Valiant F.A.Q. - this is great

acc205 · Post by **acc205** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:52 pm

A cool read, very detailed. One of the best and most detailed descriptions of the Valiant Universe I have read.

http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=1294

tarheelmarine · Post by **tarheelmarine** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:22 pm

Yes, someone had posted this earlier, and it is a good read.

acc205 · Post by **acc205** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 pm

Elveen · Post by **Elveen** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:29 pm

Thanks, I bookmarked it and plan to read it tonight!

Christian

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:56 pm

Sorry to be a party pooper, but that's not a FAQ....FAQs are, traditionally, supposed to be concerned with factual answers to questions most frequently posed.

This isn't one of those.

Example: "VALIANT is the only publisher to ever have successfully challenged the comic book monopoly of Marvel and DC."

Actually, that's not true. Not only did Valiant NOT challenge the monopoly, they only beat DC one month, and never sold more units or dollars than Marvel.

But DC and Marvel combined? Not even close.

As well, Image shared roughly an equal share in that "challenge" in 1992-93.

(and if we're gonna get REAL picky, it's a DUopoly, not a MONopoly.)

Another example: "Jim Shooter was a living comic book god (think Brian Michael Bendis times 10,000)."

Also not true. Only a small handful of Valiant fanatics thought this. Most everyone in comics at the time, while they appreciated how good Valiant was, still remembered Secret Wars II, the resurrection of Jean Grey, and New Universe....all controversial, all regarded as abysmal failures.

As a writer, Brian Michael Bendis was and still is far more popular than Jim Shooter has ever been.

Not a slight against Jim.....just an acknowledgement of the situation as it exists.

Another example: "Writing - Pure and simple, the writing in the VALIANT books just outclassed everything that was around at the time, and, to be honest, most of what's out today."

Which clearly ignores Sandman, the ONLY comic to win a World Fantasy Award for short story, after which the rules were changed, as well as Bone, I, Lusiphur, Next Men, Grendel, Miracleman, Hellboy, all of which were published concurrently with Pre-Unity Valiant.

Were they good? Absolutely. Were they the best out there in comics at the time? No, no one being honest would say so.

Another: "Children of the Eighth Day is regularly mentioned in the same breath as Watchmen, Maus or Dark Knight Returns"

Um. WHO says this? No one I have EVER heard, and I am a RABID, RABID Harbinger fan....but I recognize that Harbinger PALES in comparison to there....Harbinger's never won a Pulitzer Prize.

I don't even think anyone on this BOARD has ever dared make such an incredibly extreme statement.

Another: "The VALIANT stories, while commercially very successful, still explored deep themes."

Not true. Valiant was not "commercially very successful" until late 1992...long after Unity (which is what is acknowledged as the "deep themes" part of Valiant) was over.

And: "forever imprints believability on the character that takes them out of the realm of fiction and into the real world."

Except....it was still fiction.

Then: "There was no big hulking character, no dark avenging knight, no guy with claws and no teenager bitten by a radioactive insect"

Except, when THOSE characters first appeared, THEY were startlingly original, too, which is WHY they were, and are, so popular.

This one's a gem: "Rai #0 is the perfect example of the originality of VALIANT Comics (and a book I received a stack of hate mail for only giving an honorable mention in my last article, The Ten Most Important Comic Books of the 1990s)"

Again....from WHO? No one honestly looking at it would rate Rai #0 one of the TEN most important comics of the 1990s.

This one's from the most bizarre paragraph of the whole article: "When we see a car crash in real life, there is a sound but the words "CRUNCH" or "SMASH" don't appear. "

Um. That's because the story doesn't take place on a page.

"Real Life Science - The VALIANT Universe is grounded in science fact not science fantasy."

Because, of course, it is scientifically possible to fly, manipulate objects with one's mind, and "talk" to computers.

Um.

While the explanations for why such things may have been POSSIBLE were given, it still wasn't science fact....it was science fiction. The entire premise is built on the science FICTION of a being with the power to destroy the universe and all within it, and create something new?

How is that "science fact"?

"The crossover took VALIANT from popular independent to the third major publisher"

...for about 6 months.

"Shortly thereafter, the comic book market began to contract,"

...for which Valiant was a major, major cause. Conveniently not mentioned.

