New Titles By Year's End

[xodacia81]

What you do is make sure that the writers you hire don't have a track record for a certain type of story and no plans. You also structure the contract in cycles and in such a way that both parties can leave without damaging the other. IE, writer is bored and leaves after 5 issues, but must give a warning OR editor decides the writer isn't working-or sales are way down-and releases the writer from the contract. Now, I understand this isn't common practice and that the idea is that NOBODY would ever agree to a contract where they could be fired at will but it's just not the case. Every person on both sides of the fence is running a business and a business has a right to protect itself. Cutting ties is a way of doing that. Reputations be dammed. It is not the job of a business to coddle what is hurting it. A "boss" is not there to be a friend. They need not be an enemy, but they must be IN CHARGE.

[Cyberstrike]

Simply put I'm with MotA on this one. Both Marvel and DC have went to hell in handbasket with the nonstop crossovers, bringing back 60 year old dead characters, and bring back outdated and stupid concepts from the Silver Age.

Waid, Busik, Johns, Bendis, Millar, Ellis, Morrison and etc have destroyed
these both Marvel and DC to satisify their own fanboy desires.

[ManofTheAtom]

What you do is make sure that the writers you hire don't have a track record for a certain type of story and no plans. You also structure the contract in cycles and in such a way that both parties can leave without damaging the other. IE, writer is bored and leaves after 5 issues, but must give a warning OR editor decides the writer isn't working-or sales are way down-and releases the writer from the contract. Now, I understand this isn't common practice and that the idea is that NOBODY would ever agree to a contract where they could be fired at will but it's just not the case. Every person on both sides of the fence is running a business and a business has a right to protect itself. Cutting ties is a way of doing that. Reputations be dammed. It is not the job of a business to coddle what is hurting it. A "boss" is not there to be a friend. They need not be an enemy, but they must be IN CHARGE.

That doesn't work.

You need someone who is in it for the long term, who sits down with the editor to discuss their long term plans BEFORE they sign a contract.

You can't change direction every five issues

"Oh, X didn't work, let's hire Y... oops, he didn't work either, let's hire W and have a new direction!"

That approach didn't work on VH 2 Shadowman, where they had three writers because they couldn't settle on a direction.

Hiring blindly also didn't work on VH 2 Magnus, whose writer, Peyer, couldn't figure out a direction for the character (by his own admission). This guy was hired because of his popularity of the time, not because he presented any kind of plan.

Of course, a third thing to avoid is another Mark Waid, who talked big and spoke about having plans for the first 70 or something issues of X-O Manowar but ended up quitting after the fifth issue, only to reveal years later that he did the job for the money, like a common *SQUEE*.

[ManofTheAtom]

Simply put I'm with MotA on this one. Both Marvel and DC have went to hell in handbasket with the nonstop crossovers, bringing back 60 year old dead characters, and bring back outdated and stupid concepts from the Silver Age.

Waid, Busik, Johns, Bendis, Millar, Ellis, Morrison and etc have destroyed
these both Marvel and DC to satisify their own fanboy desires.

The sad part is that those writers used to be great once, but then their nostalgia and old age got the better of them.

[leonmallett]

Also, and not in response to this quote, but a broader comment following earlier posts, perhaps people shouldn't get too enthusiastic that the same model of creative talent will be as last time - what would the capital investment be to re-create something like 'knob row' alongside existing talent? With comic book sales in the initial phases in 1991-2 being circa 35,000 to 90,000 or thereabouts, that is not necessarily a realistic expectation of sales in the current market. Thus income and profit margins are going to be tighter, and VEI will likely need to be leaner as a corporate entity than Voyager. Look at current sales numbers for books not published by the big two, what level do the bigger successes sell at? And those big successes, are they linked to big name creators or to companies that have found their feet through establishing a niche? For January 2008 Superpowers #0 sold at 113k with Alex Ross attached, as well as Jim Krueger, creators that have a fan-base through the Earth X series and Justice, as well as being a book that seemed to be hyped a lot, had multpile covers, and perhaps should be seen very much an exception. Buffy tVS is the next book outside of the big two publishers at 88k - a licensed property (not something we are aware that VEI will be publishing). Following that is Angel: After the Fall (at 44k another licensed book), Star Wars: Legacy (31k). So for non-licensed material without the Ross/Krueger marquee (which will be seen in future issues if the numbers can be sustained) Umbrella Academy Apocalypse Suite (at 29k and presumably with Gerard Way fans built into the audience to some extent) and the Boys at 28k. Between 2 and 15k sales we see a lot of publications outside of the big two. Some of these have some big names attached to work alongside new and emerging talent. I just encourage a semblence of reasonable expectation - to expect things to be as they were, and a brand-new knob row in the mode of the original, is to wish for something that worked in different conidtions in a differnet era, and how often does that work out? If the choice is quality or nostalgia, I favour quality.

