New video interview with John Byrne looking back on his Superman run

[manofsteel1979]

So I was surfing YouTube and found this posted a few days ago on the SYFY YouTube channel. Pretty fascinating stuff.




It's amazing that even though specific elements of continuity that came out of Byrne's run have been overwritten or outright erased, the characterizations of Clark/Superman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane and the rest of the support cast, the general shape of his rogues gallery, and of course the triangle era that sprung up in the wake of his departure and the contributions of those creators who built off of what he did still resonate today. John Byrne's effect on Superman is still evident for better or worse three decades later.

Thoughts?

Note: the title is supposed to read as New Interview with John Byrne...etc. not "erview". MOD feel free to amend title ASAP

[Clark_Kent]

Oh! I love stuff like this...over 19 minutes, so I will check it out shortly & post my thoughts in a bit. But either way, thanks in advance for posting it. I always find these things fascinating, and it's also timely - I just got the new Exile omnibus, and before I tackled it I decided to re-read the MoS tpb's of Byrne's run...just started volume 3.

[Clark_Kent]

Just watched it. I was surprised at his comment at the end, regarding what he would tell himself if he could go back in time. I know things were pretty bad near the end of his run, but to completely wish he'd never touched the character? Surprising.

While he isn't my favorite creator on Superman, a lot of his ideas are still things I enjoy about Superman today...the bigger shield, the long cape (that can be torn), and a Clark who doesn't trip over his own shadow. Fans will argue forever over the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do" situation, and considering Post Crisis was my introduction to the character you can probably guess which way I lean, but either way a confident Clark was very much appreciated. Kal gets so little private time, he should be allowed to do things he enjoys and even excel at them - whether that's writing novels, or winning awards for his non-Superman articles. I know Byrne didn't originate the idea of a confident Clark, but his version has had a farther influence than, say, the George Reeves version.

Sidenote: I had completely forgotten this, but it came up during my reading of MoS volume 2: Clark refuses to accept awards he's won for articles pertaining to Superman. I've seen a lot of people argue that Byrne's Clark is selfish, or even immoral, for writing about & interviewing himself...but nobody ever mentions how he refuses the accolades for it. You can argue it doesn't quite excuse the articles in the first place, but at least it all crosses Clark's mind!

[magha_regulus]

This was an excellent interview. It's sad that he regrets doing it and didn't have a better experience working on it.

[Sacred Knight]

On record feeling the vast majority of his changes to Superman himself were very, very bad for the long-term success of the character. Visually, though, he introduced some great things, and I credit him with starting a larger effort to flesh out Metropolis and Superman's supporting cast.

[Clark_Kent]

On record feeling the vast majority of his changes to Superman himself were very, very bad for the long-term success of the character. Visually, though, he introduced some great things, and I credit him with starting a larger effort to flesh out Metropolis and Superman's supporting cast.

This is perhaps one of my favorite things about his run, and something the Triangle guys ran with to great success. Feeling like the city was actually in danger because you knew and cared about the characters who lived there was awesome and immersive, and is sorely lacking today (hopefully Bendis is good on his word about them; seeing the L-shaped Lexcorp again was a beautiful first step though).

[Kuwagaton]

ROFL, what an awkward ending to that whole thing. Yikes. But anyway, while I've basically seen all of these statements made before, the audio visual explanation really brought his ideas to life. While I don't think his execution was always on point, I'll always think his ideas were some of the best. His Krypton imo being the highlight. It was as controversial as all the rest, but like he said, there's an odd sort of expectation for such creators to be very successful while not actually changing anything. Those changes make the whole thing work.

While he isn't my favorite creator on Superman, a lot of his ideas are still things I enjoy about Superman today...the bigger shield, the long cape (that can be torn), and a Clark who doesn't trip over his own shadow. Fans will argue forever over the "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do" situation, and considering Post Crisis was my introduction to the character you can probably guess which way I lean, but either way a confident Clark was very much appreciated. Kal gets so little private time, he should be allowed to do things he enjoys and even excel at them - whether that's writing novels, or winning awards for his non-Superman articles. I know Byrne didn't originate the idea of a confident Clark, but his version has had a farther influence than, say, the George Reeves version.

I think the best thing Byrne said here was, "Superman was his fortress of solitude."

I had completely forgotten this, but it came up during my reading of MoS volume 2: Clark refuses to accept awards he's won for articles pertaining to Superman. I've seen a lot of people argue that Byrne's Clark is selfish, or even immoral, for writing about & interviewing himself...but nobody ever mentions how he refuses the accolades for it. You can argue it doesn't quite excuse the articles in the first place, but at least it all crosses Clark's mind!

It's weird because right from the beginning with Shuster, we see that Superman doesn't seek glory but Clark indeed cashes in. But somehow this is attributed to Byrne when really, he focused a lot on human interest stories.

