VH 1: The End

[Ryan]

Faith becomes the leader of the resistance as shown in Rai #0.

It comes down to what's shown in the actual comic, right?

Exhibit 1:

Screenshot 2024-06-16 174621.png

Is the person lying dead in Exhibt 1:
A: Jillian Alcott

Screenshot 2024-06-16 175739.png

B: Angelo Mortalli aka Bloodshot


C: Faith Herbert





I think we all know the answer to that. It's obviously Faith

[Ryan]

…and then she gets the blood of heroes after a mixup with an mRNA vaccine booster and becomes a new Bloodshot.

I mean, if we need to get one of the forum members called Blood of Heroes to sign off on it… we can probably get that to happen.

Or maybe do a “blood of her-oes” thing. Get all Gwenpool up in here.

[Ryan]

Well, no, since Ax took the Blood in 2028. Any bearers would need to exist between that and Angelo's death in Bloodshot #51.

Ultimately, three things need to happen:

One, address Angelo's "death" in 51.

Two, address Death Angel.

Three, address the myth of the Blood of Heroes.

I say, the first is addressed by accepting that Angelo did die. The second is addressed by proposing that the Bloodshot that dies in 2028 could be either Jillian Alcott or some other bearer of Angelo's blood. And the the third is addressed by the same as the previous sentence, except that rather than Jillian it could be some other bearer.

100 out of 100 people who read Rai 0 saw the same Bloodshot from pages 1-8 (and the cover) die on page 11. The only way that's someone else is through an elaborate retcon surgery/disguise. That's even beyond Skrull level of retcon ridiculousness.

If you have to change major facts of the cornerstone VH1 issue to get your fanfic to work, maybe it just doesn't work? Doesn't it make more sense to retcon the comic that nobody read (BS 51) and BS didn't really die in anyway? (Superheroes with super-healing factors escape explosion cliffhangers all the time). Or is common sense just completely out the window here? (That's my guess)

[ManofTheAtom]

Well, no, since Ax took the Blood in 2028. Any bearers would need to exist between that and Angelo's death in Bloodshot #51.

Ultimately, three things need to happen:

One, address Angelo's "death" in 51.

Two, address Death Angel.

Three, address the myth of the Blood of Heroes.

I say, the first is addressed by accepting that Angelo did die. The second is addressed by proposing that the Bloodshot that dies in 2028 could be either Jillian Alcott or some other bearer of Angelo's blood. And the the third is addressed by the same as the previous sentence, except that rather than Jillian it could be some other bearer.

100 out of 100 people who read Rai 0 saw the same Bloodshot from pages 1-8 (and the cover) die on page 11. The only way that's someone else is through an elaborate retcon surgery/disguise. That's even beyond Skrull level of retcon ridiculousness.

If you have to change major facts of the cornerstone VH1 issue to get your fanfic to work, maybe it just doesn't work? Doesn't it make more sense to retcon the comic that nobody read (BS 51) and BS didn't really die in anyway? (Superheroes with super-healing factors escape explosion cliffhangers all the time). Or is common sense just completely out the window here? (That's my guess)

I'm not sure where I'm not being clear.

Just because he looks like the guy from the first eight pages -- Angelo -- it does not necessarily mean he IS Angelo.

Since Ax took the Blood and it stayed hidden for 2,000 years until the first Rai recovered it from the Anti-Grannies, the only span of time in which it could have been given to other people would have to be between when Geoff freed Angelo in 1992 and Ax took it in 2028.

You can't call something the blood of HEROES when no other HEROES get it...

It doesn't require surgery. The nanites can alter their appearance.

[ManofTheAtom]

What's YOUR explanation for why it's called the Blood of HEROES if only Bloodshot used it before Ax took it?

[Chiclo]

What's YOUR explanation for why it's called the Blood of HEROES if only Bloodshot used it before Ax took it?

GWENSHOT.

[ManofTheAtom]

What's YOUR explanation for why it's called the Blood of HEROES if only Bloodshot used it before Ax took it?

GWENSHOT.

How are they the same?

[1st Among Equals]

Might be a dumb question, but didn't Aric kill Ax in issue 66?

[Ryan]

I'm not sure where I'm not being clear.

Just because he looks like the guy from the first eight pages -- Angelo -- it does not necessarily mean he IS Angelo.

Since Ax took the Blood and it stayed hidden for 2,000 years until the first Rai recovered it from the Anti-Grannies, the only span of time in which it could have been given to other people would have to be between when Geoff freed Angelo in 1992 and Ax took it in 2028.