So they should focus on hiring ultra-popular names instead of talented creators?

Sure... third time might be the charmed, right?

Just because that tactic failed twice before with Birthquake and VH 2, it doesn't mean it won't fail now.

Try re-reading my post. When you understand my point rather than inferring your own, we shall debate.

[jsbt]

The flaw in that Grant Morrison argument, "poor DC, they let mean old Morrison ruin Countdown" is that Countdown has pretty much sucked from the word go. He could only improve things. The promise of Morrison writing Final Crisis is all that made me hang in there.

I understand part of the argument of "not plumbing the Silver Age aesthetic," but IMO, what Shooter did with at least Magnus and Solar initially was deconstruct two Silver Age concepts in a way not dissimilar from what Morrison often does today. In fact I think much of "Second Death" is very much like Morrison.

And for the record, I thought both 52 and 1-2-3-4 were brilliant stories. Not for everyone, maybe, but I loved them. I love a lot of Morrison, Waid, etc.'s output at various companies these days. Doesn't mean I like Waid's V2, but that was an isolated incident. I didn't like Waid's recent Legion either, and much prefer Shooter's new version, but that doesn't mean I don't think Waid's very talented and has a lot to offer. You can like both schools of thought and comics, is what I'm saying - and it's not as though Valiant was a privileged cult where only a particular sort of person could flourish. It was a small, independent company built by a handful of preexisting industry faves and professionals who came from this same "establishment" being disdained. There's no reason more contemporary industry faves couldn't come forward, as long as, just as in the past, people remained united under a specific vision for the shared universe.

[Byrneout]

I thought that was Loeb?

No, it was Morrison in his 1234 mini series, and he helped bring the multiverse back in 52.

It's Loeb, too. I was making a very pointed reference to Ultimates 3.

[ManofTheAtom]

I thought that was Loeb?

No, it was Morrison in his 1234 mini series, and he helped bring the multiverse back in 52.

It's Loeb, too. I was making a very pointed reference to Ultimates 3.

Ah, the mutants, right.

Well, that mostly originated with Millar, but see, I don't see it as the same as Morrison's comments regarding the Storm.

The difference is that the Storms were already established characters BEFORE Morrison made his "discovery" of their incestous relationship, something that came out of nowhere and he pulled out of his butt.

With the mutants, however, these are two new versions of the characters on a blank canvas, which allowed Millar to develop such a relationship, which works for his versions but wouldn't work for the established originals.

[ManofTheAtom]

The flaw in that Grant Morrison argument, "poor DC, they let mean old Morrison ruin Countdown" is that Countdown has pretty much sucked from the word go. He could only improve things. The promise of Morrison writing Final Crisis is all that made me hang in there.

No one is saying that Morrison ruined Countdown. What is being said that he dismissed previous discussions with editors on what Final Crisis was going to be and went off in his own tangent, which forced the editors to work around them to fix what Morrison broke.

VEI really would not benefit from that.

What's the point of sitting down with a writer to discuss a direction when he's going to go off in his own tangent and force the editor to scramble for a fix?

What's the goal here, to produce high quality stories or pander to primma donnas?

[leonmallett]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

[ManofTheAtom]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

Established names are 90% of the time primma donnas because they know that they are being hired for their name to raise sales and can get away with whatever they want.

[leonmallett]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

Established names are 90% of the time primma donnas because they know that they are being hired for their name to raise sales and can get away with whatever they want.

Nice generalisation. You have met 100% of 'established names' to back this up?

Now, how about re-reading my longer post in this thread that you quoted properly, so we can debate?

[ManofTheAtom]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

Established names are 90% of the time primma donnas because they know that they are being hired for their name to raise sales and can get away with whatever they want.

Nice generalisation. You have met 100% of 'established names' to back this up?

Now, how about re-reading my longer post in this thread that you quoted properly, so we can debate?

I re-read it and I still don't agree with it.

Past experience dictates that focusing on established names because they have the power to sell does not bode well for the VALIANT Universe as those names are not interested in telling stories with the VALIANT characters, they want to use those characters to tell DC and Marvel stories.

Putting both options on the scale - established names vs Knob Row - you have to weigh which one was benefitial for the stories and which one was detrimental.

