Valiant Toys

[ManofTheAtom]

Dead is not dead—at the end of the day it’s still just a story. And if done right, can be a good thing. Torque can stay dead—wasn’t those books more about some guy named Peter Stanchek anyway?

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

No single character in the comic was more important than any other, it was an essemble cast of equally important characters that each served their own purpose on the team and the overall universe, like Kris and Torque being Magnus' parents, or Pete being an ancestor to the Stanchek who would defeat Harada.

There is nothing whatsoever to be gained from bringing back Torque or any of the other dead characters.

Besides this is a pointles debate, the character is dead in the VEI continuity. The new Origin of Harada story already cemented that, so his being in the image doesn't mean that he's coming back to life, same as it doesn't mean that any other character in the image will.

The image isn't indicative of continuity, it's just a promo piece that VEI put in the characters glossary page of the Book of Geomancers.

You have your ideal Valiant universe but I’m just trying to be realistic. I want Valiant to stick around. Valiant did things differently from the Big Two—and it was great—but they’re not the ones still producing comics. Maybe it’s VE who can learn a thing or two.

And far as VEI is concerned Torque is dead. His being in the image doesn't mean he's coming back, just like Jack and Tohru being on it doesn't mean they'll come back.

[Vault-Keeper]

Unfortunately, Mike, the BASIS of the Valiant universe was formed on old GK characters. NOT so original. Let's see:

Magnus = Magnus (of course)

Solar = Dr. Solar (that Phil read as a comic book....what if he chose to replicate Superman... )

Turok = Turok

Harbinger = X-Men (and their many forms across the entire industry BEFORE Harbinger)

Harada = Magneto

X-O Manowar = Ironman/Conan

Shadowman = Brother Voodoo

....and so on, and so forth. There are plenty of similarities throughout the publication of comics, which make the 'originality' of Valiant 'null and void'. They just started out better than most, and then fell into the same greedy habits of ALL the rest of them, IMHO.

[ManofTheAtom]

Unfortunately, Mike, the BASIS of the Valiant universe was formed on old GK characters. NOT so original. Let's see:

Magnus = Magnus (of course)

Solar = Dr. Solar (that Phil read as a comic book....what if he chose to replicate Superman... )

Turok = Turok

Harbinger = X-Men (and their many forms across the entire industry BEFORE Harbinger)

Harada = Magneto

X-O Manowar = Ironman/Conan

Shadowman = Brother Voodoo

....and so on, and so forth. There are plenty of similarities throughout the publication of comics, which make the 'originality' of Valiant 'null and void'. They just started out better than most, and then fell into the same greedy habits of ALL the rest of them, IMHO.

The use of the term "Original characters" is in reference to the original VALIANT characters over their VH 2 *SQUEE*, which were more similar to the DC and Marvel crap than anything VALIANT did.

Sure, Harbinger might be similar to X-Men in that it features individuals with powers, but that was were the similatud ended.

You don't know where the powers came from, do you?

No one in the title ever said that it was a "mutation", did they? The term was never employed.

The only clue as to their origin was Flamingo's reference to God's creation of man (i.e. Children of the Eight-Day).

Their powers could have very well had a divine origin, and had Shooter not been ousted and the original plot for EW #3 been published we would have found out.

In contrast, the Troublemakers was a direct rip off of X-Men, down to the damn stealth plane!!

Whereas the Harbinger's powers might be of divine origin, the X-Men's mutations, like the Troublemakers, were the result of genetic experiments. The Celestials created the mutants whil G&G created the Troublemakers. Same crap.

[Vault-Keeper]

Unfortunately, Mike, the BASIS of the Valiant universe was formed on old GK characters. NOT so original. Let's see:

Magnus = Magnus (of course)

Solar = Dr. Solar (that Phil read as a comic book....what if he chose to replicate Superman... )

Turok = Turok

Harbinger = X-Men (and their many forms across the entire industry BEFORE Harbinger)

Harada = Magneto

X-O Manowar = Ironman/Conan

Shadowman = Brother Voodoo

....and so on, and so forth. There are plenty of similarities throughout the publication of comics, which make the 'originality' of Valiant 'null and void'. They just started out better than most, and then fell into the same greedy habits of ALL the rest of them, IMHO.

