Virgin Comics

[ian_house]

Devi has proved pretty interesting. Its a pretty original concept, blending Eastern myths with American style comics. The art is beautiful as well.

[Chiclo]

I think Virgin's Indian line of comics in particular were good ideas and would have done better if they weren't so reliant on sales from comic book stores in the direct market.

...and they weren't by default so reliant on the average comic book buyer.

So, in a different format if you called them something other than comics, they might have done well.

I would definitely have given one or two of those titles a shot, just not at cover price.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think Virgin's Indian line of comics in particular were good ideas and would have done better if they weren't so reliant on sales from comic book stores in the direct market.

...and they weren't by default so reliant on the average comic book buyer.

So, in a different format if you called them something other than comics, they might have done well.

I would definitely have given one or two of those titles a shot, just not at cover price.

What was the cover price? $3.50?

[Chiclo]

I think Virgin's Indian line of comics in particular were good ideas and would have done better if they weren't so reliant on sales from comic book stores in the direct market.

...and they weren't by default so reliant on the average comic book buyer.

So, in a different format if you called them something other than comics, they might have done well.

I would definitely have given one or two of those titles a shot, just not at cover price.

What was the cover price? $3.50?

Something like that.

I only read one Virgin comic, Shadow Hunter. It was not in their Indian imprint and most people would recognize it as "the Jenna Jameson comic".

It's not that Virgin didn't have enough money to throw at this, I think they just misread their target audience.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think Virgin's Indian line of comics in particular were good ideas and would have done better if they weren't so reliant on sales from comic book stores in the direct market.

...and they weren't by default so reliant on the average comic book buyer.

So, in a different format if you called them something other than comics, they might have done well.

I would definitely have given one or two of those titles a shot, just not at cover price.

What was the cover price? $3.50?

Something like that.

I only read one Virgin comic, Shadow Hunter. It was not in their Indian imprint and most people would recognize it as "the Jenna Jameson comic".

It's not that Virgin didn't have enough money to throw at this, I think they just misread their target audience.

Another publisher with comics that had a $3.50 cover price

Edit

Actually, $2.99 according to Mile High

[siren3-4]

Virgin also had the series 7 Brothers by John Woo & Garth Ennis . .

Wasn't too bad either . . .

[Zaphod]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

[siren3-4]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Jim Carrey was "Once Bitten" and he became a vampire . . .

[ManofTheAtom]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Not really since the people making the comics today had nothing to do with the people who "bit him" over a decade ago.

Retailers can't really blame the characters, now can they?

[Zaphod]

And it is good for the new owners to make themselves visible at Cons and available to fans, retailers, etc...but just because they like what the owners are saying, like the owners and so on isn't going to mean spit when it comes to the bottom line of moving units.

Valiant is going to have to endure some lean months and start to slowly build its base. This isn't the 90's where they were putting out 20,000 units and it was considered a low print run. Valiant had an incredible launch but they were also incredibly fortunate to launch when they did. They didn't create the comics boom, but they rode it out nicely.

I don't know anything about the business but it would be rare for them to capture lightning in a bottle twice and expect to repeat Valiants first wave.

[ManofTheAtom]

And it is good for the new owners to make themselves visible at Cons and available to fans, retailers, etc...but just because they like what the owners are saying, like the owners and so on isn't going to mean spit when it comes to the bottom line of moving units.

Valiant is going to have to endure some lean months and start to slowly build its base. This isn't the 90's where they were putting out 20,000 units and it was considered a low print run. Valiant had an incredible launch but they were also incredibly fortunate to launch when they did. They didn't create the comics boom, but they rode it out nicely.

I don't know anything about the business but it would be rare for them to capture lightning in a bottle twice and expect to repeat Valiants first wave.

It's a good thing that there is no comic boom right now. That way the concepts have a better chance of establishing themselves based on their own merit instead of as fodder for speculators.

[Zaphod]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Not really since the people making the comics today had nothing to do with the people who "bit him" over a decade ago.

Retailers can't really blame the characters, now can they?

yes, they can. Don't ask me though, go out and ask retailers. My opinion is incredibly uneducated on the current market and I am not going to enter into an argument with you over it.

You are expecting rational responses but when it comes right down to it if you've ever been bit by a dog, it takes awhile before you are ever truly willing to not hesitate when it comes to unknown dogs.

Or even known dogs.

[ManofTheAtom]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Not really since the people making the comics today had nothing to do with the people who "bit him" over a decade ago.

Retailers can't really blame the characters, now can they?

yes, they can. Don't ask me though, go out and ask retailers. My opinion is incredibly uneducated on the current market and I am not going to enter into an argument with you over it.

You are expecting rational responses but when it comes right down to it if you've ever been bit by a dog, it takes awhile before you are ever truly willing to not hesitate when it comes to unknown dogs.

Or even known dogs.

Voyager = Dogs

VEI = Cats.

