What Really Killed VALIANT: Editorial Incompetence

myron · Post by **myron** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:48 pm

yardstick wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote: And what about the Batman "boners", risqué covers, etc.? OT, but it is the historical precedence. Were the double entendres intentional or have they become less innocent over time?
"Boner" didn't mean "erect penis" until at least the 1950's...and while that coincides with the books in question, I HIGHLY doubt that the comics artists of the early 50's were that hip to the lingo to have adopted the word so quickly.

It meant "mistake", and I'm certain that's what they meant.

That damn Rifleman cover still makes me think they HAD to know at least some of the time.
That I can't explain away....
I expect there are more than a few of us who do not know about the rifleman to which you are referring... care to enlighten us?

do you really want to see it???

myron · Post by **myron** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:50 pm

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:52 pm

myron wrote:

Now THAT...is CREEPY

X-O HoboJoe · Post by **X-O HoboJoe** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:53 pm

myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

myron · Post by **myron** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:54 pm

X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:55 pm

X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

WHY, oh WHY...

Dr. Solar · Post by **Dr. Solar** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:56 pm

X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:58 pm

Dr. Solar wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

I hadn't noticed that. OH GOD NOOOOOOOOOO!(some editor/whoever had a sick sense of humor)

ian_house · Post by **ian_house** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:44 pm

Oh man that is soooo wrong!

The look, the log, THE PANTS... nightmares for days

Leatus IV · Post by **Leatus IV** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:31 pm

I loved that show as a child....That is the funniest thing I have ever seen.I want you to know that it's now my girlfriends wallpaper.lol

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:46 pm

Dr. Solar wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

That's not a stain....

It's just the shadow of the wood...

robb77 · Post by **robb77** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:56 pm

.....

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:18 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Dr. Solar wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

That's not a stain.... It's just the shadow of the wood...

The sad thing is, which wood?

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:12 pm

myron wrote:

To be fair, I REALLY don't think there was anything salacious about that cover...."wood" wasn't really a widely used euphemism for "erection" until the 70's....

So...

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:17 pm

xodacia81 wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Dr. Solar wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

That's not a stain.... It's just the shadow of the wood...
The sad thing is, which wood?

Yeah, um....uh....yeah, see, that's....you know...the joke.....soooo....

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:19 pm

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
xodacia81 wrote:
ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
Dr. Solar wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
myron wrote:

Not sure what's worse: Yardstick asking that or Myron asking "do you really want to see it???"

I think the dark stain-like area around the crotch is the worst part.

That's not a stain.... It's just the shadow of the wood...
The sad thing is, which wood?
Yeah, um....uh....yeah, see, that's....you know...the joke.....soooo....

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:13 am

Where is the Rifleman's omnipresent 92 Winchester?

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:27 am

Chiclo wrote:Where is the Rifleman's omnipresent 92 Winchester?

THAT'S why the kid looks like that. HE took the Winchester and hid it but now The Rifelman knows it and he's giving the kid an "ok, jig is up" look. I want to believe this. I really REALLY do.

yardstick · Post by **yardstick** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:34 pm

x-omatic wrote:
yardstick wrote:
x-omatic wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:
x-omatic wrote:Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".
They must have been working with blinders on to not have noticed a character who changed color three times in the same issue, or that the writer used the wrong name of a place more than once, or that the same writer invented a new character that never existed before by combining two characters.
Mistakes happen. People are not perfect. They could have been lazy and not cared enough to check every page. They could have trusted the colorist to color the same character the same way on each page.

To say someone let a mistake happen "on purpose" is being very judgemental.

Just out of curiosity, have you any proof that the errors under discussion were not, in fact on purpose?

Or are we talking here about the difference between incompetence and negligence? Negligence could be construed as "on purpose" couldn't it? Similarly, incompetence could be construed as "making a mistake"?

Since when has judging something on its merits been a bad thing? I could see judging someone/something hypocritally as being a problem, but I doubt seriously that MOTA has produced a product which fell under the auspices of "incompetence" or "negligence".

Perhaps x-omatic could produce evidence of MOTA's incompetence/negligence in the manufacture of a comic book or some other product?

MOTA appears to have produced at least circumstantial evidence to suggest negligence (and thus, "on purpose") on the part of the editor, yet x-o wishes it to appear that such evidence in fact suggests incompetence ("by mistake") instead. Does this sound accurate?

Seems to me that, in either case, such actions are worthy of being judged unacceptable.
Saying someone did something "on purpose" suggests intent. There is no eveidence anywhere that person "x" said "yeah I saw the mistake but choose to ignore it".

Then it seems you fall on the "incompetence" side of the fence...