Q on the original X-O by Layton

[Will]

It seems to me that in original advertisments, the Bob Layton cover of X-O #1 had the armor with the extra wrap-around piece on the helmet. However, the published X-O #1 cover has the armor without this piece; there is only a simpler helmet and face-shield. The story, though, has the armor with the added wrap-around piece, as does issue #2. In issue #3, the weapons man (what'shisname) shoots Aric in the head with a rocket, and breaks this piece of the helmet off, resulting in an an armor that looks like the one on the cover to #1. The armor stays this way through his fight with the Harbinger kids (#4), only to have "grown back" the wrap around by issue #5. Is anything more ever said about this? Was it originally designed to be the simpler helmet until BWS came along? Just curious; there may not even be answers to these questions.

[DJSpecter]

Add to this the issue that I don't think the armor was really supposed to protect everything. It seems from some pictures in those issues that a knife could easily draw blood from the area between the chin and the neck.

-Dave

[Todd Luck]

Was it originally designed to be the simpler helmet until BWS came along? Just curious; there may not even be answers to these questions.

Judging from the early ads for X-O #1, which had panels drawn by a different artist (Mike Leeke?) featuring entirely different looking Spider Aliens but featuring the same cover as was published, I would say yes. If BWS totally redesigned the bad guys then, I suspect he may have did a slight redesign on the armor. The only way to tell for sure is if you asked Bob Layton himself.

Here's a link to the ad I was refering to:

http://www.valiantcomics.com/valiant/im ... omomed.jpg

[x-omatic]

The helmet looks the same to me in the pictures.

[Daniel Jackson]

I don't see the difference in the helmet either.

[Todd Luck]

Looks the same to me too... if anything I would blame any differences on seperate artists.

If you look closely at the ad you'll see that X-O in both the cover and in the panels, is lacking the "ears" on either side of his helmet that the orginal poster was asking about. I have the original copy of it I tore out of Previews, so it's a little easier for me to look closely at it (I posted the link as more of a reference, than a "look and see this" sort of thing), but if you save the image and look at in a program that lets you magnify the image you should be able to see it.

[x-omatic]

Looks the same to me too... if anything I would blame any differences on seperate artists.

If you look closely at the ad you'll see that X-O in both the cover and in the panels, is lacking the "ears" on either side of his helmet that the orginal poster was asking about. I have the original copy of it I tore out of Previews, so it's a little easier for me to look closely at it (I posted the link as more of a reference, than a "look and see this" sort of thing), but if you save the image and look at in a program that lets you magnify the image you should be able to see it.

Still can't see it. The image is just to small and is not clear.

[Todd Luck]

Looks the same to me too... if anything I would blame any differences on seperate artists.

If you look closely at the ad you'll see that X-O in both the cover and in the panels, is lacking the "ears" on either side of his helmet that the orginal poster was asking about. I have the original copy of it I tore out of Previews, so it's a little easier for me to look closely at it (I posted the link as more of a reference, than a "look and see this" sort of thing), but if you save the image and look at in a program that lets you magnify the image you should be able to see it.

Still can't see it. The image is just to small and is not clear.

Works fine on my computer but I probably have a better viewing program. Maybe someone could post a blown up picture of the ad (I don't have the resources to scan it in myself at the moment).

Just look at the cover of X-O #1 and that's the helmet design that's used in those panels. You know the helmet does look kinda funny without the "ears"...

[Bob Layton]

<<It seems to me that in original advertisments, the Bob Layton cover of X-O #1 had the armor with the extra wrap-around piece on the helmet. However, the published X-O #1 cover has the armor without this piece; there is only a simpler helmet and face-shield. The story, though, has the armor with the added wrap-around piece, as does issue #2. In issue #3, the weapons man (what'shisname) shoots Aric in the head with a rocket, and breaks this piece of the helmet off, resulting in an an armor that looks like the one on the cover to #1. The armor stays this way through his fight with the Harbinger kids (#4), only to have "grown back" the wrap around by issue #5. Is anything more ever said about this? Was it originally designed to be the simpler helmet until BWS came along? Just curious; there may not even be answers to these questions.>>

The answer to your question is-- "Yes". Originally, the X-O helmet was a simpler design (Jim didn't like a more elaborate design that I initially submitted). However, when Barry came on board, he absolutely insisted on changing it to the classic look we all came to know. Because we had produced promotional images with the simpler helmet, Jim retro fitted the helmet damage into the storyline to explain away the two designs.

Bob
bob@boblayton.com

[greg]

Here's a larger scan with more detail for use with Bob's answer.
http://www.valiantcomics.com/valiant/im ... opromo.jpg

[Will]

The answer to your question is-- "Yes". Originally, the X-O helmet was a simpler design (Jim didn't like a more elaborate design that I initially submitted). However, when Barry came on board, he absolutely insisted on changing it to the classic look we all came to know. Because we had produced promotional images with the simpler helmet, Jim retro fitted the helmet damage into the storyline to explain away the two designs.

