What Really Killed VALIANT: Editorial Incompetence

[ManofTheAtom]

A newspaper such as the New York Times has some of the most skilled editors in the world, and yet mistakes get in there. So I guess they are incompetent.

Newspapers work on a different schedule than a comic book.

In the time it takes to produce one issue of a comic, over 100 newspapers get printed.

That's more than enough time for the editor to tell Ostrander "hey, you got the name of the city wrong!", or for Omar to scan the right image...

[depluto]

A newspaper such as the New York Times has some of the most skilled editors in the world, and yet mistakes get in there. So I guess they are incompetent.

Newspapers work on a different schedule than a comic book.

In the time it takes to produce one issue of a comic, over 100 newspapers get printed.

That's more than enough time for the editor to tell Ostrander "hey, you got the name of the city wrong!", or for Omar to scan the right image...

I can guarantee you the copy at the Times gets read and picked over more than anything that gets in a comic book.

Listen, I understand what you are saying. I just don't think you are in a position to call people incompetent. It's awfully judgemental, and some of those guys come around here and read this stuff.

Here's what I'm thinking: "Any new Valiant comics need to do a much better job with the editing." As opposed to "Valiant suffered from incompetent editors." There's no benefit to you making things personal.

Anyway, I think the biggest nail in the coffin was the decision to ditch the house art style. At that point the panel size went up, the story size went down and Valiant started to look like a bad Image comic.

[ManofTheAtom]

A newspaper such as the New York Times has some of the most skilled editors in the world, and yet mistakes get in there. So I guess they are incompetent.

Newspapers work on a different schedule than a comic book.

In the time it takes to produce one issue of a comic, over 100 newspapers get printed.

That's more than enough time for the editor to tell Ostrander "hey, you got the name of the city wrong!", or for Omar to scan the right image...

I can guarantee you the copy at the Times gets read and picked over more than anything that gets in a comic book.

Listen, I understand what you are saying. I just don't think you are in a position to call people incompetent. It's awfully judgemental, and some of those guys come around here and read this stuff.

Here's what I'm thinking: "Any new Valiant comics need to do a much better job with the editing." As opposed to "Valiant suffered from incompetent editors." There's no benefit to you making things personal.

Anyway, I think the biggest nail in the coffin was the decision to ditch the house art style. At that point the panel size went up, the story size went down and Valiant started to look like a bad Image comic.

I blame that on a survey they ran in the San Diego Comic Con in 94, where they asked people if they wanted VALIANT to look more like Image.

I just told them that I wanted computer coloring, it's not my fault they ditched the house style.

[depluto]

I blame that on a survey they ran in the San Diego Comic Con in 94, where they asked people if they wanted VALIANT to look more like Image.

Blech. That's just sad.

[Dr. Solar]

Hmmm...

I think the editting, or poor job of it, helped decline part of what made Valiant so great.

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

If a story is good, I'm not gonna care about how they spell a minor characters name, or if every now and then someone makes a mistake.

[ManofTheAtom]

Hmmm...

I think the editting, or poor job of it, helped decline part of what made Valiant so great.

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

If a story is good, I'm not gonna care about how they spell a minor characters name, or if every now and then someone makes a mistake.

So if they spelled it Klark Cent, it be okay... of if they spelled it Zuperman... or if Wolverine was wearing Batman's costume.

Quality control isn't as important as the story being "good"

Isn't that the kind of logic that Rob Liefeld uses to create rip offs of DC and Marvel characters?

"Hey, as long as the story is good, people won't care that this is a Superman rip off, or that this is a Captain America rip off"

[Cyberstrike]

Mistakes happened.

In the orginal version of Harbinger #2, Harada and Sting meet (supposely) for the first time, but yet in Habringer #0 shows that they already knew each other prior to the events of #2.



I guess Jim Shooter "fixed" the problem in Harbinger: The Beginning
hardcover by rewriting Harda's dialoge in #2 to say something to effect of
"You haven't forgotten me, Toyo Harada, already?"

[ManofTheAtom]

Mistakes happened.

In the orginal version of Harbinger #2, Harada and Sting meet (supposely) for the first time, but yet in Habringer #0 shows that they already knew each other prior to the events of #2.



I guess Jim Shooter "fixed" the problem in Harbinger: The Beginning
hardcover by rewriting Harda's dialoge in #2 to say something to effect of
"You haven't forgotten me, Toyo Harada, already?"

The 0 issue was written after the second, so the mistake was Lapham's... which could have been avoided had the editor told him "hey, David, how come your story, written after the second issue, ignores that Harada and Sting can't meet yet?"

The editor could have very well asked Lapham to rewrite the issue so that Sting and Harada never meet.

[IanAlexavier]

Anyway, I think the biggest nail in the coffin was the decision to ditch the house art style. At that point the panel size went up, the story size went down and Valiant started to look like a bad Image comic.

Completely agree with this as well.

So we need strong editors, maybe a bit stronger than what we had near the end of VH1.

