Another reason the Paramount news is good for Valiant

magnusr · Post by **magnusr** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:37 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:Not to mention that Faith is an uber Trekie.

She said she wasn't

/Magnus

R Daneel · Post by **R Daneel** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:49 am

Knightt wrote:okilee dokilee, we have our first Harbinger fan... any other takers ?

I'm trying to think back ... Valiant was easily the cream of the crop for me but I can't remember what I liked best. I first thought "hey I liked Harbinger the best" but then .... Solar ... Magnus ... X-O ... hmm I guess I can't remember enough to claim that one. Damn I gotta start over my reading ... I've not done that since I did the original reads!

What was your favorite back then??

Escaflown4 · Post by **Escaflown4** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:50 am

I was both psyched and disappointed at the same time. I mean it's about time the Valiant properties get brought to the big screen. Then when I found out that Brett Ratner will be the director I'm like

"oh umm...ok.....nevermind...nothing new here...keep moving...."

I mean in order for people to catch on to Valiant, the movie..especially the FIRST movie HAS to be good. If you get a director that doesn't do squat for character development and promote corny one liners, then you got another superhero flop coming soon to a theater near you.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:12 am

magnusr wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:Not to mention that Faith is an uber Trekie.
She said she wasn't

/Magnus

Okay, okay, she was a Treker, not a Trekie

UnknownTales · Post by **UnknownTales** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:29 am

Selling the rights means a cash transaction. Cash can mean they will use it to develop new characters and properties to grow their stable which is the going trend or publish the old ones. There is a third possibility and spending $5,000 a time on 22 year old ladies of the night is not far fetched...

Draco · Post by **Draco** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:53 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:
magnusr wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:Not to mention that Faith is an uber Trekie.
She said she wasn't

/Magnus

Okay, okay, she was a Treker, not a Trekie

And she only said that as she was embarrassed i think.

Draco · Post by **Draco** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:55 am

Overall any news is good news.

This is good news as people will talk about it and then want to know where Harbinger is from.

IN turn they will no doubt be directed to this site or the Valiant site.

They might buy the new Harbinger Hardback and then see the X-O adverts and so on.

All in all its all cool.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:58 am

And, hopefully, Paramount will run some ads for the movie in DC and/or Marvel comics that will have a link to the official VALIANT site that will direct all those X-Men and Batmans to it and expose them to the VALIANT Universe.

David_Cody · Post by **David_Cody** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:03 am

Someone mentioned they thought producing Harbinger would be the easiest of the lot and I don't think so. You've got Sting flying around carrying a bunch of rebels. You'll have Eggbreakers with various other powers that you're going to have to create CGI for.

Sure, the X-Men movies were about a team of superheroes banded together to fight a common cause. Let's face it, X-Men isn't the ONLY comic out there with team-based heroes that is successful. Paramount will have to create a storyline that's "different" from the X-Men fare.

Hollywood is all about copying other successful movies. I'm sure Paramount sees the success of X-Men and is trying to cash-in on the concept. Look at Heroes on TV. Another team-based group of people with super powers that is successful in the ratings.

Paramount is a MAJOR studio and if they can pull it off (and there's certainly potential that it could be done), it will most definitely bode well for the other Valiant line of characters.

When non-Valiant fans think of Valiant, most likely Harbinger isn't the first comic that comes to mind. I'm sure Magnus and Solar comes to mind, but so does X-O and probably Bloodshot. Too bad Iron Man is being made into a movie as X-O could/would have huge potential.

If Harbinger does make money, I'll be betting for Bloodshot followed by Shadowman.

I too am happy that the current owners of Valiant will now have an influx of cash to bring Valiant back from the dead. They deserve it after their recent legal battles with the shysters.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:20 am

I wonder who Paramount will grant the license to produce a Harbinger video game.

Hey, maybe they'll give it to Acclaim

Draco · Post by **Draco** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:38 am

david_albuq wrote:Someone mentioned they thought producing Harbinger would be the easiest of the lot and I don't think so. You've got Sting flying around carrying a bunch of rebels. You'll have Eggbreakers with various other powers that you're going to have to create CGI for.