Bob

Thanks for taking the time to to answer this one, Bob. Your insight and the information you provide make rereading some of these old issues a pleasure. Modified helmet or not, the original X-O design was by far the best of the six that came to be used over the years. The original design of yours was a tough act to follow for those following in your footsteps.

Thanks again,
W.

[Todd Luck]

<<It seems to me that in original advertisments, the Bob Layton cover of X-O #1 had the armor with the extra wrap-around piece on the helmet. However, the published X-O #1 cover has the armor without this piece; there is only a simpler helmet and face-shield. The story, though, has the armor with the added wrap-around piece, as does issue #2. In issue #3, the weapons man (what'shisname) shoots Aric in the head with a rocket, and breaks this piece of the helmet off, resulting in an an armor that looks like the one on the cover to #1. The armor stays this way through his fight with the Harbinger kids (#4), only to have "grown back" the wrap around by issue #5. Is anything more ever said about this? Was it originally designed to be the simpler helmet until BWS came along? Just curious; there may not even be answers to these questions.>>

The answer to your question is-- "Yes". Originally, the X-O helmet was a simpler design (Jim didn't like a more elaborate design that I initially submitted). However, when Barry came on board, he absolutely insisted on changing it to the classic look we all came to know. Because we had produced promotional images with the simpler helmet, Jim retro fitted the helmet damage into the storyline to explain away the two designs.

Bob
bob@boblayton.com

Thanks for the answer, I was curious about it myself.

Maybe you can answer this question for me, that I've been wondering for years: Both the X-O ad that I mentioned and the Harbinger ad that was printed on the back of it, have panels that look like they're from the first issue of each series (the Harbinger ad actually had a couple scenes that never happened, like an outdoor Harada/Sting battle). However, the art is completely different than what got published in those issues. Where these from versions of those issues that never got published, "try-out" pages the artists drew off the plots, or something else entirely?

[Bob Layton]

Again, I have to go back to a earlier post I made about Jim Shooter being terminally late on everything he wrote. The reason the ad art was different than the final product was that much of it was drawn exclusively for the ads--before Shooter had the actual plot worked out.
And, in his usual manner, the story changed once he put it on paper.
Thus--you got ad art that didn't match the story advertised.

Bob
bob@boblayton.com

[DJSpecter]

Mr. Layton,

I just have to say that this is really quite incredible. A chunck of people on the board nearly worship Shooter's story telling and his being a perfectionist for continuity.

Personally, I think a good number of the books held their ground untill they had overturned teams so many times that it seemed like the teams were confused how to function with the character. I don't think that any book fell until at least nine months after Shooter was gone. And most of the initial "fall" is based on it just being really hard to keep a "first issue" feel for too many issues.*

It's just interesting to note that he wasn't really as thought out as people tend to think.

-Dave

*I know I used to watch a television show the first time, and really like the episode I saw. There were a few of these that I would watch other episodes just to see if it could compare with the one that I liked. My real excitment came when they would reply the episode I first saw. I think it's a psychological issue to a large extent. (This make sense to anyone?)

[depluto]

I always felt the whole thing came apart right about the time Valiant abandoned the "house art" style, even playing up the change in house ads.

Panels got bigger, with less emphasis on stories and characters. It was like Valiant took some of what was wrong with Image and tried to marry it to their universe.

Granted, some of the art looked great, but the stories were what got me hooked on the books to start with.

[Bob Layton]

<<Shooter had unfinished works in progress or a few months of material left on books before he was canned, so IMO... the remaining crew worked off from his material until it was exhausted. Then things got really interesting. >>

Nice theory--but not so.
Jim was never...never...ahead on any book. Never.
The only thing Jim left incomplete was the last Unity. Since I co-plotted it with him, scripting it was a snap for me.
Otherwise, we had to scramble like mad to get ALL of Jim's titles back on schedule after his departure. Ask VanHook if you don't believe me. He and I almost died burning the 'midnight oil' after Jim left the company in shambles. He was so consumed with wresting power away from his business partners at that time, he totally put his contributions to the monthly books on the back burner.
I know this isn't consistant with"The Shooter Myth"--but it IS just a myth, guys (for the most part created by Shooter himself). The real guy wasn't nearly as together as he'd have you believe.
Bob

[Todd Luck]

<<Shooter had unfinished works in progress or a few months of material left on books before he was canned, so IMO... the remaining crew worked off from his material until it was exhausted. Then things got really interesting. >>

Nice theory--but not so.
Jim was never...never...ahead on any book. Never.
The only thing Jim left incomplete was the last Unity. Since I co-plotted it with him, scripting it was a snap for me.
Otherwise, we had to scramble like mad to get ALL of Jim's titles back on schedule after his departure. Ask VanHook if you don't believe me. He and I almost died burning the 'midnight oil' after Jim left the company in shambles. He was so consumed with wresting power away from his business partners at that time, he totally put his contributions to the monthly books on the back burner.
I know this isn't consistant with"The Shooter Myth"--but it IS just a myth, guys (for the most part created by Shooter himself). The real guy wasn't nearly as together as he'd have you believe.
Bob

I'm slightly confused. Many of the titles credited Jim Shooter as co-plotter for the two months or so after Unity came out (Rai #0, the Solar issues introducing Bender, the Mekman story in Magnus, etc). Didn't he do something to get a co-plot credit on those issues?

