Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 20 Next >>
Topic: eternals....was jack kirby ahead of his time? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Chris Durnell
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1235
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 1:02am | IP Logged | 1  

I agree that some people are overreacting.  I do not interpret Gaiman's quote as being offensive as some here are.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Simon Matthew Park
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 2156
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 2:44am | IP Logged | 2  

I don't find Gaiman's statements offensive in the strictest sense of the word - I just feel that he is embarassed by the source material, and that he found it beneath him. I think his statements are arrogant, but I'm not offended by them.

By the way, I liked the Technophage stuff - but it's nowhere near as memorable as the most minor work that Jack Kirby ever did.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Pedro Bouça
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1465
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 3:53am | IP Logged | 3  

Am I the only one who thinks Eternals is the best Kirby series? I mean, New Gods are cool, The Pact is the very best individual story Kirby did and all that. But as a whole I think The Eternals is stronger.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132319
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 5:41am | IP Logged | 4  

Steven Spielberg didnt get it quite right on "1941". Just wasnt up to his standard, he miscast some popular actors in a story that just didnt work.Is this in anyway an offensive or risable statement?  If not, why would it be so when the target is Kirby?

****

I'd be interested to read more about your discussions of "1941" with Spielberg. Which parts did he tell you he "didn't get quite right"?

What's that? You're expressing your opinion of "1941"? And, you haven't been assigned to work on a continuation of that storyline?

Hmm. Maybe you should keep in mind, then, that the only person who knows if a creator "got it right" is the creator himself. Unless Kirby told Gaiman he felt he didn't "get it right" on THE ETERNALS, it's pretty f***ing arrogant of Gaiman to make such a statement. "Kirby didn't get it right, and I probably won't either" sound like it should read "I don't want to do this series."

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132319
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 5:51am | IP Logged | 5  

In this and the other thread on The Eternals, I've not seen you say anything positive about The Eternals.  I've seen you criticize the wonky Continuity Kirby used, you tend to compare it (somewhat unfavorably) to New Gods, and reading your first post in this thread about "Chariots Of The Gods", I get the distinct impression that you don't think terribly highly of its influences.

***

That is perhaps the most amazing example of inverted thought processes I've ever read. You have not seen me say anything positive about THE ETERNALS? Have you seen me say anything negative? I compare THE ETERNALS unfavorably to the New Gods? Where? When? I think "Chariots of the Gods" was crap, so I think Kirby's version of it was, too? Connect those dots for me, would you?

Since you apparently need little Dick Tracy style arrows pointing to everything, or you will take absence of proof as proof of absence, I will say this: I thought THE ETERNALS was a hoot. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not as much as the Fourth World stuff, but then I didn't enjoy the Fourth World stuff as much as I did FANTASTIC FOUR. Everything doesn't go all the way to eleven.

If I didn't like THE ETERNALS, why on Earth would I incorporate its mythology into MARVEL: THE LOST GENERATION and X-MEN - THE HIDDEN YEARS?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike Norris
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4274
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 3:33pm | IP Logged | 6  

I think this explains what Gaiman was trying to saying betterthan the "quite right" comment:


 QUOTE:

What is interesting though, is how good it is, and how much cool, weird stuff there is there. I definitely don't feel that this is Kirby not on the top of his game because he was getting old, I feel that it reads more like Kirby's not on top of his game because they tied one hand behind his back, and weren't quite letting him be "Kirby." It's a different kind of thing as a result.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Darragh Greene
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 March 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1812
Posted: 29 June 2006 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 7  

 Todd Hembrough wrote:
The art of criticism in literature is based on the
idea that one can assess an artists work and then judge it.


True, Todd. In fact, ancient and medieval literary critics even had a critical
category called the auctoris intentio, that is, the author's intention,
by which they judged the merit of a literary text. The auctoris intentio amounts to the author's idea or planned meaning for his work, as either
explicitly stated in prologue or implicitly revealed over the entire course
of the work; and ancient and medieval literary critics considered it a
legitmate literary critical act to judge whether the auctoris intentio is
achieved, fully, partially or otherwise, in the finished work. Note this
process involves no so-called mind-reading, for the critic infers the
auctoris intentio solely from the evidence of the literary text.
Broadly, this type of criticism acknowledges and explores the
intentionality of human art, that is, the directedness of art by virtue
of its production by a rational agent. Certainly, such criticism is not an
exact science, but it remains a meaningful art nonetheless.
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3009
Posted: 07 July 2006 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 8  

I just received my copy of  the Kirby HC in the mail, but it'll have to wait until I'm done reading Ulysses.  Did anyone else pick it up?  
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Paul Lloyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 486
Posted: 07 July 2006 at 2:34pm | IP Logged | 9  

I was disappointed with Gaiman's first issue.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robert Oren
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1209
Posted: 07 July 2006 at 9:00pm | IP Logged | 10  

i was as well .......but i will give it a chance!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Fredderick Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
resigned membership

Joined: 20 June 2004
Posts: 29
Posted: 12 July 2006 at 6:05pm | IP Logged | 11  

In Entertainment Weekly June30/July 7, in "The Must List:Books section, there is a comic strip written by Gaiman and drawn by Romita Sr. detailing how/why Gaiman took on Eternals (sorry, I would post it, but no scanner...but I'm sure it could be found on the 'net somewhere).

-------------------------------------

Panel One: "Jack Kirby was the penciller and co-creator of comics like The Fantastic Four and The Mighty Thor" (Art of Kirby drawing)

Panel Two: "He was a creator of endless vision and power. He drew people in motion...hurtling across starscapes and through explosions. He created characters in abundance." (Art of a Celestial)

Panel Three: "When I was a kid, I read all the Kirby comics I could, awed by his vision, his scale, his speed. Even before I knew his name, I knew his style. As an adult, I made my name writing comics that were a long way from Kirby's. No aliens or explosions or exclamation marks..." (Art of Gaiman as a kid, sitting on a bed reading a comic)

Panel Four: "I never met Jack Kirby. I saw him talking to my publisher once, but I was late for a plane. 'There's always next time,' I thought. He died soon after that." (Art of Kirby and another man chatting, Gaiman in background looking on.)

Panel Five: "As well as the characters, much of the language of comics today comes from Kirby. In 1976, after going back to Marvel, he created a comic called The Eternals." (Art of Celestials with others talking)

Panel Six: "It was a healthy stew of myth and adventure, borrowing elementsa from Von Daniken, Kubrick's 2001, even Kirby's own Fourth World saga, creatures and heroes and space gods. I was 15 when I read it." (Art of teen Gaiman leaning on locker reading comic)

Panel Seven: "Pretty soon, The Eternals was just another cancelled comic. But I never forgot it. Immortals, monsters, Celestials..." (Art of close up of Gaiman w/no pupils)

Panel Eight: "Last year, Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada and I were talking about what I could do for Marvel." (Art of building, word balloons saying..."Nick Fury" "Nope." "Dr. Strange?" "Taken" Millie the Model? Pip the Troll?")

Panel Nine: (Art of Quesada & Gaiman talking, JQ says...)"Hey Neil. Weird idea. Do you remember The Eternals? Do you think maybe you would want to do something with them? Bring them back again?"

Panel Ten: (A great shot of various Eternals characters, with an inset shot of Gaiman saying "I'm in.")

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------

I'm digging the book, personally!

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robert Oren
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 March 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1209
Posted: 12 July 2006 at 6:11pm | IP Logged | 12  

I always loved the Celestials...they were so cool !!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 20 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login