The use of the term "Original characters" is in reference to the original VALIANT characters over their VH 2 *SQUEE*, which were more similar to the DC and Marvel crap than anything VALIANT did.

Sure, Harbinger might be similar to X-Men in that it features individuals with powers, but that was were the similatud ended.

You don't know where the powers came from, do you?

No one in the title ever said that it was a "mutation", did they? The term was never employed.

The only clue as to their origin was Flamingo's reference to God's creation of man (i.e. Children of the Eight-Day).

Their powers could have very well had a divine origin, and had Shooter not been ousted and the original plot for EW #3 been published we would have found out.

In contrast, the Troublemakers was a direct rip off of X-Men, down to the damn stealth plane!!

Whereas the Harbinger's powers might be of divine origin, the X-Men's mutations, like the Troublemakers, were the result of genetic experiments. The Celestials created the mutants whil G&G created the Troublemakers. Same crap.

Whatever makes you feel good, Mike....

I've read where you put down all the 1960's Marvel stories as crap, as well, so it just shows me that you are: 1. Close-minded (or ignorant) of the CLASSIC stories from the 60's; or 2. You just don't know what you're talking about.

[ManofTheAtom]

Unfortunately, Mike, the BASIS of the Valiant universe was formed on old GK characters. NOT so original. Let's see:

Magnus = Magnus (of course)

Solar = Dr. Solar (that Phil read as a comic book....what if he chose to replicate Superman... )

Turok = Turok

Harbinger = X-Men (and their many forms across the entire industry BEFORE Harbinger)

Harada = Magneto

X-O Manowar = Ironman/Conan

Shadowman = Brother Voodoo

....and so on, and so forth. There are plenty of similarities throughout the publication of comics, which make the 'originality' of Valiant 'null and void'. They just started out better than most, and then fell into the same greedy habits of ALL the rest of them, IMHO.

The use of the term "Original characters" is in reference to the original VALIANT characters over their VH 2 *SQUEE*, which were more similar to the DC and Marvel crap than anything VALIANT did.

Sure, Harbinger might be similar to X-Men in that it features individuals with powers, but that was were the similatud ended.

You don't know where the powers came from, do you?

No one in the title ever said that it was a "mutation", did they? The term was never employed.

The only clue as to their origin was Flamingo's reference to God's creation of man (i.e. Children of the Eight-Day).

Their powers could have very well had a divine origin, and had Shooter not been ousted and the original plot for EW #3 been published we would have found out.

In contrast, the Troublemakers was a direct rip off of X-Men, down to the damn stealth plane!!

Whereas the Harbinger's powers might be of divine origin, the X-Men's mutations, like the Troublemakers, were the result of genetic experiments. The Celestials created the mutants whil G&G created the Troublemakers. Same crap.

Whatever makes you feel good, Mike....

I've read where you put down all the 1960's Marvel stories as crap, as well, so it just shows me that you are: 1. Close-minded (or ignorant) of the CLASSIC stories from the 60's; or 2. You just don't know what you're talking about.

And 60's DC stories as well, don't forget those.

[Vault-Keeper]

Unfortunately, Mike, the BASIS of the Valiant universe was formed on old GK characters. NOT so original. Let's see:

Magnus = Magnus (of course)

Solar = Dr. Solar (that Phil read as a comic book....what if he chose to replicate Superman... )

Turok = Turok

Harbinger = X-Men (and their many forms across the entire industry BEFORE Harbinger)

Harada = Magneto

X-O Manowar = Ironman/Conan

Shadowman = Brother Voodoo

....and so on, and so forth. There are plenty of similarities throughout the publication of comics, which make the 'originality' of Valiant 'null and void'. They just started out better than most, and then fell into the same greedy habits of ALL the rest of them, IMHO.