BTW, I've never seen a Shooter interview were he doesn't talk about how he wasn't making a lot of the stories up as he went along at Valiant ("flying by the seat of my pants" as he called it), but by no means have I read all of his interviews. He also tended to give a lot of credit to a lot of the writers and artists there (including you, ofcourse) for creating the stories and characters. Shooter always made it sound like a very collaberative place (even though he wanted things done his way:) ) But again, that's just in the interviews I've read.

[Warrior-13]

<<Shooter had unfinished works in progress or a few months of material left on books before he was canned, so IMO... the remaining crew worked off from his material until it was exhausted. Then things got really interesting. >>

Nice theory--but not so.
Jim was never...never...ahead on any book. Never.
The only thing Jim left incomplete was the last Unity. Since I co-plotted it with him, scripting it was a snap for me.
Otherwise, we had to scramble like mad to get ALL of Jim's titles back on schedule after his departure. Ask VanHook if you don't believe me. He and I almost died burning the 'midnight oil' after Jim left the company in shambles. He was so consumed with wresting power away from his business partners at that time, he totally put his contributions to the monthly books on the back burner.
I know this isn't consistant with"The Shooter Myth"--but it IS just a myth, guys (for the most part created by Shooter himself). The real guy wasn't nearly as together as he'd have you believe.
Bob

No disrespect Mr. Layton but for every VanHook, there is a Lapham or J. Jackson who I think would lean more towards Shooter's side of the story. In addition, how can anyone leave anything in shambles when they have been fired? Many will agree that the focus and quality of most of the Valiant titles went downhill after Shooters depature. I mean, how many people treasure their pre-unity books as opposed to anything that was published after that?
Throughout the years I have never really understood the Shooter bashing by creators, I guess he really must be an SOB to work for but some of the best comics have been produced under him and isn't that what it should be about, the fans?

[Bob Layton]

My point was to illustrate the fact that Jim wasn't that far ahead on the books and why.

I don't want to continue the "Shooter--good or bad" argument.
You have the right to accept any opinion you wish.
I will never demean Shooter's talent. He obviously had excellent editorial skills.
Unfortunately--not so good with the people skills.

Some people will always think he's a saint.

The others are the ones who got burned by him.

Bob

[DJSpecter]

I don't really mean to continue this discussion any farther than needed, but in those same interviews where he claims to have been doing everything... he makes mention of how he ran into someone else (x) who worked under him previously and asked how x was able to do all the work that x had done for him. The question was based on shooter being so busy with HALF the comparable workload of x.

Seems like we can reach a compromise.

Shooter admits taking a long time to complete his work.

I really didn't mean to make a big long thing about this.

-Dave

[justin]

I don't really mean to continue this discussion any farther than needed

Greg lets just go ahead and lock this subject then!

-A

[x-omatic]

I don't really mean to continue this discussion any farther than needed, but in those same interviews where he claims to have been doing everything... he makes mention of how he ran into someone else (x) who worked under him previously and asked how x was able to do all the work that x had done for him. The question was based on shooter being so busy with HALF the comparable workload of x.

Seems like we can reach a compromise.

Shooter admits taking a long time to complete his work.

I really didn't mean to make a big long thing about this.

-Dave

I find it funny that you, a fan, question what someone with first hand experience said happened.

[x-omatic]

I have read accounts and have had first hand accounts of how it was during the early days at Valiant.

Well I have first hand accounts of what happend as well and like with ANY story... you get two sides.

By first hand I mean being there when it happened. Not getting info directly from Shooter or Layton. I don't think any of us wee there to make take a side. Meeting Shooter or Layton at a con and them telling us in person still doesn't make it fact. I would be the full truth would be somewhere in the gray area.

[Todd Luck]

I didn't really think their was any contradiction between Layton saying Shooter was late on the titles and Shooter's stories of overtime, working holidays, and doing all those other things you only do when you're behind scheadule.

The thing that confuses me, and I hope Bob Layton or someone else can clear this up for me, was how could Unity #1 have been the last incomplete thing Shooter left them with (according to Bob) when Shooter got partial writing creds on 9 comics published in the next few monthes after that? That's not counting a full writing cred on Magnus 20 because I'm sure that was a fill-in issue written before he left (though that's only a guess).

[x-omatic]

I didn't really think their was any contradiction between Layton saying Shooter was late on the titles and Shooter's stories of overtime, working holidays, and doing all those other things you only do when you're behind scheadule.

The thing that confuses me, and I hope Bob Layton or someone else can clear this up for me, was how could Unity #1 have been the last incomplete thing Shooter left them with (according to Bob) when Shooter got partial writing creds on 9 comics published in the next few monthes after that? That's not counting a full writing cred on Magnus 20 because I'm sure that was a fill-in issue written before he left (though that's only a guess).

Simple. There is a difference between writing the story and doing a plot for a story. Perhaps Shooter had a few plots written. After he was gone the writers used his plot to create the story.