Sure, the X-Men movies were about a team of superheroes banded together to fight a common cause. Let's face it, X-Men isn't the ONLY comic out there with team-based heroes that is successful. Paramount will have to create a storyline that's "different" from the X-Men fare.

Hollywood is all about copying other successful movies. I'm sure Paramount sees the success of X-Men and is trying to cash-in on the concept. Look at Heroes on TV. Another team-based group of people with super powers that is successful in the ratings.

Paramount is a MAJOR studio and if they can pull it off (and there's certainly potential that it could be done), it will most definitely bode well for the other Valiant line of characters.

When non-Valiant fans think of Valiant, most likely Harbinger isn't the first comic that comes to mind. I'm sure Magnus and Solar comes to mind, but so does X-O and probably Bloodshot. Too bad Iron Man is being made into a movie as X-O could/would have huge potential.

If Harbinger does make money, I'll be betting for Bloodshot followed by Shadowman.

I too am happy that the current owners of Valiant will now have an influx of cash to bring Valiant back from the dead. They deserve it after their recent legal battles with the shysters.

Some good points you have made here David.

I agree that with the selection of powers in Harbinger it might not be the cheapest Valiant book to put into the big screen.

I believe they would have seen the success of X-men to Heroes and figured the proven track record makes perfect sense to emulate.

They shouldnt have too much trouble making it look completely different to X-men.

Also, i think whilst Harbinger was not the longest running title or everyones favourite, it was the book that made people pay attention due to the prices and difficulty getting early issues. It stands out as the title a lot of people remember the most.

These may not have anything to do with Paramounts choice to option Harbinger but will help with recognition anyway.

JustCallMeAric · Post by **JustCallMeAric** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:41 am

david_albuq wrote:Someone mentioned they thought producing Harbinger would be the easiest of the lot and I don't think so. You've got Sting flying around carrying a bunch of rebels. You'll have Eggbreakers with various other powers that you're going to have to create CGI for.

Sure, the X-Men movies were about a team of superheroes banded together to fight a common cause. Let's face it, X-Men isn't the ONLY comic out there with team-based heroes that is successful. Paramount will have to create a storyline that's "different" from the X-Men fare.

Hollywood is all about copying other successful movies. I'm sure Paramount sees the success of X-Men and is trying to cash-in on the concept. Look at Heroes on TV. Another team-based group of people with super powers that is successful in the ratings.

Paramount is a MAJOR studio and if they can pull it off (and there's certainly potential that it could be done), it will most definitely bode well for the other Valiant line of characters.

When non-Valiant fans think of Valiant, most likely Harbinger isn't the first comic that comes to mind. I'm sure Magnus and Solar comes to mind, but so does X-O and probably Bloodshot. Too bad Iron Man is being made into a movie as X-O could/would have huge potential.

If Harbinger does make money, I'll be betting for Bloodshot followed by Shadowman.

I too am happy that the current owners of Valiant will now have an influx of cash to bring Valiant back from the dead. They deserve it after their recent legal battles with the shysters.

I could see Shadowman because of its "The Crow" like potential

Cyberstrike · Post by **Cyberstrike** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:59 am

StarBrand wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:After fighting with vip all this time, I think it's great that VEI can finally make a return on it's investement via a movie rights deal.

Just think, a few short months ago we didn't even know if the vip battle would go on for another 3 years or more. Now, we have a movie to possibly look forward to and the announcement of new books by the end of the year.

Go Valiant!
It's a good point, and a movie option is something that might've helped Defiant rebound from their lawsuit and survive.

Ironically in his last editoral for Defiant (Warriors of Plasm #13 and Dogs of War #5) Jim Shooter mentioned that he was going to announce a movie deal in the works for one the Defiant titles later in the year, and that a Spatterball video game was also in the works.
I don't know if he was trying to keep people intrested in Defiant or if these
deals were legit before Defiant went under.

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:38 am

greg wrote:
Knightt wrote: I don't even think that Harbinger was one of the more 'popular' of the books when they came out. How many folks here list Harbinger as their favorite Valiant comic ?
Exactly the point. If #8 is good enough for Paramount...
then what are numbers 1 through 7? Chopped liver?

Their future is at least as bright as Harbinger... if not more so.