The use of the term "Original characters" is in reference to the original VALIANT characters over their VH 2 *SQUEE*, which were more similar to the DC and Marvel crap than anything VALIANT did.

Sure, Harbinger might be similar to X-Men in that it features individuals with powers, but that was were the similatud ended.

You don't know where the powers came from, do you?

No one in the title ever said that it was a "mutation", did they? The term was never employed.

The only clue as to their origin was Flamingo's reference to God's creation of man (i.e. Children of the Eight-Day).

Their powers could have very well had a divine origin, and had Shooter not been ousted and the original plot for EW #3 been published we would have found out.

In contrast, the Troublemakers was a direct rip off of X-Men, down to the damn stealth plane!!

Whereas the Harbinger's powers might be of divine origin, the X-Men's mutations, like the Troublemakers, were the result of genetic experiments. The Celestials created the mutants whil G&G created the Troublemakers. Same crap.

Whatever makes you feel good, Mike....

I've read where you put down all the 1960's Marvel stories as crap, as well, so it just shows me that you are: 1. Close-minded (or ignorant) of the CLASSIC stories from the 60's; or 2. You just don't know what you're talking about.

And 60's DC stories as well, don't forget those.

I hated the DC stuff from the 'get-go'. There is NO comparison between 60's Marvel and 60's DC. It was only when Adams and O'Neil did Green Lantern/Green Arrow that I started to like anything from DC.

[sanman]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

[ManofTheAtom]

I hated the DC stuff from the 'get-go'. There is NO comparison between 60's Marvel and 60's DC. It was only when Adams and O'Neil did Green Lantern/Green Arrow that I started to like anything from DC.

This is weird.

I don't remember writing that, yet there is

That is to say, agreed.

[ManofTheAtom]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

[sanman]

To each his own.

[Vault-Keeper]

I hated the DC stuff from the 'get-go'. There is NO comparison between 60's Marvel and 60's DC. It was only when Adams and O'Neil did Green Lantern/Green Arrow that I started to like anything from DC.

This is weird.

I don't remember writing that, yet there is

That is to say, agreed.

NO, you deflected it into a DC 'thing', Mike.....Now try addressing the original statement in regards to MARVEL's stories. Have you ever read THOR: "The Stronger I Am...The Sooner I Die"? Or SUB-MARINER: "The Quest"; Or FANTASTIC FOUR: "The Coming Of Galactus"; Or THE AVENGERS: "Kree/Skrull War". Most all of these blow anything Valiant EVER done out of the water for originality in a comic book medium. Solar "Alpha & Omega" & "Second Death" are the only things that come close, with X-O's origin a runner up. And neither of those concepts were sprung from and original' idea.

[Vault-Keeper]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

[ManofTheAtom]

I hated the DC stuff from the 'get-go'. There is NO comparison between 60's Marvel and 60's DC. It was only when Adams and O'Neil did Green Lantern/Green Arrow that I started to like anything from DC.

This is weird.

I don't remember writing that, yet there is

That is to say, agreed.

NO, you deflected it into a DC 'thing', Mike.....Now try addressing the original statement in regards to MARVEL's stories. Have you ever read THOR: "The Stronger I Am...The Sooner I Die"? Or SUB-MARINER: "The Quest"; Or FANTASTIC FOUR: "The Coming Of Galactus"; Or THE AVENGERS: "Kree/Skrull War". Most all of these blow anything Valiant EVER done out of the water for originality in a comic book medium. Solar "Alpha & Omega" & "Second Death" are the only things that come close, with X-O's origin a runner up. And neither of those concepts were sprung from and original' idea.

I've read Coming and War. I'm also aware of Thor becoming a frog. How better is that from VALIANT?

[ManofTheAtom]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

His gayness is inferred, not implied. (or implied, not inferred??? whichever one leaves it vague)

[Vault-Keeper]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

His gayness is inferred, not implied. (or implied, not inferred??? whichever one leaves it vague)

Why? Is Dino homophobic?