[Truman Burbank]

It's a testament to how strong Byrne's work was that over 30 years later, even as so many do nothing but try to tear it down, that so much of it remains in the foundation of the modern Superman character.

It wasn't perfect by any means; there are some weird sexual undertones (the best examples being the Big Barda story and Lex Luthor in the World of Metropolis miniseries) in addition to some tricky continuity changes. But it was a much-needed refresher for Superman. There's a lot of revisionist history these days about just how bad Pre-Crisis had gotten, and whether you like it or not, Byrne's work did a lot to get Superman out of that slump.

I'm not too surprised Byrne says he regrets his Superman time; he's one of the most notorious grumps in comics, so if things weren't just right (and they obviously weren't, since he left after two years), he wasn't going to be happy.

[Darkseid Is]

Great interview. I wish there was more stuff like this on youtube.

[jimmy]

This was an excellent interview. It's sad that he regrets doing it and didn't have a better experience working on it.

YES...it was very enlightening and I agreed with a lot (In retrospect) of what John had to say, and truth be told, coming from me who hated the 1986 reboot

The Negative from John B. include; The reboot that destroyed the pervious continuity always seem to be and was a cop-out especially where tweaking and pruning would have served to corrected continuity and strengthen consistency.

The vastly depowering of a character, making him more grounded to earth didn't need to happen. Superman, who is the epitome of power, reduced to one tenth of what those levels were just to make a character interesting - while being easier to write for is really just discounting the character, more than anything else, but Byrne seemingly was being pressured to cut power on Superman..

Pet peeve: The S Shield it was just too big, although I understand what he was trying to do.

The positive from John B. include; his art work, trying to hold yourself up to the Master, Master - King Curt Swan is a massive task, but giving J.B. a lot a credit here his art work is sublime.

Honorable mention John's Development of secondary characters.

Using / incorporating George Reeves as the basis of his Clark was probably the best thing to come out of that era. George, (IMHO) played by far, the best Clark / Superman on screen, and doesn't matter if that was more sixty years ago, because you can't deny quality

I know Byrne faced a lot of heat, but it was good he was able to reconcile and set the record straight.

[Kuwagaton]

Well on power, Superman was able to get stone cold knocked out by a bolt gun in the golden age. It was good enough to kick start his legend anyway. Byrne's idea of compromise was making it more like a nuke. Other than that he really did try to incorporate the Reeves era stuff, like Henderson, without being too slavish.

[bat39]

So I was surfing YouTube and found this posted a few days ago on the SYFY YouTube channel. Pretty fascinating stuff.




It's amazing that even though specific elements of continuity that came out of Byrne's run have been overwritten or outright erased, the characterizations of Clark/Superman, Lex Luthor, Lois Lane and the rest of the support cast, the general shape of his rogues gallery, and of course the triangle era that sprung up in the wake of his departure and the contributions of those creators who built off of what he did still resonate today. John Byrne's effect on Superman is still evident for better or worse three decades later.

Thoughts?

Note: the title is supposed to read as New Interview with John Byrne...etc. not "erview". MOD feel free to amend title ASAP

Haven't seen the video yet...but completely agree with your opinion on Byrne's lasting legacy on the character.

Between the DCAU, the DCEU and Lois & Clark, Byrne's take on the character, in some form or the other, has influenced the wider pop-cultural perception of Superman. Well, not to mention that for over 30 years, his take on the character has persisted in the comics (well, apart from the 5 years of the New 52 and I'm sure you could find his influence even there).

[Doctor Know]

It's eerie that George Perez (another industry legend) also has a bad time working on Superman. Perez's comments on leaving Supes 4 months into the New 52 in 2012, echo Byrne's comments on leaving Supes in 1988.

http://comicsalliance.com/george-per...rience-new-52/

[kingaliencracker]

I really enjoyed John Byrne's Superman run. I don't have fond feelings for the man personally due to a bad interaction I had with him on his message boards, which is even more unfortunate because I think he's one of the greatest talents in the history of the medium. But I do think his Superman was entertaining if somewhat simplistic.

I'm not really surprised that he regrets doing Superman, although he gave mixed signals about his opinion on his run whenever he discussed it on his website. Superman was kind of the pinnacle of his career and after he left, while he enjoyed spurts of success he never really recaptured the success he had in his prime when he was establishing new heights at Marvel. I think part of that was because of the backlash he received in the changes Superman endured during his run. There's no question that much of his ideas, such as LexCorp Lex, Lois' characterization, Metropolis' supporting characters, and other aspects have become as ingrained with the mythos as things established 50 years prior to his writing the character. I think if I had a criticism, it's that he gutted the character too much (which to be fair was a lot of editorial's decision as much as his) but then he wasn't really bold or innovative with the stories he told. But yeah, I really liked it. I'm not as keen on it now as I was 20 years ago, which again is in part because my personal opinion of him has diminished his legacy for me a little. But I always recommend it to new readers who have never experienced the character before.