"Fans wait with bated breath for the proper return one of the best and most popular comic book universes of all time.
"

Again, not an unbiased statement of fact, but rather opinion. How can a universe that was popular for roughly 1.5 years, out of nearly 70 years of "comics universes", be one of the most popular comic book universes of all time?

No, while this is a fun read, it's clearly biased, and therefore should be called an OPINION column, not a FAQ. As opinion columns go, it's decent. and nice to see such enthusiasm. As a "FAQ"....it's pretty dismal.

And, keep in mind that this is from the same writer who called Harbinger #1, (certainly one of MY favorites) "the most important book of the 1990's"....while ignoring books like Superman #75, Spawn #1, Lady Death #1, Gen13 #1, Preacher #1, the launch of Vertigo, etc.

So. Take it for what it's worth.

greg · Post by **greg** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:10 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:...Gen13 #1...

acc205 · Post by **acc205** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:12 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote: Example: "VALIANT is the only publisher to ever have successfully challenged the comic book monopoly of Marvel and DC."

Actually, that's not true. Not only did Valiant NOT challenge the monopoly, they only beat DC one month, and never sold more units or dollars than Marvel.

Bob Layton wrote: My best [Valiant] memory is winning Diamond Distribution’s "1993 Publisher of the Year" award over DC and Marvel. The night I accepted that award, I felt like I was on top of the world. We had beaten the Big Two comic companies at their own game. It’s never been done since.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:15 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote: And, keep in mind that this is from the same writer who called Harbinger #1, (certainly one of MY favorites) "the most important book of the 1990's"....while ignoring books like Superman #75, Spawn #1, Lady Death #1, Gen13 #1, Preacher #1, the launch of Vertigo, etc.

Can you explain how these books you mention are more 'important' than Harbinger 1?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:26 pm

greg wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:...Gen13 #1...

It was certainly more influential than Harbinger #1 in the long term.

After all....how many Harbinger clones did you see.......?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:33 pm

acc205 wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote: Example: "VALIANT is the only publisher to ever have successfully challenged the comic book monopoly of Marvel and DC."

Actually, that's not true. Not only did Valiant NOT challenge the monopoly, they only beat DC one month, and never sold more units or dollars than Marvel.

Bob Layton wrote: My best [Valiant] memory is winning Diamond Distribution’s "1993 Publisher of the Year" award over DC and Marvel. The night I accepted that award, I felt like I was on top of the world. We had beaten the Big Two comic companies at their own game. It’s never been done since.

You're kidding, right?

Sorry, but winning an "award" by a distributor is nowhere near the same....in any way, shape, or form....to successfully challenging them in the marketplace.

That the attempt would even be MADE to equate the two is ludicrous. Or do you think that "Publisher of the Year" = "sold the most in units and/or dollars"...?

Tell me....what was the highest grossing film of 2005?

Now tell me...what film won the Academy Award for Best Picture?

Now tell me....when was the last time those two were the same movie?

(I can tell you from memory, but the point is clear: winning an award does NOT equate in ANY way to successfully challenging The Big Dogs.)

And then you can't even be bothered to type your OWN response?

Come on.

Seriously.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 pm

Zero wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote: And, keep in mind that this is from the same writer who called Harbinger #1, (certainly one of MY favorites) "the most important book of the 1990's"....while ignoring books like Superman #75, Spawn #1, Lady Death #1, Gen13 #1, Preacher #1, the launch of Vertigo, etc.
Can you explain how these books you mention are more 'important' than Harbinger 1?

Already have, in the original response to Mr. Smith when he posted his "10 most important comics of the 90's" article.

Let me see if I can dig it up.

(And you're not seriously asking me why Superman #75 is more important than Harbinger #1, are you....?)

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:08 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Zero wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote: And, keep in mind that this is from the same writer who called Harbinger #1, (certainly one of MY favorites) "the most important book of the 1990's"....while ignoring books like Superman #75, Spawn #1, Lady Death #1, Gen13 #1, Preacher #1, the launch of Vertigo, etc.
Can you explain how these books you mention are more 'important' than Harbinger 1?
Already have, in the original response to Mr. Smith when he posted his "10 most important comics of the 90's" article.

Let me see if I can dig it up.

(And you're not seriously asking me why Superman #75 is more important than Harbinger #1, are you....?)

