Got my comp copies today, so I thought I might as well start this one. Issue looks pretty good. One annoying little glitch -- in one panel Batman has a bullet hole in his cape from last issue. I penciled it, Ordway inked it --- the letterer managed to almost completely obscure it!

This is why I prefer doing my own lettering!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!



[forgot to "sign" it]

[added "sneak peek'"]

JB, I've noticed that on several of your books, like BATMAN/CAPTAIN AMERICA, you handled everything except the coloring. Have you ever tried your hand at coloring, or even had the desire to do so?

I have experimented with coloring, but it is too time consuming. I would rather leave it to people who do it better!

Here's the inked version of the splash I uploaded t'other day. . .



I turned it greyscale because the color is very dark and would not scan well.

(Worst balloon placement I've seen in a while. . . sigh)

...Seem to have a lighter touch with each issue, as you've said.

I thought they were great in JLA 95, and seem to be even lighter in this example. The "Byrne" is showing through more than in JLA 94, for sure...

It seems that he's evolving his inking a style a bit from what I last remembered it looking like. Fewer, but bolder lines, maybe?


-Mark

This one looks more like Neal Adams and John Byrne than John Byrne and Jerry Ordway - I like it!

BTW, SilverBulletComicBooks.com just gave you a 5-star review on ish 95. I'll be picking both issues up today.

In another thread, I said I wanted to see JB continue on in JLA, but after seeing the artwork here, I think I want to backtrack to my original desire to see JB on a BATMAN title. I really miss my visits to Gotham, and it would be nice to have a reason to go back again.

I know that JB has said that he couldn't do a monthly mystery book, but I would rather read a "bad" Byrne on the Batman than "good" lotta' other people.

Hang in there and take care!
Scott E. Hileman

Now that I know who you were modeling your Alfred on, the resemblance is quite striking. And Richard Vernon was the perfect age to have been Alfred in the 1966 TV series, too!

On the subject of JB doing a monthly JLA or Batman book, (which I would love to see too!) perhaps it might be easier for him to do some self contained mini series'. That way (particularly with his desire to do another JLA arc) we would not have such a problem fitting them into schedules.

Much, much better blending of JB's and JO's respective styles in this splash page. Much more respect given to the pencils in these inks than in issues #94 & 95.

FWIW, I do believe that an inker should have space to make his/her own statement on a job. There is a way to do this without obscuring or changing the original intent of the pencils, and if this splash is an indication of what's to come, then Jerry may have found a comfortable space to do his own thing in accord with JB's vision.

Now, let's see how Wonder Woman turns out this issue...I'm hopeful of a good outcome!

It's very nice work. You can see how his hand has adapted to JB's style as the job progresses.

Mike Nebeker - Super Genuis
Good Judgement comes from Experience and Experience comes from... Bad Judgement.

John, two requests..

a) Using your scanned pencils, could you show a better (your suggestion at least) balloon placement?

b) Can you scan from your comp -and post- the image of Batman leaving the cave you sneak peeked? I'd like to see how Ordway handled such a nice shot.

Thanks anyway!

--Danton

a) Using your scanned pencils, could you show a better (your suggestion at least) balloon placement?

Indeed much better placement. There's no way to indicate it to the letterer?

--Danton

The inking is looking less "Heavy". JB is showing thru more. Looking forward to seeing the rest of the comic when it comes out.

There's no way to indicate it to the letterer?

*********


Only if I can get my time machine working. The page is scanned from the published book.

I didn't think I would say this, but for once I like the finished product better than the pencils, by just a smidge. And that's saying something, since after seeing the gorgeous Adams-esque pencil rendering of Alfred and Bruce, I was dreading how Ordway might find some way to muck it up.

Judging by the inked covers to #s 97 and #98, it looked to me like he lightened up on his approach to the inks as time went on. Looks like I was right!

(Edited to add) - On seocnd thought, his minor alterations on Alfred's brow appeared to have changed his expression slightly. The pencils imply a look of slight concern on Alfred's face, but I dont get that feeling from the inked version.

vv

... I must say after seeing that, contrary to what I've heard a few people at message boards say, Byrne's pencils seem as good now as in the 80-mid 90's.


I'd prefer Dick Giordano on ink for the arc, tho' ( *Remembers Byrne's Superman run*).


Whatever happened to that guy?


