Valiant F.A.Q. - this is great

[depluto]

Depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, it was just a really well-done story, a great read that captured the attention of a lot of people who hadn't been reading comics.

On the other hand, this was one of the big books that brought speculators rushing in to the market. And we all know how that ended. So maybe it has signifigance as a symbol of that poor period.

[DawgPhan]

Depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, it was just a really well-done story, a great read that captured the attention of a lot of people who hadn't been reading comics.

On the other hand, this was one of the big books that brought speculators rushing in to the market. And we all know how that ended. So maybe it has signifigance as a symbol of that poor period.

exactly...good or bad it defined the 90's comic book market to a lot of people...

[greg]

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.

Magnus wasn't "new". It was really "Volume 2 #1".
The 47th overall Magnus book.

[DawgPhan]

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.

Magnus wasn't "new". It was really "Volume 2 #1".
The 47th overall Magnus book.

Was it or was it not the first valiant superhero comic? The first VH1 book. That is what makes it important...being first.

[greg]

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.

Magnus wasn't "new". It was really "Volume 2 #1".
The 47th overall Magnus book.

Was it or was it not the first valiant superhero comic? The first VH1 book. That is what makes it important...being first.

Yes, it was the first Valiant superhero comic...
and Harbinger #1 was the first original Valiant superhero comic.

If it was a musician, it's like doing cover songs on the first album,
and original material on the second album.
It's not crazy to think the second album is "more important".

There is a reason that Harbinger #1 is important,
and it's not just the print run, and it's not just the low-quality paper,
and it's not just the coupon.

Hell Bloodshot 1 is probably more important than harbinger 1.

[Daniel Jackson]

I think Dawg is really a closet Harby fan, but doesn't want to admit it.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

Because it wasn't the theme (death of a major character) that was important....it was WHO it was, and WHAT it caused in the general public.

Superman #75 is not important because of the story, or the art. Superman #75 is important because of the IMPACT it had on the population in general, and the comics world in particular.

Superman was first. He was the very first superhero. That they were going to kill him off (regardless of whether or not that actually happened and STAYED happened) was the issue. It made news. It brought droves and droves of people into comic stores who didn't even know comics were still being PUBLISHED.

That issue sparked the absolute zenith of the BUSINESS side of the comics biz, and sparked a Golden Age....of retail sales. That his return sparked the swift DOWNFALL of that Golden Age is also irrelevant. Superman #75 sent waves farrr beyond the comics world....when CNN and Time do stories on the Death of Superman, you've made an impact.

Superman #75 brought in millions and millions of dollars to the comics industry in collateral interest far greater than any comic had before or since.

Harbinger #1? Good stuff. My many-times-mentioned favorite Valiant series....but most important book of the 90's? Is he kidding??

Harb #1 was the most valuable pre-Unity book for one reason, and one reason only: it was the lowest printed AND many were "ruined" by coupon clipping, and that was hyped to the gills.

That's it. As far as "firsts" go, it was only the first original Valiant title. That's it.

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.

Because it magnified a boom in the comics industry umatched before or since. Because it brought people back into comics who didn't even think they were still being published. Because it made the general public AWARE of comic books again.

You have to step OUTSIDE the insular industry to recognize all of that.

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?

Define the word "overhyped".

What does that mean, specifically, to you?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Why is Magnus 1 more important than Solar 1?

Because it was first.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

When you cut out everyone's "take" and bias, and just consider the facts, based on accepted and OBJECTIVE criteria (critical acclaim, sales, RE-sales, aftermarket value, longevity, marketability, mainstream exposure, etc.) then everyone can come to a relatively clear consensus about what is, and is not, more important than everything else.

I LOVED Harbinger...it was, hands down, my favorite Valiant book.

But that doesn't mean I'll be silly and let my PERSONAL taste for Harby determine that it must therefore be the most important book of an ENTIRE DECADE!

It's not even the most important VALIANT book, for God's sake!

Are the Beatles a more important group than, say, N'Sync?

Of course, and only the most blinding idiot....or a 13 year old girl....would challenge something like that.

But are the Beatles more important than Elvis?

The argument could be REASONABLY made, using OBJECTIVE criteria, for either, but it would be CLOSE.