Well, yeah I am asking why Superman 75 is more important.

I'm not the most studied on the topic I'll admit since I'm not a fan of very much DC. That's the book Superman 'died' in correct? Why does that book have any importance the moment the character is brought 'back from the dead'? Psylocke died... Colossus died... Both were brought back & their 'death' issues are irrelevant. I realize Superman is a more storied/famous character, but outside of the overhyping that went into that book I don't see its importance.

Lots of books were overhyped during that time period... Lots of books involve the 'death' of a character that was later brought back... Why's this book special?

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:50 am

deja vu, all over again...

I wonder how many times we are going to have to go over this...

Everytime this guy writes something, someone posts a link saying "see look valiant is the greatest thing ever." Then someone comes along and uses a little common sense and shows how biased the article is towards valiant...a little while later someone reposts the link and says "look how great valiant is, I knew we were right."

repeat....

Oh and it compunds on itself when he mentions previous articles he wrote about how great valiant is in his new article about how great valiant is...

I also think that this guy is MOTA...or atleast him and MOTA should get together and have a valiant love child..I think that they are the only 2 people on the face of this big blue marble that could look you directly in the eye and tell you that everything in the valiant universe was based on scientific fact without batting an eye and honestly, deep down in their soul, believe it to be true...

And yes Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1. Harbinger sucks anyway..if any book was important in the valiant universe it was Magnus 1.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:01 am

DawgPhan wrote: And yes Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1. Harbinger sucks anyway..if any book was important in the valiant universe it was Magnus 1.

So, Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1 becasue you think Harbinger sucks? Okay, but that doesn't make Superman 75 important...

Why is Magnus 1 more important than Solar 1?

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:04 am

Zero wrote:
DawgPhan wrote: And yes Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1. Harbinger sucks anyway..if any book was important in the valiant universe it was Magnus 1.
So, Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1 becasue you think Harbinger sucks? Okay, but that doesn't make Superman 75 important...

Why is Magnus 1 more important than Solar 1?

Everyone has their own take on what's important in the Valiant Universe, no big deal.

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:50 am

Zero wrote:
DawgPhan wrote: And yes Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1. Harbinger sucks anyway..if any book was important in the valiant universe it was Magnus 1.
So, Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1 becasue you think Harbinger sucks? Okay, but that doesn't make Superman 75 important...

Why is Magnus 1 more important than Solar 1?

Alright Superman 75 was probably the biggest book of the 90's. it killed off a major hero. it was on every channel. there was a feeding frenzy for it. It brought tons of new people into the hobby. It forever defined that part of comic book history.

Magnus 1 was the first superhero book from Valiant. It changed valiant from a nintendo/wrestling book publisher into a legit indy publisher. Hell Bloodshot 1 is probably more important than harbinger 1. While all those folks were standing on line for superman 75, there was also folks online for bloodshot 1.

Harbinger didnt do anything new. It is just a cheesy xmen rippoff with a fat chick...nothing note worthy other than its low print run and easily damaged cover stock...Hell if Harbinger 0 pink didnt exists no one would even care about harbinger 1.

Impulse725 · Post by **Impulse725** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:06 am

I think the death of superman was what cast more attention on DC in particular too. Rather than being a distant second to marvel they started gaining market share, today they're about equal (given, in a much smaller industry)

I just read this FAQ when someone linked it as a source in the valiant wikipedia article...i chuckled.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:37 am

Welcome to the boards.

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:34 pm

DawgPhan wrote:Magnus 1 was the first superhero book from Valiant. It changed valiant from a nintendo/wrestling book publisher into a legit indy publisher. Hell Bloodshot 1 is probably more important than harbinger 1. While all those folks were standing on line for superman 75, there was also folks online for bloodshot 1.

Harbinger didnt do anything new. It is just a cheesy xmen rippoff with a fat chick...nothing note worthy other than its low print run and easily damaged cover stock...Hell if Harbinger 0 pink didnt exists no one would even care about harbinger 1.

I'll agree to disagree on this one.

Harbinger #1 is the first "original" Valiant comic book.
Magnus was "just a Gold Key character"... so was Solar.

Magnus #5 had a flip-book with the first original Valiant character, Rai...
but Rai didn't get his own title until after Harbinger #1.
X-O Manowar didn't get his own title until after Harbinger #1.