I don't know about that. My guess is (and I am not in the movie business, although I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express last night) good comic stories do not necessarily translate to good movies. So juding the potential of a story for movies based on the number of issues that a comic book lasted might be misleading.

I mean, the Simpsons Comics have FAR more issues that Valiant comics, but would they be good for a movi...oh, wait.

Now, having said that, I could each of the comics 1 - 7 having a good potential story line for a movie. A good movie is going to be based on more than how good the comic is. Just look at some of the comic movies out there - they may such, despite the fact that the comics are great!

Chris

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:45 am

greg wrote:I am completely confused how ANY Valiant fan can be "unaffected"
by the Paramount news. Seriously.

It's simple. Movies can be based on dead universes. It is a story, that's all, and bringing that story to the big screen MAY have absolutely no impact on the restart/revival of the Valiant Universe.

Emphasis on may.

Now, IMO the more important thing that just the news that Paramount bought the movie rights is that there is material being published, with new comics planned as well.

That, in conjunction with the movie news, is the important news. Not the movie news by itself. In addition, buying the rights to make a movie is a FAR cry from actually having a movie made, distributed, and played in theaters.

There may never be anything further than buying the rights.

Even if a script is developed, it may never see production (and that is assuming the script is faithful to the comics - how many times has a movie version of something been completely different than the comic/book version?)

Even if it is started in production, it may never be completed.

Even if it is completed, it may never be distributed, or may never see a theater (the death knell of "direct to video!")

Now, I am not saying this isn't good news, but I think it is premature to use this news as a "Valiant is back!" rallying cry!

Chris

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:49 am

Knightt wrote:No, it looks like you made a list of how many issues were printed of each title. How does that rank in how popular they are.

Dare I say... a VALIANT try ?

Presumably there was SOME link between the popularity (as indicated by sales) and the length of the run.

The problem is that it doesn't take into account any shift if focus for the comic, shift in creative teams, shift in ownership, etc.

Prior to issues 25, would Harbinger have been listed as the 7th most popular Valiant comics? Or was it more popular, then took a nosedive after issues 25, resulting in it being cancelled after 41 issues. If that is a the case, is it fair to rank it as the 7th most popular Valiant title (or 7th in sales). It might have been that at the END of the run, but that's all.

Chris

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:52 am

Maybe it comes later, but what about potential other reasons that Harbinger was the first choice?

Teen characters = teen audience = more money?

Most similar to X-men franchise?

Ensemble cast means you can use more unknown actors and have cheaper production costs?

Fewer special effects costs than robots, man in armor, man made out of energy, etc?

Don't know how many of these might be true, but presumably there were some factors that influenced the decision to either sell or buy Harbinger movie rights over the other titles. Multiple factors than were all considered.

Chris

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:55 am

Draco wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:
magnusr wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:Not to mention that Faith is an uber Trekie.
She said she wasn't

/Magnus

Okay, okay, she was a Treker, not a Trekie
And she only said that as she was embarrassed i think.

Aren't there two different terms used to describe serious Star Trekk fans?

Trekkie is okay. Is the other Trekker?

From what I know, one is considered "bad", while the other is okay among the hard corp Star Trek fans.

Chris

BTW, I just saw a preview for Fan Boys last night. Heh heh.

Elveen · Post by **Elveen** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:55 am

If they are able to re-create the "story" that Shooter wrote for Harby 0-7... then the movie will be great.

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:57 am

Elveen wrote:If they are able to re-create the "story" that Shooter wrote for Harby 0-7... then the movie will be great.

Was that story self contained? Or were there important references to other characters?

Like having Solar appear wouldn't make much sense. Wasn't that in Harbinger 4?

Presumably the story would have to JUST be the Harbinger characters.

Chris

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:02 am

cjv wrote:
Draco wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:
magnusr wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:Not to mention that Faith is an uber Trekie.
She said she wasn't

/Magnus

Okay, okay, she was a Treker, not a Trekie
And she only said that as she was embarrassed i think.
Aren't there two different terms used to describe serious Star Trekk fans?

Trekkie is okay. Is the other Trekker?

From what I know, one is considered "bad", while the other is okay among the hard corp Star Trek fans.