That's the point.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

And if we're giving 1930's and 40's DC all the credit for "innovation"...we're also fooling ourselves.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

I agree, in general, but....

http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=592

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

I think you're SERIOUSLY selling that book short. Without Superman #75, there would have been no "ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #500!!!" (yes, let's try not to debate the technicalities, you all know what I'm referring to)....and without ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN #500!!!, there quite possibly would have been NO comics crash.of 94-96.

Yes, that's speculative, but I believe the case is a very strong one.

Without the death and subsequent sellout (and poorly written) RETURN of Superman, instead of doing a mighty spike, up and down, the comics industry may have continued on a level course.

Adventures #500 is as responsible as post-Unity Valiant and Wiztard for driving customers out of the industry. They were told that these comics would be "worth money." Are they fools for thinking so?

Yes.

But who bears the ultimate responsibility for the collapse? The industry itself, for fooling itself and not making wise business decisions.

So...Superman #75 has no bearing on where we are today....? Oh, I think not.

As further proof of Superman #75's impact on the industry...it's one of the very, VERY few Marvel, DC, Image, or Valiant books to come out between the summer of 1992 and the spring of 1994 that still commands a premium (ie, more than cover price) as a back issue...and it's the second most printed comic in the modern era!

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...

Not the point. At the time, no one knew FOR SURE that that was the case. Oh, sure, the cynics and jaded (me!) knew he'd be back....DC wasn't about to kill off one of their 50+ years Bread and Butter characters for REAL....but people....ESPECIALLY those who didn't know comics were still being published...certainly didn't know that.

No, it's not important for what it IS, but rather what it CAUSED.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, it was just a really well-done story, a great read that captured the attention of a lot of people who hadn't been reading comics.

On the other hand, this was one of the big books that brought speculators rushing in to the market. And we all know how that ended. So maybe it has signifigance as a symbol of that poor period.

exactly...good or bad it defined the 90's comic book market to a lot of people...

Moreso than ANY other book.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

Magnus wasn't "new". It was really "Volume 2 #1".
The 47th overall Magnus book.

Details, details....

It was the first Valiant superhero book...what Valiant would be known for.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

Magnus wasn't "new". It was really "Volume 2 #1".
The 47th overall Magnus book.

Was it or was it not the first valiant superhero comic? The first VH1 book. That is what makes it important...being first.

Yes, it was the first Valiant superhero comic...
and Harbinger #1 was the first original Valiant superhero comic.

If it was a musician, it's like doing cover songs on the first album,
and original material on the second album.
It's not crazy to think the second album is "more important".

Nahhh...not really. That analogy doesn't work. Cover songs are the same words, set to the same music, with minor variations therein. The main "meat" of the original song is still intact, usually completely.

Magnus #1 isn't a cover of Gold Key Magnus #1....if it were, it would just be the same story, perhaps re-drawn, perhaps edited....but it's certainly not a cover..it's an entirely new story.

There is a reason that Harbinger #1 is important,
and it's not just the print run, and it's not just the low-quality paper,
and it's not just the coupon.

It was the very first completely original Valiant title. BUT....that was really it....

[depluto]

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.

I agree, in general, but....

http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=592

That was an awful read. Bleh. Almost Ann Coulter-like in its bitterness.

I've always read Marvel, though, so of course I'm biased the other way.

And if you read the old FFs and Spideys the male chauvinism is pretty jarring, and the stories are pretty silly.

But the characters have persevered and are pretty easily translated into new stories for today's audience.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

I agree, in general, but....

http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=592

That was an awful read. Bleh. Almost Ann Coulter-like in its bitterness.

I've always read Marvel, though, so of course I'm biased the other way.

And if you read the old FFs and Spideys the male chauvinism is pretty jarring, and the stories are pretty silly.

But the characters have persevered and are pretty easily translated into new stories for today's audience.

Hehehehehe....

Conceptually, they were pretty decent.

Execution, however, left much to be desired.

Taken in the context they were published in, they were the best there was at the time.

BUT....I can understand why generations of Americans have scorned comics as suitable only for little kids.....when silly, implausible, juvenile stories were the very BEST the art form had to offer....

Where were the Hemingways, the Steinbecks, the Angelous, the Speilbergs, the Scorceses of comics?

Certainly not writing comics.

What a shame.

Keep in mind...Watchmen, as great as it is, considered by most to be *THE* pinnacle in graphic storytelling....

Absolutely cannot hold a CANDLE to a Kurasawa, or a Picasso, or even a *SQUEE*....THAT'S the real shame.