Do you want more Laphams, Chens, and Changs, or do you want more "Ninjak as Spider-Man", "Shadowman and Master Darque going to the bathroom together", and "Faith with giant *SQUEE*"?

[leonmallett]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

Established names are 90% of the time primma donnas because they know that they are being hired for their name to raise sales and can get away with whatever they want.

Nice generalisation. You have met 100% of 'established names' to back this up?

Now, how about re-reading my longer post in this thread that you quoted properly, so we can debate?

I re-read it and I still don't agree with it.

Past experience dictates that focusing on established names because they have the power to sell does not bode well for the VALIANT Universe as those names are not interested in telling stories with the VALIANT characters, they want to use those characters to tell DC and Marvel stories.

Putting both options on the scale - established names vs Knob Row - you have to weigh which one was benefitial for the stories and which one was detrimental.

Do you want more Laphams, Chens, and Changs, or do you want more "Ninjak as Spider-Man", "Shadowman and Master Darque going to the bathroom together", and "Faith with giant *SQUEE*"?

You re-read my post and don't understand it, rather than disagree with my point. The point I made is that to wish for VEI to replicate what Voyager achieved circa 1991-92 is unrealistic. The market and circumstances are very different, therefore the same conistions don't apply. I did not suggest for one minute that marquee talent is the way forward, but that a different approach to ensure quality to that seen in the Voyager days is likely required in ongoing publications.

You have inferred that to mean I am asking for establsihed names. Not at all. What I was trying to illustrate in the sales numbers was that a publisher outside of the big two is going to have vastly lower sales than Voyager/VALIANT enjoyed, even before the boom and later saturation. What this means is a leaner commercial operation without scores of trainee talent, and presumably a smaller seasoned talent pool to guide them. You seem to be thinking that magically knob row can be reborn. I would argue that the circumstances to allow that to happen could only have happened in the early 90's for a variety of reasons, and that in 2008 the same is unlikley - not impossible, but unlikely. But then I accept i may be wrong - only time will tell (well Walter will , or Dino), or it won't.

[leonmallett]

Who is suggesting bringing in 'primma donnas' [sic]?

Established names are 90% of the time primma donnas because they know that they are being hired for their name to raise sales and can get away with whatever they want.

Nice generalisation. You have met 100% of 'established names' to back this up?

Now, how about re-reading my longer post in this thread that you quoted properly, so we can debate?

I re-read it and I still don't agree with it.

Past experience dictates that focusing on established names because they have the power to sell does not bode well for the VALIANT Universe as those names are not interested in telling stories with the VALIANT characters, they want to use those characters to tell DC and Marvel stories.

Putting both options on the scale - established names vs Knob Row - you have to weigh which one was benefitial for the stories and which one was detrimental.

Do you want more Laphams, Chens, and Changs, or do you want more "Ninjak as Spider-Man", "Shadowman and Master Darque going to the bathroom together", and "Faith with giant *SQUEE*"?

Now about your generalisation about established names = prima donnas; can you support that please?

[ManofTheAtom]

Now about your generalisation about established names = prima donnas; can you support that please?

I don't have to, you're the one that has to disprove it.

You're the one that is campaining to have established names work at VEI under the belief that they are necessary, while xo is of the notion that, with proper editorial guidance, they'll avoid making the same mistakes as before that led to Ninjak becoming Spider-Man, Faith getting a boob job, and a certain four-legged animal.

Prove it.

What evidence do you have that they are necessary? And I don't mean sales, I mean necessary to tell good stories.

What makes established names better at telling VALIANT stories that undiscovered talent?

Track records (i.e. BQ and VH 2) indicate that they're not.

BQ and VH 2 gave us the aforementioned examples as well as Crescendo, the XO bike, and all the crap that led to the original line getting canceled.

[greg]

Why is it that writers are continuously asked to top their "best inventions"?

Most writers probably have one well-thought-out concept that they've spent
years honing into a cohesive story, complete concept, and well-knit plan
that they'd like to get into the hands of readers.

They "rise to power" because of that massive undertaking,
and when it's accepted, they're "the great new thing".
Then what?

Someone says, "do it again, but make it better, and get done by next month."

What? That's insane. Someone creates a work of art over the course of a few years,
and they're demanded to create another, better one, immediately?

Could you do that to a sculpter?
Does an architect have to do that?
What happens to the songwriter who gets that demand?
Should an inventor immediately be required to create something better?

It's always the same story. Lower quality the second time.
The rush to the "sophomore album" makes musicians into one-hit wonders.
The hurry for a sequel makes movies where everyone ends up hating Part Two.