You can't call something the blood of HEROES when no other HEROES get it...

It doesn't require surgery. The nanites can alter their appearance.

No it's perfectly clear, it just lacks common sense. In order to explain a silly name, you need to do a skrull-level retcon of something from Rai 0 that has no ambiguity (Bloodshot/Mortalli) dying. There's plenty of places in Rai 0 that have ambiguity, that's not one of them.

Since Ax took the Blood and it stayed hidden for 2,000 years until the first Rai recovered it from the Anti-Grannies, the only span of time in which it could have been given to other people would have to be between when Geoff freed Angelo in 1992 and Ax took it in 2028.

That's where there's ambiguity. There's plenty of ways the blood could have been hidden from the Geomancers. It was in the Lost Land or off-planet. Or the Earth/Rokland Tate were deliberately misled or wrong.

One of the main reasons I wouldn't want to use Rai 0 in the current year is for things like this. In order to bridge the gap between 1992 and 4001 in a single 22 page comic, they had to gloss over a lot of things and have a lot less happen in between 2020 and 4001 just for the convenience of the story. If VH1 was actually still going from the 90s, there's no way things would have stayed on the Rai 0 path. They were already far off the path Post-CE and Post-BQ.

It doesn't require surgery. The nanites can alter their appearance.

When was it ever demonstrated that the nanites can make you look like someone completely different, like a Skrull or Mystique? And what would be the reason for her doing so?

What's YOUR explanation for why it's called the Blood of HEROES if only Bloodshot used it before Ax took it?

Real reason, because Layton liked to give corny names to everything, and he didn't think it through well. "Rai and the Future Force" anyone

In story explanation is because Rokland Tate/the Earth got many things wrong.

[ManofTheAtom]

Might be a dumb question, but didn't Aric kill Ax in issue 66?

Yeah, another discontinuity. But those three issues are part of an arc, so it's easily explained away as all being part of the same problem.

[Ryan]

Might be a dumb question, but didn't Aric kill Ax in issue 66?

Yes. If you actually read Post-Chaos Effect and especially Post-Birthquake it's clear there was no editorial direction to follow the Rai 0 timeline, as it's contradicted many times.

[ManofTheAtom]

No it's perfectly clear, it just lacks common sense. In order to explain a silly name, you need to do a skrull-level retcon of something from Rai 0 that has no ambiguity (Bloodshot/Mortalli) dying. There's plenty of places in Rai 0 that have ambiguity, that's not one of them.

Bloodshot need not be Mortalli, though.

If the US government got their hands on Bloodshot's nanites after he died in Bloodshot #51, they could inject them into VH 1 Raymond Garrison and that's who Ax killed in 2028.

That's where there's ambiguity. There's plenty of ways the blood could have been hidden from the Geomancers. It was in the Lost Land or off-planet. Or the Earth/Rokland Tate were deliberately misled or wrong.

One of the main reasons I wouldn't want to use Rai 0 in the current year is for things like this. In order to bridge the gap between 1992 and 4001 in a single 22 page comic, they had to gloss over a lot of things and have a lot less happen in between 2020 and 4001 just for the convenience of the story. If VH1 was actually still going from the 90s, there's no way things would have stayed on the Rai 0 path. They were already far off the path Post-CE and Post-BQ.

Sure they could have.

When was it ever demonstrated that the nanites can make you look like someone completely different, like a Skrull or Mystique? And what would be the reason for her doing so?

VH 2 and VEI did it all the time. I'm trying to think of when VH 1 might have done it, but can't recall.

Real reason, because Layton liked to give corny names to everything, and he didn't think it through well. "Rai and the Future Force" anyone

In story explanation is because Rokland Tate/the Earth got many things wrong.

But it didn't, though. Every single thing shown in Rai #0 came to pass or it was verified by other comics, with the sole exception of Jack's death in 1999 and Archer's death in 2020.

Why would it be right about everything else except that?

[Ryan]

But it didn't, though. Every single thing shown in Rai #0 came to pass or it was verified by other comics, with the sole exception of Jack's death in 1999 and Archer's death in 2020.

Why would it be right about everything else except that?

The first 7 pages take place in 1992, and those are obviously shown in the comics. Then page 8 jumps to 1999 and then huge jumps to 2020, 2028, then 2056 that were all never shown to be 'right'.

The fact that you have to alter one of the few things that was clearly shown in Rai 0 just to do a fan fiction summary shows how restrictive Rai 0 is for VH1 in the current year.

What's YOUR explanation for why it's called the Blood of HEROES if only Bloodshot used it before Ax took it?