We need good writers, to fill an entire book, which uses house style art. Smaller panels, which will give opportunity for more story. Not that I dont like a splash page every so often, and not that I want a 3x4 panel layout on every page. Yuck...

Im in!

[Dr. Solar]

Hmmm...

I think the editting, or poor job of it, helped decline part of what made Valiant so great.

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

If a story is good, I'm not gonna care about how they spell a minor characters name, or if every now and then someone makes a mistake.

So if they spelled it Klark Cent, it be okay... of if they spelled it Zuperman... or if Wolverine was wearing Batman's costume.

Quality control isn't as important as the story being "good"

Uhhh, hyperbole much? Your examples are out of proportion for what I am talking about. Neither of those things you mentioned are minor. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills.

Isn't that the kind of logic that Rob Liefeld uses to create rip offs of DC and Marvel characters?

"Hey, as long as the story is good, people won't care that this is a Superman rip off, or that this is a Captain America rip off"

Well, Rob Liefeld didn't make good stories though, so your example is inherently contradictory.

People that have ripped off other characters but done it well, like Warren Ellis, Robert Kirkman, etc, yes. I like it.

Here's a good example. Darwyn Cooke's New Frontier. It doesn't quite match up to current continuity, but it is a darn good story, so I don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I love continuity in comics, and I think it is really cool when it is done well like it was at Valiant. That is one of the reasons I liked Valiant so much.

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

When the writer can't keep the name of a place straight from issue to issue, that's a sign of poor quality writing, not poor attention to continuity.

When a colorist keeps coloring a character in the same issue wrong, that's a sign of poor quality coloring.

When an editor can't scan the right image twice, that's a sign of poor editing.

None of the examples of poor editing in this thread have resulted in better stories, they are examples of how the stories suffered because of bad writing and worse editing.

[Dr. Solar]

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

When the writer can't keep the name of a place straight from issue to issue, that's a sign of poor quality writing, not poor attention to continuity.

When a colorist keeps coloring a character in the same issue wrong, that's a sign of poor quality coloring.

When an editor can't scan the right image twice, that's a sign of poor editing.

None of the examples of poor editing in this thread have resulted in better stories, they are examples of how the stories suffered because of bad writing and worse editing.

OK, fine. This is getting pretty far removed from my original point.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

When the writer can't keep the name of a place straight from issue to issue, that's a sign of poor quality writing, not poor attention to continuity.

When a colorist keeps coloring a character in the same issue wrong, that's a sign of poor quality coloring.

When an editor can't scan the right image twice, that's a sign of poor editing.

None of the examples of poor editing in this thread have resulted in better stories, they are examples of how the stories suffered because of bad writing and worse editing.

OK, fine. This is getting pretty far removed from my original point.

Your original point was that as long as the story was good, it would not matter if Wolverine wore Peter Pan tights, Spider-Man was colored purple, or that the writer called the Baxter Building Trump Tower.

There is nothing minor about the name of the robot's city in Magnus. It's not a detail easily forgotten. All that it takes is for the writer or editor to read the comics and see it, instead of pull a new name out of the aether just because they're too lazy to look it up.

Had the story been about a DC or Marvel character, then Ostrander would not have had a problem looking it up, you can bet on it.

Case in point.

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

[Dr. Solar]

I fail to see the similarities of these two ideas:

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

Your original point was that as long as the story was good, it would not matter if Wolverine wore Peter Pan tights, Spider-Man was colored purple, or that the writer called the Baxter Building Trump Tower.

I demand that you retcon your statement in the face of definitive counter evidence.

[Dr. Solar]

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

Spend some time around women. They change their hair color all the time.

Also, you get bonus points when you notice, so bonus points for you!

[ManofTheAtom]

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

Spend some time around women. They change their hair color all the time.

Also, you get bonus points when you notice, so bonus points for you!

That's a lame excuse for incompetence.

So the brunette who became a blonde who became a brunette in Geomancer was just changing her hair color between pages?

[ManofTheAtom]

I fail to see the similarities of these two ideas:

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

Your original point was that as long as the story was good, it would not matter if Wolverine wore Peter Pan tights, Spider-Man was colored purple, or that the writer called the Baxter Building Trump Tower.

I demand that you retcon your statement in the face of definitive counter evidence.

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

Where is the quality writing in these mistakes?

First they tell us that Gilad is Arthur, then they tell us that Gilad is going to MEET Arthur... how is that a good story?

Where is the quality in coloring the characters wrong, or in getting names wrong?

[depluto]

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

Spend some time around women. They change their hair color all the time.

Also, you get bonus points when you notice, so bonus points for you!

That's a lame excuse for incompetence.

So the brunette who became a blonde who became a brunette in Geomancer was just changing her hair color between pages?

Sounds like the real problem here is that the carpet doesn't match the drapes.

[depluto]

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

When the writer can't keep the name of a place straight from issue to issue, that's a sign of poor quality writing, not poor attention to continuity.