IT IS THERE.

[ManofTheAtom]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

His gayness is inferred, not implied. (or implied, not inferred??? whichever one leaves it vague)

Why? Is Dino homophobic?


IT IS THERE.

I changed it

The answer is no, btw. He asked me to take it off because of the reason stated above.

[sanman]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

His gayness is inferred, not implied. (or implied, not inferred??? whichever one leaves it vague)

Where are you trying to go with this?

[ManofTheAtom]

No actually, it was about Toyo Harada. The comic was named after the villain, not the hero

Now you are just picking a fight. Obviously Harbinger was about Toyo Harada but I comparing Sting to Torque. That’s what I was implying with the word more. And I’ll say it again, Harbinger is more about Peter Peter Stanchek than Torque.

It was about all of them equally, not about one single character.

Except for the 0 issue, the first arc focused very little on Pete.

...or his gayness......was that of Divine inspiration?

His gayness is inferred, not implied. (or implied, not inferred??? whichever one leaves it vague)

Where are you trying to go with this?

I'm not trying to go anywhere.

The issue of Pete being gay, unlike Ken, was never explicitely established in the comic, it was based on Shooter's comments about the character.

If it were in the comic, then it be in the wiki

[sanman]

I'm not trying to go anywhere.

The issue of Pete being gay, unlike Ken, was never explicitely established in the comic, it was based on Shooter's comments about the character.

If it were in the comic, then it be in the wiki

No, what bearing does Stanchek’s sexuality have on either your discussion with me or Vault-Keeper?

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm not trying to go anywhere.

The issue of Pete being gay, unlike Ken, was never explicitely established in the comic, it was based on Shooter's comments about the character.

If it were in the comic, then it be in the wiki

No, what bearing does Stanchek’s sexuality have on either your discussion with me or Vault-Keeper?

Ask Vault, he brought it up.

[sanman]

Ask Vault, he brought it up.

That’s fair—he did bring it up.

This thread has been so derailed it’s ridiculous though.

[ManofTheAtom]

Ask Vault, he brought it up.

That’s fair—he did bring it up. This thread has been so derailed it’s ridiculous though.

Yep

[Vault-Keeper]

I hated the DC stuff from the 'get-go'. There is NO comparison between 60's Marvel and 60's DC. It was only when Adams and O'Neil did Green Lantern/Green Arrow that I started to like anything from DC.

This is weird.

I don't remember writing that, yet there is

That is to say, agreed.

NO, you deflected it into a DC 'thing', Mike.....Now try addressing the original statement in regards to MARVEL's stories. Have you ever read THOR: "The Stronger I Am...The Sooner I Die"? Or SUB-MARINER: "The Quest"; Or FANTASTIC FOUR: "The Coming Of Galactus"; Or THE AVENGERS: "Kree/Skrull War". Most all of these blow anything Valiant EVER done out of the water for originality in a comic book medium. Solar "Alpha & Omega" & "Second Death" are the only things that come close, with X-O's origin a runner up. And neither of those concepts were sprung from and original' idea.

I've read Coming and War. I'm also aware of Thor becoming a frog. How better is that from VALIANT?

NOT in the 1960's he didn't.

[Vault-Keeper]

I'm not trying to go anywhere.

The issue of Pete being gay, unlike Ken, was never explicitely established in the comic, it was based on Shooter's comments about the character.

If it were in the comic, then it be in the wiki

No, what bearing does Stanchek’s sexuality have on either your discussion with me or Vault-Keeper?

Ask Vault, he brought it up.

Derailed?....I was wanting to buy a Pete Stanchek blow-up doll...whatta toy that would be.

[Vault-Keeper]

When something has already been established BY THE CREATOR, you CAN'T backpedal and include what you like, without losing your integrity. I think Big Jim would agree with me on this point. Maybe I should edit the Wiki entries to suit myself.....