New answer I wouldn't explain it because I wouldn't follow it. Also the Geomancers were never portrayed as being omniscient or all-knowing. They (and the Earth) could get things wrong and/or be tricked and manipulated.

[ManofTheAtom]

The first 7 pages take place in 1992, and those are obviously shown in the comics. Then page 8 jumps to 1999 and then huge jumps to 2020, 2028, then 2056 that were all never shown to be 'right'.

The fact that you have to alter one of the few things that was clearly shown in Rai 0 just to do a fan fiction summary shows how restrictive Rai 0 is for VH1 in the current year.

Man, I catalogued every VH 1 comic for the Wiki. I read them multiple times. Trust me when I say that everything in Rai #0 except for the deaths of Jack and Archer were corroborated in other comics.

The existence of the Archies and Aram walking away were corroborated in Magnus and Rai comics (the latter when Torque found Aram and brought him back to Earth in The Geomancer Quest).

BLoodshot's death was recounted in Rai #31 and #32, the Bad Penny arc. Nothing in this arc says that the Bloodshot Ax killed HAD to be Angelo Mortalli.

Issue #31 opens with a prologue showing how Ax killed Bloodshot in 2028.

Lucinda being the next Geomancer (I mistakenly called her Yolanda before), Harada killing Aric and transferring his consciousness into his wife's body, and Faith leading the Harbinger resistance were all corroborated by the Harbinger Wars arc in Timewalker.

Solar killing Gayle and splitting into the Explorer was corroborated in Deathmate.

The resistance defeating Harada was also corroborated in the aforementioned Harbinger Wars arc in Timewalker.

The HARD Corps leaving Earth and settling on another planet was corroborated in Psi-Lords #3.

New answer I wouldn't explain it because I wouldn't follow it. Also the Geomancers were never portrayed as being omniscient or all-knowing. They (and the Earth) could get things wrong and/or be tricked and manipulated.

But they weren't wrong about anything shown in Rai #0, though.

[Chiclo]

You sure are having to retcon a lot of issues of later Valiant out to so rigidly keep with Rai 0.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just retcon out the one issue causing all these other problems? The continuity of the many outweighing the continuity of the few. Or the one.

[ManofTheAtom]

You sure are having to retcon a lot of issues of later Valiant out to so rigidly keep with Rai 0.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just retcon out the one issue causing all these other problems? The continuity of the many outweighing the continuity of the few. Or the one.

They're not problems for me, they're opportunities to enhance the storytelling, such as the opportunity offered by Angelo dying in #51 allowing for others to be given his blood and, thus, creating the mythical lineage of the Blood of Heroes, which predated Takao taking the blood for himself.

[Ryan]

But they weren't wrong about anything shown in Rai #0, though.

Don't you think he would have mentioned that the Bloodshot that got killed by Ax actually wasn't the same Bloodshot his whole story started with? And all the times that Rai 0 is contradicted in post-CE and post-BQ?

It's your fan fiction dude, do whatever you want. But if you're going to post it on here and radically alter one of the major events that you've harped at everyone else about for decades, expect a reaction from the few people left who actually care.

All this because Blood of Heroes just sounds better than Blood of Hero.

[Ryan]

They're not problems for me, they're opportunities to enhance the storytelling, such as the opportunity offered by Angelo dying in #51 allowing for others to be given his blood and, thus, creating the mythical lineage of the Blood of Heroes, which predated Takao taking the blood for himself.

Don't you think something that important would have been mentioned by Tate as he's telling the story? And the fact that whoever it passed to decided to cosplay as the original Bloodshot for unknown reasons?

[ManofTheAtom]

But they weren't wrong about anything shown in Rai #0, though.

Don't you think he would have mentioned that the Bloodshot that got killed by Ax actually wasn't the same Bloodshot his whole story started with? And all the times that Rai 0 is contradicted in post-CE and post-BQ?

It's your fan fiction dude, do whatever you want. But if you're going to post it on here and radically alter one of the major events that you've harped at everyone else about for decades, expect a reaction from the few people left who actually care.

All this because Blood of Heroes just sounds better than Blood of Hero.

It would have been impossible for Rai #0 to mention that the Bloodshot Ax killed was anyone other than Angelo since they couldn't have foreseen what happened years later in Bloodshot #51.

This is why it's a retcon to accommodate the latter issue, one that is not prevented by anything that confirmed the events from Rai #0.

[Ryan]

It would have been impossible for Rai #0 to mention that the Bloodshot Ax killed was anyone other than Angelo since they couldn't have foreseen what happened years later in Bloodshot #51.