What are the greatest stories of the comic book industry?
Well-planned tightly-woven long-term projects.

They come from "out of the blue" and blow the reader away.

You know why Watchmen is so good? Because Watchmen II didn't come out the next year.
You know why V for Vendetta is a classic? Because they didn't force V2, the Revenge.

Entertainment is supposed to entertain.
Here's my biggest "pet peeve" as far as television.
No, it's not reality shows. Though they are certainly derivative junk.

It's Soap Operas. Daytime TV, a team of writers churning out
drivel that is "acted out" by mannequins with dramatic speaking ability,
always including the secret twins, the birth of children who are 14 the next year,
women who just happen to have had eleven husbands, and their current fiance
who knows all those other guys were wrong for her but he's right.
Rich villains, innocent youths who are actually in on their daddy's evil plan.
Deaths... comas... amnesia... all in order for the same guy or gal to
"get better" in a month or a decade.

Stupid. Stupid-stupid-stupid.

...and what are soap operas? Long-term comic book series being written quickly and acted out.

The only difference between most comic book series and soap operas is the cover price.

Good things take time. A lot of time. A whole lot of time.

Gee, Mr. Edison, we love the new light bulb, now we need a digital billboard by next month.

What's easier to find?

Someone new with a great concept
-OR-
Someone old with another great concept

I'd say it's "someone new with a great concept".
Why?

Because you can discard 1,000 other "someone news" until you find the one "someone new" that has a truly great concept.

Whenever you're relying on "someone old", you can't choose someone new.
You're stuck. You would need that same "someone old", who had a great concept once,
to come up with 1,000 different concepts for you to choose from,
just to equal the amount of options that you would have had with "someone new".

How long would one person coming up with 1,000 different concept options take?
How long would it be between great concept #1 and great concept #2?
Five years? Ten?

Ever notice how often even the GREATEST writers take between two great concepts?
Five years... maybe ten. Maybe 20.

Asking even a great writer to "do it again, better than before" after a month is stupid.

Valiant needs a long-term plan. They need a great concept that is thought out
in such detail that it will stay tightly-woven, concept-driven, goal-oriented,
for so many issues we'll wonder how it could even be possible.

If not, we'll just end up with Harbinger #25 followed by Harbinger #26 again.
We'll get Rai #8 followed by a "Future Force".
We'll get the greatest armor in the universe turned into a bicycle.
We'll get titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the stories they used to represent.
We'll get twins, deaths-and-resurrections, shallow villains, disfunctional offspring, etc.

Like the other comic book companies.
Like soap operas.

Take the time to do it right or give me nothing at all.
It's cheaper and leads to less brain-damage.

[dellamorte]

I'm sure it's been said but Shooter, BWS, Layton, Perlin, Stern, Michelinie, Col-n, Nichols, Hall and others were all established pro's who did just fine at Valiant.

[leonmallett]

Now about your generalisation about established names = prima donnas; can you support that please?

I don't have to, you're the one that has to disprove it.

Why? Why do you make a sweeping statement that you then treat as fact, yet compel your fellow posters to prove you wrong? Does everything work that way? If MOTA states guilt then they are guilty until proven not to be prima donnas? I could equally say that all members of this board with high post counts are red-headed - it doesn't mean they have to prove it to be otherwise, it is simply a generalistion that would in fact be untrue unless I present evidence to the contrary.

You're the one that is campaining to have established names work at VEI under the belief that they are necessary, while xo is of the notion that, with proper editorial guidance, they'll avoid making the same mistakes as before that led to Ninjak becoming Spider-Man, Faith getting a boob job, and a certain four-legged animal.

Please show evidence for my campaigning. Really, it would be nice as an accompaniment to your sweeping ignorance of facts in favour of your odd opinions.

Prove it.

What are you asking me to prove now?

What evidence do you have that they are necessary? And I don't mean sales, I mean necessary to tell good stories.

What makes established names better at telling VALIANT stories that undiscovered talent?

Again you demonstrate your refusal to read my post in favour of whatever the heck you wish to infer instead.

Track records (i.e. BQ and VH 2) indicate that they're not.

BQ and VH 2 gave us the aforementioned examples as well as Crescendo, the XO bike, and all the crap that led to the original line getting canceled.

When, pray tell, did I demand the established talent that you rail against (in in rather dichotomous way since you yourself acknowledge that it was big names that helped 'turn the knobs')? I didn't, you went and inferred whetever suited you - once more.

[leonmallett]

Why is it that writers are continuously asked to top their "best inventions"?