Is he suffering from editors-who-prefer-to-hire-anyone-with-Hollywood-ties-to-anyone-with-ACTUAL-talent syndrome, like Roger Stern?


*Hates Nu-Marvel*


-Jimmy

There's no way to indicate it to the letterer?
*********
Only if I can get my time machine working. The page is scanned from the published book.

---

No, no... you misunderstood me. I meant if a penciler interested in balloons placements like you can't provide a kind of guide to the letterer -obviously- before the letterer job is done, indicating the better placements.

There's no rule like "if you can insert the balloon between two panels don't place it on Bruce Wayne's hair?"


--Danton

One sort of hopes a rule like that is not needed. I don't know who did the balloon placement on this issue. Carlin is doing it for me on DOOM PATROL -- a small sop to make up for the annoyance of having to switch to computer lettering -- but I don't know if he did it on JLA. I hope not, as there are an awful lot of people so far wearing balloons for hats, something against which I specifically cautioned him.

It's one of the failings of computer lettering. It takes extra effort to do things hand letters do instinctively, on the fly. Even something as simple as dropping a balloon behind a head, instead of on top of it, requires extra effort. (Not that hand letters always got this right, but at least it was easier to wrap the balloons around the heads.)

One of the most annoying things, to me, about computer lettering is that I have gotten used to being able to wrap the balloons around objects, butt them against panel borders, and all the other little things that require extra effort in computer lettering.

(There is also a glaring coloring error on that page from JLA96, which is repeated thru-out the issue. I think this happened because the colorist worked on unlettered pages. Colorists are notorious for not actually reading what they work on, but at least they used to have the option to do so!)

"I'd prefer Dick Giordano on ink for the arc, tho' ( *Remembers Byrne's Superman run*). Whatever happened to that guy?"

He's a partner at Future "we WISH we were Crossgen" Comics, with David Michelinie and Bob Layton.

Future Comics, if you didn't know, started out as a "self-distributing" company, with the idea that shop owners could order their books from the web, and bypass Diamond. Naturally, that meant that nobody bothered to order them at all, so they relented and added Diamond as a distribution channel. In the meantime, they suffered from some physical and computerized vandalism from disgruntled ex-employees, then decided to switch from single issues to publishing straight to trades.

Beyond all that soap opera, though, their comics suffer from one thing more than any other: all their characters look like they were created hastily to ship product back in '92, regardless of quality. Deathmask? Metallix? Why don't we throw in a Dethblud while we're at it?

So, to answer your question, that's what Dick Giordano is up to.

I'd prefer Dick Giordano on ink for the arc, tho' ( *Remembers Byrne's Superman run*).

******


Just for the sake of historical accuracy, not much of MAN OF STEEL was actually inked by Dick. Most of it was done by Dick Art, his studio. I found out from the source, long after the fact, that a large part of it was inked by Frank McLaughlin.

...but these behind the scenes are maybe the most interesting parts on the forum for me. Many folk may take balloon placement for granted but this is good education. Thank you for the insight. -Rick

Does anyone else notice anything startling about Bruce Wayne's nose compared between the pencilled and inked versions???

Or am I creating something that isn't there? It looks like he changed the nose to me.

....john,on some of the scanned pencils youve been displaying... ive noticed a "GRID"....showing up very lightly.....what is that???....is that printed on the paper?.....its in the overhead shot panel in the batcave.....im curious.....best,brian postman.....

ive noticed a "GRID"

********


That's the perspective grid I draw in every panel that needs one.

I seem to have misplaced my saved copy of the pencils for the JLA 99 cover. Can anyone help me locate it on the website?

Thank you...

Yesterday I had a chance to do a close comparison between the pencils (which I printed out and enlarged to 11 X 17 -- the only way to REALLY look at them!) and inks of the two published JLA books. I think what most people who don't like Jerry Ordway's inks are reacting against is the way they soften the chiseled look of JB's pencils. Ordway's smooth, curved feathering leans back to a Curt Swan look, very classy and realistic but rounder, softer. JB's pencils rely on a harder edge that makes the characters look more than human, stronger and harder, more dynamic. For better or worse -- and in less capable hands (the Image school) it's often worse -- that's more the modern style in comics and the taste of today's fan.

For myself, I like what Ordway brings to JB's faces and he's done some nice things in some of the backgrounds, but I don't think his style works as well with JB's figures. But I enjoy the work as a whole and agree it's getting better with each issue.

