The pity of that is all that verbiage surrounds a really nice portrait of our hero. That may be the definition of JB's career--too many silly,ill-chosen words accompanying some nice-looking artwork.

To Piskor's point about Superman's enemies lacking an "iconic" look,that's an advantage when you're updating character designs for characters that've been around for decades.

Hated how Byrne depicted Lana Lang. Made no sense,but then JB has little sense of how people act and react.

True, I don't really have any complaints about how Byrne draws Superman. He looks really majestic and powerful in just about every panel.

I'm not a fan of the Lana characterization either. You're right, though, Byrne seems weirdly ignorant about human nature.

I don't want to admit it, but it's true.

But I don't want to admit it.

But it's true.

EXPLANATIONS OF GRANDEUR

True, can't really disagree with any of that.

I'm told that later writers actually did return to the "laboratory left in space" dangler.

Adventures of Superman 424

I know we all love it when I give Evans the business. I love it, he loves it ... And of course, Linda loves it.

But this issue -- the first one on the list by Wolfman/Ordway -- does cast a light (by way of comparison) on the quality of Byrne's that Evans alluded to. He mentioned that the work of McFarlane and Silvestri in 1987 was relatively impenetrable, while Byrne's material from the same period on Superman is quite inviting by comparison. And reading this Wolfman/Ordway joint does remind me that I was taking one quality of Byrne's very much for granted -- the elegance of the visual storytelling. Byrne really knows how to put a page together -- the reader's eyes just glide from panel to panel so smoothly. Byrne makes it look easy, which in turn makes it easy to take for granted.

But reading this issue, I found myself missing it. Ordway's not terrible (although I confess I've never been a huge fan), but it's definitely much more work to read these pages.

Wolfman's writing is better than Byrne's, although it's not necessarily all that exciting to me. Still, a Wolfman/Byrne pairing would have worked better on this Superman reboot. Wolfman's writing is at least smart -- and with Byrne drawing it, it would give it a bit more life. Could have been the best of both worlds. (I seem to recall raving about a Wolfman/Byrne two-parter starring Daredevil and Ghost Rider.)

Instead this issue at least has some intriguing plot elements and character dynamics going on, but the art is kind of bland. Meanwhile, Byrne's art is enjoyable to look at, but his plots and his dialogue are just so uneven. (Not always bad, granted, but when Byrne's writing is bad, it's DREADFUL.)

Anyway, I like the introduction of Cat Grant in this issue. Professor Hamilton shows up too, and i know he'll be important. He's not very likable here, in fact he's kind of a jackass. But hopefully I'll learn to like him.

And so it goes. This might be an ill-advised project. I want to like this post-Crisis Superman stuff, but ... the ingredients are a lot of writers and artists that aren't my personal faves. So ... well .... maybe I just need to open my mind a bit more.

I'd advise you to keep your mind closed. Some of this stuff was dreadful.

In true Byrne fashion, you should leave this project before you finish.

That was in 1976.
Ghost Rider #20
https://www.mikesamazingworld.com/main/ ... icid=47544
Daredevil #138
https://www.mikesamazingworld.com/main/ ... icid=46792

Three years later they would work together on Fantastic Four for 6 issues. #209-#215.
The Sphinx/Galactus issues.
Marv would work for Marvel for about 4 more months before moving to DC.
Wolfman/Perez Titans would debut in August of 1980.

I like it!

Make sure to loudly proclaim that editorial interference made it impossible for you to continue.

His old reviews were better.

I'll put it in the FAQ.

Too many "fans" have learned that it is "kewl" to dis my reviews, and do so without any consideration of the reviews themselves. "His old reviews were better" is a quik 'n' e-z way of sounding like you know what you're talking about without actually having to know what you're talking about. The proof of this particular pudding lies in the number who parrot such phrases without there being any reasonable way nostalgia could be an informing factor.

(This is such an underrated Byrne post, by the way. "People who say my old stuff was better are informed by nostalgia. And the proof that this is true? It's even said by younger fans for whom nostalgia couldn't possibly be a factor!")

"I am correct because I say so, therefore it must be correct that I am correct".

I'm enjoying your reviews and feel no need to re-read the actual issues.

I go back to the fact that this whole place exists because we were once FANS of this artist who writes. The idea that his past work was all bollocks is pretty much a slap in the face for those many of us who thought it was great back then, and all the intervening shit that he has definitely thrown around and definitely deserves censure for, can't really take away everything his work used to mean to me and, I think, others. So I read a thread like this with that in mind. And he really did, if you remember, get lots and lots of praise from.people like us at the time he produced this work and we weren't deranged.
Then, anyway

Fantastic Four and Alpha Flight were my main gigs, and I still defend their quality.

I think he jumped the shark when he started thinking of himself as the Fixer, the one who "gets it" when everybody else does not. Earlier, he was just like a kid getting to work on comics he loved and doing the way he dreamed of. Being tapped for Man of Steel sort of ruined him

New theory goes viral. There, I've said it

Yeah, I like Alpha Flight.

I actually like Next Men too.

But this Superman stuff is all over the map for me, so far. Some really solid issues, side by side with some real garbage. (Writing-wise.)

Visually I don't have any complaints about the Byrne Supey, and I definitely think it looks better than the Ordway art so far.

I advise you to skip ahead to the Triangle Era which is probably the best Superman has ever been. Plus, Roger Stern was one of the writers, and he's a good one.

I agree with Evans - I was a huge fan of Byrne's art and I still am. When Byrne wants to he can still do great work. Not all of it was horrible, that's true, but I think MOS is where JB starts to go off the rails, writing-wise.

I also think Jay's point about Superman being the point where Byrne jumped the proverbial shark is a fair one - it's where Byrne began to basically believe his own publicity, I think. Byrne began to think of himself as infallible, based on the comments he made at the time (and subsequently).

I really, really like Next Men (the original 90's run, anyway) - it had so much potential and I wish he'd continued with it for longer. The issues where he revisited it twenty years later were nowhere near as good - Byrne had plainly lost interest and stuff that he'd set up to revisit later (specifically Sandy, Ignis and David) were simply forgotten about. Sandy, in particular, reminds me of what he did with Jean in Elsewhen - he was exploring similar ideas about someone who could alter reality and so on. Ignis was also an interesting creation - his could cast illusions, but they also had some sort of physical reality and could be photographed. I just know Byrne had something interesting planned for that character and we never got to see it.

I'm still a fan of Byrne's art - and I agree that his FF run still holds up, and so does Alpha Flight - but Byrne's shortcomings as a writer were on full display when he was writing MOS. Byrne's writing isn't all bad, and all writers have idiosyncrasies, but he really didn't cover himself in glory while he was writing Superman.

Just my two cent's worth.