When a colorist keeps coloring a character in the same issue wrong, that's a sign of poor quality coloring.

When an editor can't scan the right image twice, that's a sign of poor editing.

None of the examples of poor editing in this thread have resulted in better stories, they are examples of how the stories suffered because of bad writing and worse editing.

I agree with this although I still think you are behaving like a boob when you label people as incompetent.

[Dr. Solar]

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

Spend some time around women. They change their hair color all the time.

Also, you get bonus points when you notice, so bonus points for you!

That's a lame excuse for incompetence.

So the brunette who became a blonde who became a brunette in Geomancer was just changing her hair color between pages?

Ever heard of mood swings

Ever heard of a joke

[ManofTheAtom]

Eternal Warrior #36... Jillian's hair is colored blonde, when she's always been a redhead!!

Spend some time around women. They change their hair color all the time.

Also, you get bonus points when you notice, so bonus points for you!

That's a lame excuse for incompetence.

So the brunette who became a blonde who became a brunette in Geomancer was just changing her hair color between pages?

Ever heard of mood swings

Ever heard of a joke

I got the joke, but it's still a poor excuse that I've heard many times before.

[Dr. Solar]

I fail to see the similarities of these two ideas:

I think that the writing in general declined in quality, and that was more of the problem. I think the early Valiant books had a good handle on what each series was about. Magnus was about his struggle with a society he didn't agree with, Rai was about his internal struggle between his desires and his duty, Solar was about the struggle of a man trying to be a god, and vice versa, XO was about the struggle of a barbarian to fit in in the modern world, Harbinger was about, well, all the struggles teenagers have, etc.

I think the writers lost a sense of that over time, and instead concentrated on the action and adventure aspects of their stories.

Your original point was that as long as the story was good, it would not matter if Wolverine wore Peter Pan tights, Spider-Man was colored purple, or that the writer called the Baxter Building Trump Tower.

I demand that you retcon your statement in the face of definitive counter evidence.

I think that quality writing is more important than tight contiuity to the overall qualiy of the product though.

Where is the quality writing in these mistakes?

First they tell us that Gilad is Arthur, then they tell us that Gilad is going to MEET Arthur... how is that a good story?

Where is the quality in coloring the characters wrong, or in getting names wrong?

Uhh, I never claimed those were examples of quality writing.

What are you talking about?

You are arguing with me against a point I never made, and it is confusing.

[ManofTheAtom]

If a story is good, I'm not gonna care about how they spell a minor characters name, or if every now and then someone makes a mistake.

There is nothing minor about Synchron, it was as important to Magnus as something like Arkham is to Batman.

None of the mistakes mentioned so far were minor in any way, they contradicted stuff that had been established long before the writers who came along made the mistakes.

Like say Neville Sinclair in Ostrander's Eternal Warrior.

The guy was so lazy and incompetent, that he combined two individual characters into a single one, and the editor was doubly incompetent as, instead of telling Ostrander that he made a mistake and fix the script he had the penciller draw a character that never existed before.

That's fan service to the writer. That's an editor's inability to tell the writer that he is wrong (which is something that has been plaguing the industry for years. The more popular a writer is, the more the editor feels that he should not correct him when he makes a mistake)

Mistakes happen by accident, but letting them be published happens on purpose.

Given how long it takes to make a comic, you'd think that the professionals would be able to notice that the script had a nonexistant character BEFORE the penciller draws the pages, or that the colorist colored the wrong hair color, or that Gilad was Arthur before they approve a story where Gilad meets Arthur.

If editors were not afraid to tell popular writers "you are wrong", then these mistakes would be far less than they are.

[Dr. Solar]

If a story is good, I'm not gonna care about how they spell a minor characters name, or if every now and then someone makes a mistake.

There is nothing minor about Synchron, it was as important to Magnus as something like Arkham is to Batman.

None of the mistakes mentioned so far were minor in any way, they contradicted stuff that had been established long before the writers who came along made the mistakes.

Like say Neville Sinclair in Ostrander's Eternal Warrior.

The guy was so lazy and incompetent, that he combined two individual characters into a single one, and the editor was doubly incompetent as, instead of telling Ostrander that he made a mistake and fix the script he had the penciller draw a character that never existed before.

That's fan service to the writer. That's an editor's inability to tell the writer that he is wrong (which is something that has been plaguing the industry for years. The more popular a writer is, the more the editor feels that he should not correct him when he makes a mistake)

Mistakes happen by accident, but letting them be published happens on purpose.

Given how long it takes to make a comic, you'd think that the professionals would be able to notice that the script had a nonexistant character BEFORE the penciller draws the pages, or that the colorist colored the wrong hair color, or that Gilad was Arthur before they approve a story where Gilad meets Arthur.

If editors were not afraid to tell popular writers "you are wrong", then these mistakes would be far less than they are.

Yeah, so?

[ManofTheAtom]

Yeah, so?