This is why it's a retcon to accommodate the latter issue, one that is not prevented by anything that confirmed the events from Rai #0.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just retcon out the one issue causing all these other problems? The continuity of the many outweighing the continuity of the few. Or the one.

Quoted for repetition of this point.

Not to mention he didn't even die in 51, there's an explosion and he's shown buried in debris. His super power is healing. That's far from a definitive death.

Isn't the easiest explanation that 'Blood of Heroes' isn't actually referring to multiple heroes but is just a figure of speech in the English language. I don't think it's worth a major Rai 0 alteration to explain

I think it would work is if the Bloodshot death passage in Rai 0 is re-drawn and re-written to accommodate the retcon. But at that point why not just re-do the whole thing or throw it out?

[ManofTheAtom]

It would have been impossible for Rai #0 to mention that the Bloodshot Ax killed was anyone other than Angelo since they couldn't have foreseen what happened years later in Bloodshot #51.

This is why it's a retcon to accommodate the latter issue, one that is not prevented by anything that confirmed the events from Rai #0.

Wouldn’t it be easier to just retcon out the one issue causing all these other problems? The continuity of the many outweighing the continuity of the few. Or the one.

Quoted for repetition of this point.

Not to mention he didn't even die in 51, there's an explosion and he's shown buried in debris. His super power is healing. That's far from a definitive death.

Isn't the easiest explanation that 'Blood of Heroes' isn't actually referring to multiple heroes but is just a figure of speech in the English language. I don't think it's worth a major Rai 0 alteration to explain

I think it would work is if the Bloodshot death passage in Rai 0 is re-drawn and re-written to accommodate the retcon. But at that point why not just re-do the whole thing or throw it out?

It doesn't need to be redrawn or redone for the Bloodshot Ax kills to be someone else other than Angelo Mortalli, though.

That may be the easiest explanation, but it's also a boring one. The most epic explanation is to address it by having others be injected with Bloodshot's blood before Ax takes it.

[Ryan]

It doesn't need to be redrawn or redone for the Bloodshot Ax kills to be someone else other than Angelo Mortalli, though.

That may be the easiest explanation, but it's also a boring one. The most epic explanation is to address it by having others be injected with Bloodshot's blood before Ax takes it.

K but if the 'epic explanation' has to radically alter what was drawn in the comics, it doesn't work. If what's drawn in the comics doesn't matter, and can be retconned away without logic or common sense, then the whole exercise of 'making everything fit' doesn't actually work.

But hey, it doesn't haven't to work for anybody but you, it's your fan fiction. I've said my piece on it. Feel free to continue with your fan fiction in whatever manner pleases you.

[ManofTheAtom]

It doesn't need to be redrawn or redone for the Bloodshot Ax kills to be someone else other than Angelo Mortalli, though.

That may be the easiest explanation, but it's also a boring one. The most epic explanation is to address it by having others be injected with Bloodshot's blood before Ax takes it.

K but if the 'epic explanation' has to radically alter what was drawn in the comics, it doesn't work. If what's drawn in the comics doesn't matter, and can be retconned away without logic or common sense, then the whole exercise of 'making everything fit' doesn't actually work.

But hey, it doesn't haven't to work for anybody but you, it's your fan fiction. I've said my piece on it. Feel free to continue with your fan fiction in whatever manner pleases you.

It doesn't have to touch the artwork at all.

[Ryan]

It doesn't have to touch the artwork at all.

Well you're obviously not looking for any feedback from the few fans who still care about VH1, so how about I'll agree to not read your fan fiction in the future and then you won't have to worry about conforming to what I think.

This thread has reinforced that I wouldn't be interested in a VH1 revival that tries to explain and include every last bit of continuity. The point should be to bring back the magic of VH1, and I don't think that would be accomplished by focusing so much on all the minutiae of the history.

[ManofTheAtom]

It doesn't have to touch the artwork at all.

Well you're obviously not looking for any feedback from the few fans who still care about VH1, so how about I'll agree to not read your fan fiction in the future and then you won't have to worry about conforming to what I think.

This thread has reinforced that I wouldn't be interested in a VH1 revival that tries to explain and include every last bit of continuity. The point should be to bring back the magic of VH1, and I don't think that would be accomplished by focusing so much on all the minutiae of the history.

Well, for me the goal is to be provide closure to the VH-1 universe, not revive it.

Feedback is always welcomed, but it shouldn't be necessary to repeat the same thing multiple times (how many times has the same thing been said by everyone here?).