(I seem to have given birth to about 1,000 baby spiders as I type this...odd)

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

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.

I agree, in general, but....

http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=592

That was an awful read. Bleh. Almost Ann Coulter-like in its bitterness.

I've always read Marvel, though, so of course I'm biased the other way.

And if you read the old FFs and Spideys the male chauvinism is pretty jarring, and the stories are pretty silly.

But the characters have persevered and are pretty easily translated into new stories for today's audience.

Hehehehehe....

Conceptually, they were pretty decent.

Execution, however, left much to be desired.

Taken in the context they were published in, they were the best there was at the time.

BUT....I can understand why generations of Americans have scorned comics as suitable only for little kids.....when silly, implausible, juvenile stories were the very BEST the art form had to offer....

Where were the Hemingways, the Steinbecks, the Angelous, the Speilbergs, the Scorceses of comics?

Certainly not writing comics.

What a shame.

Keep in mind...Watchmen, as great as it is, considered by most to be *THE* pinnacle in graphic storytelling....

Absolutely cannot hold a CANDLE to a Kurasawa, or a Picasso, or even a *SKREE*....THAT'S the real shame.

(I seem to have given birth to about 1,000 baby spiders as I type this...odd)

Alright, this is just silly. (Dickens) was censored???? COME ON.

THAT'S HIS DAMN NAME.

[depluto]

Conceptually, they were pretty decent.

Execution, however, left much to be desired.

Taken in the context they were published in, they were the best there was at the time.

BUT....I can understand why generations of Americans have scorned comics as suitable only for little kids.....when silly, implausible, juvenile stories were the very BEST the art form had to offer....

I agree. And even though I'm a huge Stan Lee and Marvel fan, when I read his old stuff I think "That guy would have been a hell of a sportswriter." But I don't see him being able to tone it down for a great novel.

I just read the first 80 Spideys (grabbed a stack of Essentials so they were all BW, though) and I enjoyed the stories. They're certainly nowhere near as good as today's best comics, but maybe it was the nostalgia that carried me through.

Then again, I also watched the 1978 Superman the day after I watched Superman Returns and I thought it sucked. Most things just don't age well, I suppose.

Keeping with the Superman thing, take a look at Action Comics 1. Supes broke about 12 laws in the first few pages, knocking down doors at night, threatening people, punching people, etc. Truth, justice and the American way, 1930's style.

Not really trying to make a point here, just rambling.

[Elveen]

Keeping with the Superman thing, take a look at Action Comics 1. Supes broke about 12 laws in the first few pages, knocking down doors at night, threatening people, punching people, etc. Truth, justice and the American way, 1930's style.

The American way, 1930's style, isn't that the 2006 american way...

hold on...

there is someone at my front door...

[greg]

Keep in mind...Watchmen, as great as it is, considered by most to be *THE* pinnacle in graphic storytelling....

Absolutely cannot hold a CANDLE to a Kurasawa, or a Picasso, or even a *SKREE*....THAT'S the real shame.

(I seem to have given birth to about 1,000 baby spiders as I type this...odd)

Alright, this is just silly. (Dickens) was censored???? COME ON.

THAT'S HIS DAMN NAME.

You didn't call him Dickens, you called him "a *SQUEE*".

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Keep in mind...Watchmen, as great as it is, considered by most to be *THE* pinnacle in graphic storytelling....

Absolutely cannot hold a CANDLE to a Kurasawa, or a Picasso, or even a *SKREE*....THAT'S the real shame.

(I seem to have given birth to about 1,000 baby spiders as I type this...odd)

Alright, this is just silly. (Dickens) was censored???? COME ON.

THAT'S HIS DAMN NAME.

You didn't call him Dickens, you called him "a *SKREE*".

Where's that "one eyebrow raised, lips pursed, general disapproving stare, like the kind your mother always gave you" smiley....?

[Impulse725]

Not the point. At the time, no one knew FOR SURE that that was the case. Oh, sure, the cynics and jaded (me!) knew he'd be back....DC wasn't about to kill off one of their 50+ years Bread and Butter characters for REAL....but people....ESPECIALLY those who didn't know comics were still being published...certainly didn't know that.

I think a general public raised on TV shows and the like where the status quo is always being restored for the next episode might have been aware, but lots of people were shocked when they first heard the news =D

No, it's not important for what it IS, but rather what it CAUSED.

Exactly