Yesterday I had a chance to do a close comparison between the pencils (which I printed out and enlarged to 11 X 17 -- the only way to REALLY look at them!) and inks of the two published JLA books. I think what most people who don't like Jerry Ordway's inks are reacting against is the way they soften the chiseled look of JB's pencils. Ordway's smooth, curved feathering leans back to a Curt Swan look, very classy and realistic but rounder, softer. JB's pencils rely on a harder edge that makes the characters look more than human, stronger and harder, more dynamic. For better or worse -- and in less capable hands (the Image school) it's often worse -- that's more the modern style in comics and the taste of today's fan.


*********


Whatever one might think of Ordway's inks on JLA94, for good or it, merely bringing a smoother line to the page is not at all what he did. Most of the faces are completely redrawn. Superman, especially, is a totally different head, totally different shape, weight, different features, everything. Like it or dislike it, it's not just a line quality that's different.

Change "smoother" to "smother".



DADDIO

That's unusual to see someone like Tom Orzechowski choose the balloon placement unwisely. It would be interesting to find out whether the placements were indeed provided by a third party, as suggested above. There definitely shouldn't be a balloon stuck over the top of Bruce's head!

Whatever one might think of Ordway's inks on JLA94, for good or it, merely bringing a smoother line to the page is not at all what he did. Most of the faces are completely redrawn. Superman, especially, is a totally different head, totally different shape, weight, different features, everything. Like it or dislike it, it's not just a line quality that's different.
*****************
JB-
This may be too personal but i was wondering if you've
had any conversations with Mr. Ordway(or Claremont)
since the JLA arc hit the stores? Given the "controversy"
regarding art and story, do you all "compare notes/ thoughts"
as many of us do here? i would hope there isn't any bad
blood between you and Ordway because of what's been
said about the art...

-C!

JRPIPIK and JOHN,

Yeah, I recognize that effect, but have been struggling to articulate what I see. I've been trying to re-phrase the distinction I made between Ordway's effect over John in #94 and on the cover as opposed to #95. (I apologize for stating myself so badly last time, and probably this time. Help me if you can!)

Take a look at Alfred's face on these pages. Look at the "bags" under his eyes. John uses very simple lines, a minimum of lines that still implies the form. Jerry adds little flourishes, like polyps, that give the bags surface texture. After his inks, the bags seem less firm (as if they would yield less resistant of you poked 'em) yet seem more obviously and minutely detailed in their texture.

Now check out the lower lip. John uses a simple curve. Jerry adds -- it's not really a cleft -- Jerry seems to "draw through," extending a line (that John omitted) to distinguish the top of the lip from the inside of it. Jerry is specifying what John left to the imagination.

We don't read minds here (as opposed to elsewhere?), so I don't wanna infer what different "priorities" John and Jerry demonstrate. I don't wanna waste my breath guessing their respective "theories." But I can remark on the changes I see Jerry making. Jerry finds opportunities to specify surface textures that John leaves up to the imagination. Jerry often completes shapes that John leaves up to the imagination.

That's what I found jarring about Jerry's inks over John's pencils at first. I'm a fan of John's ability to capture my imagination through implication. To my eye, John's figures seem to have more dimension lately than in the old days, yet he still maintains that power to get me to complete in my imagination what he strategically leaves ambiguous. Jerry's inks work counter to that, adding details that John usually trusts the reader to add.

So why did it puzzle me in #94 and on the covers, yet why did I like it so much in #95? I thought maybe John (hi John) was "playing to Ordway's style." John (you) said you were not aware of doing so. In that case, and if Jerry hasn't changed his strategy either, then maybe Jerry just needed an issue to re-adjust to John's pencils. Or maybe I needed an issue to get used to it. Or maybe I'm a moron. Feel free to pick whichever you find most likely!

I'm just trying to develop ideas here I can apply to my own work.

<<edited because I made a sloppy mess the first time. I hope this helps, if anyone cares >>

I agree absolutely that Ordway redrew a great deal of the comic, moving away from the pencils. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the way he did it makes it look more old-fashioned, which a number of people have reacted against (people I've talked to anyway).

Did anybody else notice the difference in Bruce Wayne's nose between the pencilled and the inked versions or was it just me?