Apples, oranges.

They are not the same people.

[Zaphod]

And it is good for the new owners to make themselves visible at Cons and available to fans, retailers, etc...but just because they like what the owners are saying, like the owners and so on isn't going to mean spit when it comes to the bottom line of moving units.

Valiant is going to have to endure some lean months and start to slowly build its base. This isn't the 90's where they were putting out 20,000 units and it was considered a low print run. Valiant had an incredible launch but they were also incredibly fortunate to launch when they did. They didn't create the comics boom, but they rode it out nicely.

I don't know anything about the business but it would be rare for them to capture lightning in a bottle twice and expect to repeat Valiants first wave.

It's a good thing that there is no comic boom right now. That way the concepts have a better chance of establishing themselves based on their own merit instead of as fodder for speculators.

except it is impossible to truly know if Valiant survive and prospered on its own merit or thanks to the speculator boom.

Lets face it, stories of the debt they accumulated may be inaccurate but the fact that 2-3 years after they began to produce books they were able to sell 100,000+ units helped them get on the plus side.

That is much less likely to occur this time around.

[Chiclo]

You know what would really help establish Valiant in the new market?

A nice cross-over with DC or Marvel. Harbinger meets the Teen Titans, Wolverine vs. the Eternal Warrior...

Archer and Armstrong meet the X-Men!

[ManofTheAtom]

And it is good for the new owners to make themselves visible at Cons and available to fans, retailers, etc...but just because they like what the owners are saying, like the owners and so on isn't going to mean spit when it comes to the bottom line of moving units.

Valiant is going to have to endure some lean months and start to slowly build its base. This isn't the 90's where they were putting out 20,000 units and it was considered a low print run. Valiant had an incredible launch but they were also incredibly fortunate to launch when they did. They didn't create the comics boom, but they rode it out nicely.

I don't know anything about the business but it would be rare for them to capture lightning in a bottle twice and expect to repeat Valiants first wave.

It's a good thing that there is no comic boom right now. That way the concepts have a better chance of establishing themselves based on their own merit instead of as fodder for speculators.

except it is impossible to truly know if Valiant survive and prospered on its own merit or thanks to the speculator boom.

Lets face it, stories of the debt they accumulated may be inaccurate but the fact that 2-3 years after they began to produce books they were able to sell 100,000+ units helped them get on the plus side.

That is much less likely to occur this time around.

VALIANT survived because Wizard hyped the hell out of them as a good investment.

That's not likely to happen now. Instead of looking at what happened Post Wizard, we should see at what happened Pre Wizard.

From what I remember reading, the story goes that VALIANT was barely noticed by publications like Wizard but readers where talking about them, THEN Wizard noticed and made a big deal about them.

Assuming the worst case scenario, let's say that no publication today will give VEI the same kind of exposure that Wizard gave Voyager over 10 years ago.

Unlike Voyager without Wizard, however, VEI has us, so we can help spread the word.

I thought Shooter said that they were pulling in 2 million dollars a month (imagine doing that today. VEI would get their investment back in one month, heh) when they kicked him out, and that the reason they sold to Acclaim was, not because of debt, but because Triumph, the company that financed them, wanted their investment back asap.

[ManofTheAtom]

You know what would really help establish Valiant in the new market?

A nice cross-over with DC or Marvel. Harbinger meets the Teen Titans, Wolverine vs. the Eternal Warrior...

Archer and Armstrong meet the X-Men!

Dude, Fabian Nicieza stole Chiclo's id.

[Zaphod]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Not really since the people making the comics today had nothing to do with the people who "bit him" over a decade ago.

Retailers can't really blame the characters, now can they?

yes, they can. Don't ask me though, go out and ask retailers. My opinion is incredibly uneducated on the current market and I am not going to enter into an argument with you over it.

You are expecting rational responses but when it comes right down to it if you've ever been bit by a dog, it takes awhile before you are ever truly willing to not hesitate when it comes to unknown dogs.

Or even known dogs.

Voyager = Dogs

VEI = Cats.

Apples, oranges.

They are not the same people.

Final point on the matter: It has been pointed out previously that you, I and most of the people on this site realize this. The general public most likely won't.

Do yourself a favor. NEVER get into advertising or any field where you have to work with the general public sector. I have this horrible vision of you screaming at snivelling 12 year olds about how they don't understand what they are talking about and that all they are wanting from VEI is DC-lite.

If you cannot comprehend the term devils advocate it is really difficult to hold a conversation with you.

[Chiclo]

You know what would really help establish Valiant in the new market?

A nice cross-over with DC or Marvel. Harbinger meets the Teen Titans, Wolverine vs. the Eternal Warrior...

Archer and Armstrong meet the X-Men!

Dude, Fabian Nicieza stole Chiclo's id.

Curses! Foiled again by that wiley ManofTheAtom! And his little dog too!