Harbinger #1 was the first Valiant superhero universe book that was 100% "new characters", not a licensed product (WWF, Nintendo, GoldKey).

Arguably, the X-Men are just a "cheesy rip-off" of the Justice Society of 1940.

If we're giving 1960s Marvel all the credit for "innovation"... we're fooling ourselves.

Impulse725 · Post by **Impulse725** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:43 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote:Welcome to the boards.

thanks!

depluto · Post by **depluto** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:50 pm

greg wrote:If we're giving 1960s Marvel all the credit for "innovation"... we're fooling ourselves.

I think Stan Lee was even given a directive by his cousin to create some comics that were like the DC superhero comics that were selling very well.

What he did with that directive was remarkable. He was getting tired of the comics biz at that time and approached the task with a carefree attitude, but the characters he created and their long-lasting cross-cultural appeal is probably the most amazing creative outburst in comics history.

IMO, of course.

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:54 pm

depluto wrote:
greg wrote:If we're giving 1960s Marvel all the credit for "innovation"... we're fooling ourselves.
I think Stan Lee was even given a directive by his cousin to create some comics that were like the DC superhero comics that were selling very well.

What he did with that directive was remarkable. He was getting tired of the comics biz at that time and approached the task with a carefree attitude, but the characters he created and their long-lasting cross-cultural appeal is probably the most amazing creative outburst in comics history.

IMO, of course.

No doubt, 1960s Marvel shook things up... major impact in a short period of time (vs. DC's history)

But Harbinger #1 as a "cheesy ripoff" of X-Men ignores that
X-Men (and Fantastic Four) were an equally "cheesy ripoff" of JSA.
That's why I said we can't give Marvel all the credit. They get some.

depluto · Post by **depluto** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:58 pm

Oh, I agree, especially the Fantastic Four. Stan got his inspiration from what DC was doing and just looked at those types of characters a different way.

Same deal with Shooter's Valiant.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:21 pm

DawgPhan wrote:
Zero wrote:
DawgPhan wrote: And yes Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1. Harbinger sucks anyway..if any book was important in the valiant universe it was Magnus 1.
So, Superman 75 is more important than Harbinger 1 becasue you think Harbinger sucks? Okay, but that doesn't make Superman 75 important...

Why is Magnus 1 more important than Solar 1?
Alright Superman 75 was probably the biggest book of the 90's. it killed off a major hero. it was on every channel. there was a feeding frenzy for it. It brought tons of new people into the hobby. It forever defined that part of comic book history.

Magnus 1 was the first superhero book from Valiant. It changed valiant from a nintendo/wrestling book publisher into a legit indy publisher. Hell Bloodshot 1 is probably more important than harbinger 1. While all those folks were standing on line for superman 75, there was also folks online for bloodshot 1.

Harbinger didnt do anything new. It is just a cheesy xmen rippoff with a fat chick...nothing note worthy other than its low print run and easily damaged cover stock...Hell if Harbinger 0 pink didnt exists no one would even care about harbinger 1.

I have to agree with Greg on this one. I don't think there's anything cheesy about Harbinger. IMO, the first 25 issues of Harbinger are very well written & are superior to the vast majority of x-men books I have read. I'm not naive enough to believe the majority shares my beliefs, but I also do not think the majority of people who have read all the early Harbinger books find them to be cheesy x-men rip offs either.

Now, I see your point about Superman 75, but I think you're wrong. That book was important the year it came out & has no bearing anymore. There's nothing key about that book since the character didn't really die. Outside of the overhype & high sales numbers the book does not matter. What's revolutionary about hyping the death of a major character that ends up not being dead? So, it's a big character. Big deal. The character didn't die...

DawgPhan · Post by **DawgPhan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:25 pm

JSA and X-Men arent exactly the same to me...

to me xmen is more about coming to grips with your "power" and also the troubles of being young...JSA was just a group of guys with powers. But yeah I know that wasnt exactly how it started, but it is certainly how it was when valiant came around...

HARD Corps would be a cheesy rip off of JSA more so than harbinger was.

Also magnus was the first superhero book. Period. The first. you have to create some narrowly defined title for harbinger to be the first. That doesnt make it more important. The first is important, everything else is, well, not first.