Chris

BTW, I just saw a preview for Fan Boys last night. Heh heh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekkie#Trekkie_v._Trekker

Some Star Trek enthusiasts prefer the term "Trekkie", while some others self-identify as "Trekker". Self-identification as a "Trekkie" became even less popular after a famous national television parody in 1986 (see Parodies below); several self-described "Trekkers" were quoted as saying they "had a life" (contrasting themselves from "Trekkies").

In the 1991 TV show Star Trek: 25th Anniversary Special, Leonard Nimoy attempts to settle the issue by stating that the term 'Trekker' is the correct one.

The issue is also shown in the film Trekkies 2, in which a Star Trek fan recounts a supposed incident during a Star Trek convention where Gene Roddenberry used the term "trekkies" to describe fans of the show, only to be corrected by a fan that stood up and yelled "Trekkers!" Gene Roddenberry, allegedly, responded with "No, it's trekkies. I should know, I invented the thing."

In the documentary Trekkies, Kate Mulgrew stated that Trekkers are the ones "walking with us" while the Trekkies are the ones content to simply sit and watch Star Trek.

Other names
Star Trek fans who believe Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is the best series of the franchise adopted the title of Niner following the episode "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", in which Captain Benjamin Sisko formed a baseball team "The Niners".

Elveen · Post by **Elveen** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:06 am

cjv wrote:
Elveen wrote:If they are able to re-create the "story" that Shooter wrote for Harby 0-7... then the movie will be great.
Was that story self contained? Or were there important references to other characters?

Like having Solar appear wouldn't make much sense. Wasn't that in Harbinger 4?

Presumably the story would have to JUST be the Harbinger characters.

Chris

What I lliked about Harby was the story of the kids that discovered that they had these super powers and how they tried to deal with it.

I just semeed real. I also really like dthe Eggbreakers, they were just doing what they thought they should.

Toyo was the same. He thought he was doing the correct thing.

Harby (to me) was about these normal, believable kids, and how they handled this huge burden.

It just seemed real. Like any of us would not had gone into Kris' mind and made her..... well... you know.

And if they want to put Solar in the movie.... fine..... if not fine.

Focus on the story, how these normal kids handled the burden of super power.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:07 am

cjv wrote:
Elveen wrote:If they are able to re-create the "story" that Shooter wrote for Harby 0-7... then the movie will be great.
Was that story self contained? Or were there important references to other characters?

Like having Solar appear wouldn't make much sense. Wasn't that in Harbinger 4?

Presumably the story would have to JUST be the Harbinger characters.

Chris

Solar's appearance in the issue was really unnecessary.

All he did was help Pete fix Puff and then took the kids away.

All that the movie needs to do is take out the Puff plot and replace it with something else (the whole point of the Puff plot was for Harada to learn where the kids went to after Dallas from Puff's mind... all that the movie needs to do is find another way for Harada to accomplish the same thing)

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:16 am

ManofTheAtom wrote:
cjv wrote:
Elveen wrote:If they are able to re-create the "story" that Shooter wrote for Harby 0-7... then the movie will be great.
Was that story self contained? Or were there important references to other characters?

Like having Solar appear wouldn't make much sense. Wasn't that in Harbinger 4?

Presumably the story would have to JUST be the Harbinger characters.

Chris
Solar's appearance in the issue was really unnecessary.

All he did was help Pete fix Puff and then took the kids away.

All that the movie needs to do is take out the Puff plot and replace it with something else (the whole point of the Puff plot was for Harada to learn where the kids went to after Dallas from Puff's mind... all that the movie needs to do is find another way for Harada to accomplish the same thing)

I agree. However, my point was that the movie couldn't be a direct copy of the comics, it would have to be adapted from, or based on the comics.

As such, who knows how much might change. Who knows how much it might differ from what we think of as Harbinger.

Probably should have made that more clear, sorry.

I agree, though, as Elveen said, the IDEAS (or concepts?

) from Issues 0 through 7 would make a good story.

Chris

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:16 am

I think that the movie would need to include the idea that these are teens. That was what made Harbinger click, I think. Everybody remembers feeling like an outcast, or not belonging for some reason when they were a teenager. The fact that these kids have harbinger abilities, to me, is just a tool to augment that natural teenage turmoil.

That, to me, is what the movie should focus on. I don't want an action flick, I want a drama that has action in it.