Seriously, though, a cross-over would be a good way to get attention to yet another upstart independant. I can't resist buying X-Men one-offs, even those horrible crossovers like the one from a year ago with... Cyberforce? Some crappy Image team.

It would be a good way to get noticed by devotees of the big two.

[ManofTheAtom]

You know what would really help establish Valiant in the new market?

A nice cross-over with DC or Marvel. Harbinger meets the Teen Titans, Wolverine vs. the Eternal Warrior...

Archer and Armstrong meet the X-Men!

Dude, Fabian Nicieza stole Chiclo's id.

Curses! Foiled again by that wiley ManofTheAtom! And his little dog too!



Seriously, though, a cross-over would be a good way to get attention to yet another upstart independant. I can't resist buying X-Men one-offs, even those horrible crossovers like the one from a year ago with... Cyberforce? Some crappy Image team.

It would be a good way to get noticed by devotees of the big two.

It be a perfect way to publish anything but a VALIANT comic, that's for sure.

I do wonder, did VEI buy DC, Marvel, Image, or VALIANT? I was pretty sure that they bought VALIANT, so it would stand to reason that they'd want to make VALIANT comics.

[ManofTheAtom]

But see, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The people that own the VALIANT characters today (VALIANT Entertainment Inc) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Voyager Comunications Inc and later Acclaim Entertainment Inc), just like the people that own the Marvel characters today (Isaac Perlmutter and Avi Arad - though I'm not completely sure that they are still the owners -) are not the same people that owned them in the 90's (Ronald Perelman).

These companies are managed differently than they were in the 90's, though in the case of VALIANT we're talking about a completely different company completely.

None of the people that were involved with the gimmicks of the 90's work at this company today.

Doesn't matter to a store owner who potentially lost thousands of dollars (and in most instances much more)

the old adage is "once bitten, twice shy" applies here.

Not really since the people making the comics today had nothing to do with the people who "bit him" over a decade ago.

Retailers can't really blame the characters, now can they?

yes, they can. Don't ask me though, go out and ask retailers. My opinion is incredibly uneducated on the current market and I am not going to enter into an argument with you over it.

You are expecting rational responses but when it comes right down to it if you've ever been bit by a dog, it takes awhile before you are ever truly willing to not hesitate when it comes to unknown dogs.

Or even known dogs.

Voyager = Dogs

VEI = Cats.

Apples, oranges.

They are not the same people.

Final point on the matter: It has been pointed out previously that you, I and most of the people on this site realize this. The general public most likely won't.

Do yourself a favor. NEVER get into advertising or any field where you have to work with the general public sector. I have this horrible vision of you screaming at snivelling 12 year olds about how they don't understand what they are talking about and that all they are wanting from VEI is DC-lite.

If you cannot comprehend the term devils advocate it is really difficult to hold a conversation with you.

And it's been pointed out that retailers get to interact with the new owners of the VU at conventions and seminars, and whatnot, which gives the Kothari group the opportunity to make it crystal clear that they are NOT in fact Voyager Communications or Acclaim Entertainment.

[Chiclo]

And if they wanted to keep making Valiant comics, they have to sell Valiant comics which would involve putting them in the hands of people that wouldn't otherwise get them.

Like fans of Marvel and DC comics!

[ManofTheAtom]

And if they wanted to keep making Valiant comics, they have to sell Valiant comics which would involve putting them in the hands of people that wouldn't otherwise get them.

Like fans of Marvel and DC comics!

It is Fabian! Spewing the same *SQUEE* you were 10 years ago, huh?

[ManofTheAtom]

Let's see

Over 10 years ago we had Birthquake, which was VALIANT's attempt to get people to read their comics by having popular names like Jurgens, Giffen, and the like in their credit boxes under the logic that those guys were popular so readers would buy whatever they wrote for them

That failed.

Then came VH 2, which used the dual can't-miss-idea of having not only uber-popular names in the credit box but ALSO replace the original characters with imitations of uber-popular concepts from DC and Marvel.

This failed too.

Now, Chiclo/Fabian wants VEI to repeat the same mistakes as before by having them hook their wagon to DC and Marvel in the hope that their popular characters and/or names in the credit box will help them.

You're proposing an idea that failed twice before.

Do you want VEI to succeed or go for the trifecta?

[Zaphod]

And if they wanted to keep making Valiant comics, they have to sell Valiant comics which would involve putting them in the hands of people that wouldn't otherwise get them.

Like fans of Marvel and DC comics!

dude, I either love you or hate you right now. The fact that I am not sure, should concern me.

MOTA: It has nothing to do with retailers knowing it is a new ownership group. It has to do with the fans and their reaction to a Valiant return. If the fans buy it, more retailers will stock it. Most will be be hesitant to stock Valiant because the word left a bad taste in alot of peoples mouth.

(this is going to show up in the quote thread, I know it)

now stop preaching to the converted and go out there and ask retailers.