Yep Ordway redrew many of the muscle groups and many of the faces-
and really hurt my personal enjoyment of the comic.
In fact it wasn't until I re-read both issues over the weekend that I was finally able to get into and enjoy the quality of the story.
Ordway SHOULD know better-
I wonder if he was told or if someone hinted he should "fix" Jb's pencils?
I was afraid someone would try this "fix kirby" inking style on JB way back when he announced DC wanted to try some different inkers on him.

Either way Ordway is too talented to not know the true job of a comic inker.

Dwayne
http://www.whatashock.com

Moreso in #94 and on the covers, Ordway was redrawing pretty liberally. He "corrected" quite a few foreshortened limbs that ended up looking stumpy. John's original foreshortening has been almost always clearer without Ordway's "help."

Do you guys agree Ordway is showing less liberty with the re-drawing in issues #95 and (what we see here of) #96? He seems to alter the shapes less now, and seems to restrict himself more to "drawing through" what John left more simple and implicit.

Somebody tell me if I'm talking nonsense, please. I'd be grateful.

>>Just for the sake of historical accuracy, not much of MAN OF STEEL was actually inked by Dick. Most of it was done by Dick Art, his studio. I found out from the source, long after the fact, that a large part of it was inked by Frank McLaughlin.<<

Hey - I'm about to repeat a pretty ugly story, so anyone with veto power, feel free to delete it...

I'm glad that JB mentioned that - I have a lot of friends who work in comics, and I heard the same from them - one guy told me that he called and got Dick's secretary, and she was commenting on [my friend's art], and he asked, "Oh, you've seen it?" and she replied, "Well, I'm inking it right now...".

That story made me laugh! I also noticed, tho' I believe he was credited for the work, but on Superman/Spider-Man, in fact, in the page hanging on JB's wall, you can clearly make out Terry Austin's inks in the background.

Best,

Mike O'Brien

That story made me laugh! I also noticed, tho' I believe he was credited for the work, but on Superman/Spider-Man, in fact, in the page hanging on JB's wall, you can clearly make out Terry Austin's inks in the background.

********

Terry started out as Dick's background man. In fact, when I got the X-MEN assignment, and the job of inking was given to Terry, my first instinct was to ask that Sam Grainger (who had been inking Cockrum) stay on X-MEN, to make the "trasnsition" easier, and that Terry come over and ink MARVEL TEAM-UP, to make it look more like SUPERMAN vs THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

It's kind of funny how John Byrne and Chris Claremont have done a book together for the first time in over twenty years and everybody is talking about the inker!

I agree by the way that the inking of JLA #95 (Which I finally got hold of today) was for the most part a lot more sympathetic to the pencils. I cannot though understand why Jerry Ordway ever felt the need to redraw the faces in #94?

"It's kind of funny how John Byrne and Chris Claremont have done a book together for the first time in over twenty years and everybody is talking about the inker!"

Well I can live with the "at times" jumbled script much easier than the reworking of the inker.
I mean let us face the facts here, no offense against Claremont but, he isn't a major talent without Byrne.
Since uncanny Byrne has had legandary runs all over the place-
Chris has not.
Chris is just window dressing on the JLA run for fanboys still living in the uncanny xmen days.


Dwayne
http://www.whatashock.com

<<"It's kind of funny how John Byrne and Chris Claremont have done a book together for the first time in over twenty years and everybody is talking about the inker!">>

I said before that I felt the story had that 'old feeling' to it from the X-days. I really think that a Byrne-modified Claremont script is a nice mix and I'd like to see them work together again. And back to the inking, the third part of "The Triumvirate" (sp?), I think MAYBE (mind reading ahead) that Ordway was falling back into old habits when drawing Superman especially. He did draw him for awhile too and maybe there were certain things he did that afterwards, he said "whoa. gotta back off a bit!" because it did seem to me as if he stepped back a bit as well in the next issue. -Rick

Hey John, any clue what became of Frank McLaughlin?

He was working for Shooter at Broadway c.199...7?

I remember someone saying he was hoping to work on Shakespeare comics adaptations to be sold at a Shakespeare festival in Connecticut.

When I was a kid, I thought of Frank as sort of a "grind"; his inks often seemed ...unelegant to me, then. Later at Broadway over the young JG Jones, Frank used a pretty assertive style (perhaps on purpose) but his inks looked pretty good to me! I wondered if the improved print quality was showing something I had not recognized in the '70s.

