least is completely irreplaceable.

Hombre

04-24-2006, 01:46 AM

on the other hand he's a little blunt and not very politically correct. Thing is, the internet breeds that. It breeds it from fans so why not from creators?

I dunno Rich. Seems to me the Internet breeds hypocrisy more than it does honesty. And facile outrage.

StoneGold

04-24-2006, 01:48 AM

This argument might mean something for me if Byrne's art was on par with his output from 15 years ago. But it isn't.

Rich L

04-24-2006, 03:30 AM

I dunno Rich. Seems to me the Internet breeds hypocrisy more than it does honesty. And facile outrage.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear on what I meant here - what I meant to say is that people find it easier to say things on the internet than they would do face to face, or from a panel (say, if you're a creator). Even if you post under your real name or a variant thereof, it's the easiest thing in the world to just tap out what you're thinking without giving it the consideration you might normally give it if you were speaking.

I agree, it also breeds hypocrisy. It's easy to slam someone on the internet for 'saying' something you disagree with - but the tendency with that is that people pick up on the criticism without reading the original text that caused the reaction. That reaction then spirals and spirals and spirals until it doesn't matter what the 'offender' originally meant or said, because what people think they said takes on a life of its own.

What adds to the problem is that unlike a comment in conversation or a comment at a convention, anything that gets posted on the internet is there forever - or even if its removed, chances are that someone somewhere will have reposted it already. And that means that people will be reacting to it a lot longer than they would otherwise have done - and something that people would have blown off to a bad turn of phrase or just not engaging your brain before speaking suddenly becomes a defining moment of character.

And looking at all that I just typed, that's even less clear than it was before. Stupid internet...

Rich L

04-24-2006, 03:31 AM

gah, double post...stupid browser.

Hombre

04-24-2006, 04:04 AM

And looking at all that I just typed, that's even less clear than it was before. Stupid internet...

No prob here Rich. You know we're on the same page. I'm in awe of your far reaching comic knowledge, and that's why when you make a judgment call I strongly disagree with, it smarts. :D

Speaking of creators, I just don't think you have to agree with their ideas or ideology to enjoy what they are able to communicate consciously, subconsciously, mysteriously through art. I can think of nothing worse than judging a person for mere fact that they open their heart to books or movies of comics irrespective of the creators' background... am I a communist because I enjoy Pasolini's movies? Or am I a laissez-faire capitalist because I have never read a more engrossing book than the Fountainhead?

I believe in free expression of ideas, as it seems always preferable to the unsavory outlets that hypocrisy and denial always seem to lead to eventually.

Kirk G

04-24-2006, 03:38 PM

As you asked so nicely, I would say:

No. I've read things - as most of us have - on the net and have, several years ago, interacted briefly on fourms regarding his Lost Generation mini. He seems very passionate about his work; on the other hand he's a little blunt and not very politically correct. Thing is, the internet breeds that. It breeds it from fans so why not from creators?
No. I don't care what his opinions are. I don't care what anyone's opinions are. If I enjoy their work, I'll buy their comic. I enjoy some people's interviews and think they seem like genuinely nice people - I don't go out and buy a book because of it. I differentiate the art from the artist.
NA because I answered No to the second question. But then, I would argue that his FF run at the very least is completely irreplaceable.
I gotta agree with most of this... I think his talents (which were much more palatable 10-15 years ago, at his zenith) out weigh any comments taken out of context on the internet. I attribute some of the bluntness of his comments to the old adage, "There is no such thing as negative publicity." In short, if you stir it enough, it'll raise a stink, and thereby attract more flies.

:( PLEASE do not take the above to be an attack on Byrne. I love his work and his efforts. It's just that I recognise some outlandish behaviour by many artists/creators of his generation as an attempt to attract interest and publicity. The fact of the matter is that I can enjoy his plotting and writting without regard to any personal opinions or comments. I can separate art from the artist... but it is more fun to me and ads another dimension to my interest to be familar with both! :D

Babylon23

04-25-2006, 11:57 PM

I find it very easy to seperate a creator from his work. I find a large majority of Byrne's comments to be either childish, offensive or just unprofessional. I've even read through the forums on his site to ensure that I don't take those comments out of context.

On the other hand, I love his artwork from the 70's-80's, and his more recent artwork from Blood of the Demon and Action. I can appreciate this work regardless of what Byrne is like as an individual, and regardless of what he says online.

tricksterpup

04-26-2006, 06:41 AM

Issues 42-50 are availiable in a trade called Avengers Weat Coast: Vision Quest.
Thanks, I will have to hunt that down.

Frank

04-28-2006, 12:53 PM

While I agree to a certain extent, I believe this could have worked in the short term. Byrne had established a clear enough reason for Wanda's descent into the dark side (the dismantling of the Vision, the loss of her children, her manipulation by the the mutant hive mind thingee, Wonder Man's refusal to share his thought patterns with The Vision). It's certainly a better explaination than the one given for Avengers Disassembled.

The reunification of the original Brotherhood with Wanda and Quicksilver rejoining their father now at the top of their maturity and skills is a great image and would have worked on that ground bad psychology or not.

As for the Vision, I just think Byrne talks a good game and says a lot of things about many things on the comic field something what should be, what shouldn`t be but most of the times it contradict what he himself did and so forth. Like in the case of Vision. He says he just wanted Vision to return to how he was originaly but frankly the character never was like that. What Byrne did however was creat a great story, with the interesting treatment of pretty much starting a character from scratch. I think problem was red-red-yellow Vision with emotions is better than cold white-suit Vision but it was a neat story. Byrne `s US AGent was also pretty different from the character that we saw in the pages of Captain Amercia but he was interesting.