Most writers probably have one well-thought-out concept that they've spent
years honing into a cohesive story, complete concept, and well-knit plan
that they'd like to get into the hands of readers.

They "rise to power" because of that massive undertaking,
and when it's accepted, they're "the great new thing".
Then what?

Someone says, "do it again, but make it better, and get done by next month."

What? That's insane. Someone creates a work of art over the course of a few years,
and they're demanded to create another, better one, immediately?

Could you do that to a sculpter?
Does an architect have to do that?
What happens to the songwriter who gets that demand?
Should an inventor immediately be required to create something better?

It's always the same story. Lower quality the second time.
The rush to the "sophomore album" makes musicians into one-hit wonders.
The hurry for a sequel makes movies where everyone ends up hating Part Two.

What are the greatest stories of the comic book industry?
Well-planned tightly-woven long-term projects.

They come from "out of the blue" and blow the reader away.

You know why Watchmen is so good? Because Watchmen II didn't come out the next year.
You know why V for Vendetta is a classic? Because they didn't force V2, the Revenge.

Entertainment is supposed to entertain.
Here's my biggest "pet peeve" as far as television.
No, it's not reality shows. Though they are certainly derivative junk.

It's Soap Operas. Daytime TV, a team of writers churning out
drivel that is "acted out" by mannequins with dramatic speaking ability,
always including the secret twins, the birth of children who are 14 the next year,
women who just happen to have had eleven husbands, and their current fiance
who knows all those other guys were wrong for her but he's right.
Rich villains, innocent youths who are actually in on their daddy's evil plan.
Deaths... comas... amnesia... all in order for the same guy or gal to
"get better" in a month or a decade.

Stupid. Stupid-stupid-stupid.

...and what are soap operas? Long-term comic book series being written quickly and acted out.

The only difference between most comic book series and soap operas is the cover price.

Good things take time. A lot of time. A whole lot of time.

Gee, Mr. Edison, we love the new light bulb, now we need a digital billboard by next month.

What's easier to find?

Someone new with a great concept
-OR-
Someone old with another great concept

I'd say it's "someone new with a great concept".
Why?

Because you can discard 1,000 other "someone news" until you find the one "someone new" that has a truly great concept.

Whenever you're relying on "someone old", you can't choose someone new.
You're stuck. You would need that same "someone old", who had a great concept once,
to come up with 1,000 different concepts for you to choose from,
just to equal the amount of options that you would have had with "someone new".

How long would one person coming up with 1,000 different concept options take?
How long would it be between great concept #1 and great concept #2?
Five years? Ten?

Ever notice how often even the GREATEST writers take between two great concepts?
Five years... maybe ten. Maybe 20.

Asking even a great writer to "do it again, better than before" after a month is stupid.

Valiant needs a long-term plan. They need a great concept that is thought out
in such detail that it will stay tightly-woven, concept-driven, goal-oriented,
for so many issues we'll wonder how it could even be possible.

If not, we'll just end up with Harbinger #25 followed by Harbinger #26 again.
We'll get Rai #8 followed by a "Future Force".
We'll get the greatest armor in the universe turned into a bicycle.
We'll get titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the stories they used to represent.
We'll get twins, deaths-and-resurrections, shallow villains, disfunctional offspring, etc.

Like the other comic book companies.
Like soap operas.

Take the time to do it right or give me nothing at all.
It's cheaper and leads to less brain-damage.

Great post, and the last sentiment is the important bit - quality is what is desired.

[BloodOfHeroes]

Of course, a third thing to avoid is another Mark Waid, who talked big and spoke about having plans for the first 70 or something issues of X-O Manowar but ended up quitting after the fifth issue, only to reveal years later that he did the job for the money, like a common *SQUEE*.

MOTA, MOTA, MOTA. I already proved you are "misremembering" which book Waid wrote just for the money. Again--it was NOT V2 X-O.

Come on, now.

BoH

[ManofTheAtom]

Of course, a third thing to avoid is another Mark Waid, who talked big and spoke about having plans for the first 70 or something issues of X-O Manowar but ended up quitting after the fifth issue, only to reveal years later that he did the job for the money, like a common *SQUEE*.

MOTA, MOTA, MOTA. I already proved you are "misremembering" which book Waid wrote just for the money. Again--it was NOT V2 X-O.

Come on, now.

BoH

[BloodOfHeroes]

viewtopic.php?p=386434&highlight=waid#386434

[ManofTheAtom]

viewtopic.php?p=386434&highlight=waid#386434

k

[BloodOfHeroes]