Curious whether Frank's still working somewhere, or has he dropped of the face of the earth?

Hey John, any clue what became of Frank McLaughlin?

*******


Don't hold me to this, but I think he died.

It's kind of funny how John Byrne and Chris Claremont have done a book together for the first time in over twenty years and everybody is talking about the inker!


********


Hey, I came across a thread of people declaring tje JLA story to be "boring" and "uninteresting". It was adjacent to a thread full of people foaming at the mouth trying to figure out if Batman has really been shot.

All stories should be so "boring", huh?

Hey John, any clue what became of Frank McLaughlin?

*******

Don't hold me to this, but I think he died.

-------
I did a google search and learned that McLaughlin took over the art chores for the old Gil Thorp baseball strip in 2001. He also has an artists commission page online as of at least 2002 (the rates looked reasonable to me).

<http://www.theartistschoice.com/mclaughlincom.htm#FINISHED%20ARTWORK>;

McLaughlin was one of my favorite embellishers from the 70s, doing consistently high quality work on many DC books, including THE FLASH and JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA. He wasn't flashy but he was always reliable and particularly compatible with Irv Novick, doing a wonderful run on THE FLASH for more than 50 issues.

Rick Senger

Thanks for offering that information!

I re-read my post, and wanted to clarify -- my childhood reaction to Frank's ink was ignorant, and I have not gone back to those '70s DC books to review. Books printed badly then, and I was even dumber about inks then than now.

I have been more impressed by what little of his work I've seen in the past decade, which printed better.

No ignorant aspersions intended, and I hope he's healthy.

"It's kind of funny how John Byrne and Chris Well I can live with the "at times" jumbled script much easier than the reworking of the inker.
I mean let us face the facts here, no offense against Claremont but, he isn't a major talent without Byrne.
Since uncanny Byrne has had legandary runs all over the place-
Chris has not.
Chris is just window dressing on the JLA run for fanboys still living in the uncanny xmen days.

******************

Oh man, its time to face the "FACTS" again.

I didn't care for Claremont's script on JLA very much myself. I would've bought this JLA arc with just JB on it and still loved it. But to state as a FACT that he isn't a major talent on his own?

I agree that John Byrne has had legendary runs on many comics and Claremont is remembered for X-Men. But in the opinions of many Chris Claremont still did quite well for many years after Byrne left.

"I agree that John Byrne has had legendary runs on many comics and Claremont is remembered for X-Men. But in the opinions of many Chris Claremont still did quite well for many years after Byrne left."

I wasn't getting into how well he did after JB and I wasn't even getting into the issue if he is a good writer or a bad writer (I'm not going there now)

There are plenty of "ok" comic creators or even bad successful ones.
I am just saying that the Byrne/Claremont is only a big deal because of their past, not because of anything Claremont actually brings to the project.
The fact is that CC is just script monkey, and he is just barely doing that job good enough here.
If you compare CC to Byrne, and if you count only what they have done after Xmen- there is no comparison.
Over the years CC would be forgotten as a creator if not for his work with Byrne.
Claremont would not have any high quality or legendary work if not for his coloration for Byrne.

Again this isn't a snipe at CC as a person I am sure he is a nice fellow.


Dwayne
http://www.whatashock.com

Chris Claremont may have done his best work with JB, but I certainly have greatly enjoyed some of his other pairings, such as the X-Men with Cockrum and Paul Smith, and his Excalibur work with Alan Davis.

"Over the years CC would be forgotten as a creator if not for his work with Byrne.
Claremont would not have any high quality or legendary work if not for his coloration for Byrne"
**************

I agree with what you're saying in your post except for the above quotation. It might be your opinion, but it reads like one of those DC Message Boards "My Troll Commentary is Indisputable" facts.


"Chris Claremont may have done his best work with JB, but I certainly have greatly enjoyed some of his other pairings, such as the X-Men with Cockrum and Paul Smith, and his Excalibur work with Alan Davis."
*******************

I agree more with Ron here. I like Byrne/Claremont but I still like both individually.
In my view, just because you are not a John Byrne- level talent doesn't mean you can't still be an important talent in comics. In my opinion, a multiple-title successful writer/artist like John Byrne only comes out maybe a handful of times in a lifetime. If you compare every single comic book worker to John Byrne you will find them lacking and you will probably dislike a lot of good creators. The standard that writer/artist John Byrne sets is legendary. Ordway and Claremont may not have the multiple title legendary runs that Byrne has, but they can still be very good on their own merits.
You're entitiled to your own opinion, but just so you know I always feel compelled to stick up for my favorite comic book writers like others defend their favorite sport teams. As you can see two of my favorites are John Byrne and Chris Claremont.

Edited for spelling

Chris Claremont may have done his best work with JB, but I certainly have greatly enjoyed some of his other pairings, such as the X-Men with Cockrum and Paul Smith, and his Excalibur work with Alan Davis.


*********


Chris + X-MEN - me consistently sold better (in fact much better) than Chris + X-MEN + me.

Chris + X-MEN - me consistently sold better (in fact much better) than Chris + X-MEN + me.

That might be true, but that particular boulder doesn't gain momentum if you don't push it off the hill.

~Bob

True enough, but I think that the benefits of what you had done for the X-Men were reaped after you left the book.

Funny to say, considering what we have said about it in other threads, but the biggest selling point of the X-Men through the 80s and early 90s was how it adhered to its continuity. It was the first successful merging of Comics and ongoing Soap Opera where you needed to know the backstory to know what was happening now. It fed directly into the Fanboy ego and mentality and the fanboys ate it up.

Mike Nebeker - Super Genuis
Good Judgement comes from Experience and Experience comes from... Bad Judgement.

JB: "Hey, I came across a thread of people declaring tje JLA story to be "boring" and "uninteresting". It was adjacent to a thread full of people foaming at the mouth trying to figure out if Batman has really been shot."

The first group is probably the same group that raves about the latest "talking heads" issue of "The Incredible Hulk."

"Chris Claremont may have done his best work with JB, but I certainly have greatly enjoyed some of his other pairings, such as the X-Men with Cockrum and Paul Smith, and his Excalibur work with Alan Davis."

I would like to add that the X-Men issues Chris did with Dave Cockrum prior to JB coming on board were IMHO pretty good too. JB may have raised it a notch or two further again but it was already a very good comic when he joined.

It's only fair to recognise Dave or Chris's contribution to the books sucess.

On the other hand I thinks it's undountedly true that it took a while for Chris to find his feet again after John left.

I think the guy gets entirely too much bad Internet.

I mean, JB knows him, obviously, and can correct any 'rose-coloured' opinions of mine, but I think he's one of the better writers around, and I think he's done some great stuff over the years. He's definitely one of my favourites.

I've done my share of giggling at some of his standards (I....hurt; We mean to try; etc) but I still love him. I think there's a tendency to crap on the '80s greats for no reason other than they've been around too long and I think that's sad and wrong. JB gets it too for no reason.

____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.

I don't have anything against Claremont but I think issues of Claremont with Byrne co-plotting (X-Men, Iron Fist, Star-Lord, Marvel Team-Up) are infinitly better than Claremont without Byrne. Some of the stuff Claremont did with the X-Men after JB left were just plain silly. The era with Longshot, Nanny and Orphan Maker, Professor X in space and the X-Men fighting demons and living in the outback are blocked out of my collection.

I don't have anything against Claremont but I think issues of Claremont with Byrne co-plotting (X-Men, Iron Fist, Star-Lord, Marvel Team-Up) are infinitly better than Claremont without Byrne.


*******

For the sake of historical accuracy, I didn't have anything to do with the plotting of STARLORD or, indeed, most of the MARVEL TEAM-UP jobs. Of the latter, the only one I really had a hand in was the Red Sonja team-up, which began its life as an idea I had for a Conan story. IRON FIST, too, was about 85% Chris.

X-MEN on the other hand. . .


JB-)

IIRC these were X-Factor characters and would therefore not be Chris's creations. Louise Simonson would get the "credit" for these.

I am not too sure if Chris ever used the characters?

Most of you seemed to miss my point about Claremont.
I understand you guys like him and enjoy many of his stories.
I also know he has been successful-
All I am saying is that he has never again reached the quality/legand status that his and Byrne Xmen has attained.
But Byrne has many times-
After Claremont:
Fantastic Four
Superman
just too name two!

The thing I have always thought about Claremont is that he seems to suffer from "artist-envy".
Think about it-
He is a reasonably creative guy who is trying to do his best and leave his mark on a comic he works-
But the real hard work and glory always goes to the artist.
I think Claremont has tried to over compensate this with overbearing scripts and running dialog and character ret cons.


Dwayne
http://www.whatashock.com

Bumping because it IS the official thread, so...

The story's getting better with every issue. Nice to get background for the new kids, even if this is going to give the "Byrne's just using this run to set-up his stupid Doom Patrol series!" gang a little more ammunition. (sigh)

So does Robotman frequently walk around "naked?"

My one quibble is that the cover of the issue gave away the last page. Hate it when that happens.

So, let's see... we had teeth go through Superman at the end of #94, a bullet go through Batman at the end of #95 and a sword go through Wonder Woman at the end of #96. So what's next? Green Lantern impaled on a tree trunk?

My one quibble is that the cover of the issue gave away the last page. Hate it when that happens.

**************


I call that a "What the F**K???" cover. Sure, you see what happens at the end, but I suspect when you get to the end, you are at least a little surprised to find that it really did happen -- that the cover was not a fake-out.

JB-)

SPOILER>>>>>>>kinda
























When I first saw that cover I thought it was Superman that had impaled Wonder Woman.

Interesting that Ordway decided to stop "fixing" the WW shield on Wonder Woman's costume this issue. I wonder if that has anything to do with the cover, where it would have been very hard for him to "fix" it.

BT

Those vampires Batman fought, are they female?

that I am really enjoying your JLA run. This issue was really terrific.

Great characterization by Claremont, I felt, particularly the Doom Patrol pages (don't know how much of that you scripted, but it flowed nicely).

But what really sang in this issue is the fantastic formula of rising plotlines and kick-butt action.

I felt like a kid again.

And with comics, that's all I really ask.

Thanks, JB.

David

I feel stupid. This issue is the first time I noticed that one member of the JLA appears to die on the final page of every issue.

Duh.

Brendan Howard

This issue is the first time I noticed that one member of the JLA appears to die on the final page of every issue.


********************


You noticed something that's not there. No one appeared to die in 94.

Oops, you're right. I had misremembered Superman being bitten by Crucifer (perhaps transforming him into the undead) at the very end of #94 rather than a few pages before.

BA in English = finding patterns where none exist.

Brendan Howard

JB, if you hadn't drawn attention to the letter-obscured bullet hole in the cape, I wouldn't have even noticed the hole. Since you mentioned it, I was looking for it. Too bad the letterer dropped the ball.

JB: I call that a "What the F**K???" cover. Sure, you see what happens at the end, but I suspect when you get to the end, you are at least a little surprised to find that it really did happen -- that the cover was not a fake-out.

--

You mean...Wonder Woman is dead?!!



I know what you meant, though. Reminds me of another different kind of fake-out cover of yours I just saw as I started culling my collection today, an issue of Alpha Flight where you make it look like Guardian is going to have to face Xavier and the X-Men when in fact it's Omega Flight.

Back to the JLA, I have to say that DC should really reconsider bumping one of their booked arcs for you to have another shot at them. This stuff is great. And the twist as to how Grunt and Nudge got to the fix they're in is priceless. Bravo. If this wasn't coming every two weeks, I don't know what I'd do.

Now to just get them to get you to do Doom Patrol bi-weekly.

I don't think JB was slamming fake-out covers, I think he was just saying that it's a surprise for the reader to find that it's NOT a fakeout cover.

The Alpha Flight cover you mention, and yes, JLA#96 are both fakeout covers. (I think, I mean, Wonder Woman COULD be dead... although the cover only shows her stabbed, which I assume she is...)

____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.

Loved the latest development in your JLA arc,JB!
You really are playing up the strengths of each JLA
member so far. Interesting flashback explaining Nudge
and Grunt's relationship and their first meeting with the
DPatrol(told from Nudge's POV no less!). Every issue
convinces me more that you need to get on one of
the BATMAN titles-- quickly!! Your take on him is on
point and i loved the beginning sequence with Alfred.

-C!

Every issue
convinces me more that you need to get on one of
the BATMAN titles-- quickly!! Your take on him is on
point and i loved the beginning sequence with Alfred.

*************


Alfred is one of my favorite characters, in and out of the Bat-mythos. I always enjoy working with him. (The ghost of Alfred was my favorite character of all the inventions of GENERATIONS.)