What if Shooter stayed?

[cjv]

This may have been asked before (hell, I may have asked it before) but do you think Valiant would have stayed as strong (quality wise) if Shooter had stayed at the helm?

I mean, Shooter has done previous stuff that hasn't been that great, so it isn't like he had the Midas touch. It's possible he simply caught lightning it a barrel and even if he had stayed the quality would have dropped (although perhaps not as fast or as far). In some sense, being forced out may have preserved Shooters "legacy" when it comes to Valiant, because he never was associated with the bad stuff.

So what do you think - if Shooter stayed would Valiant still have fallen (at least to some degree)?

Chris

[RyanMcLelland]

I think the same happens when, say, an actor dies. We'll always remember Bruce Lee or James Dean because of the limited amount of work they did. Bruce only really had 3 Hong Kong films and one American film to his name - but he'll always be a legend. James Dean only had 3 under his belt as well.

Lists can go on and on...but with Shooter - he's synonymous with quality because of the limited output. I think it is hard to see if it would have continued or not - certainly Marvel under Stan Lee in the sixties continued to put out such great ideas that still hold dear in our hearts today. So the quality may have been 'better' in some pontifications - but as the reality is the limited production that Jim put out we can put him up in the 'Valiant Legend' status.

[geocarr]

I started right after Shooter left so I can't speak to his time there... Loss of editorial vision, and this had nothing to do with Shooter leaving. Valiant started with tight editorial and continuity control. That was because the books were for the most part being done in house by the nobs, and by veteran creatives like Don Perlin who didn't feel the need to *SQUEE* all over everything so it smelled like them. When Valiant started bringing in "stars", they gave up editorial control to keep the big names happy.

IMO, I see Cliff words above as a contradiction since Shooter was the editor and it seems to me the main authority dictating that tight continuity be maintained, and I believe, had this continued, the quality would have lasted longer at the very least.

[xodacia81]

I started right after Shooter left so I can't speak to his time there... Loss of editorial vision, and this had nothing to do with Shooter leaving. Valiant started with tight editorial and continuity control. That was because the books were for the most part being done in house by the nobs, and by veteran creatives like Don Perlin who didn't feel the need to *SQUEE* all over everything so it smelled like them. When Valiant started bringing in "stars", they gave up editorial control to keep the big names happy.

IMO, I see Cliff words above as a contradiction since Shooter was the editor and it seems to me the main authority dictating that tight continuity be maintained, and I believe, had this continued, the quality would have lasted longer at the very least.

Those words could also be seen to describe a gradual decline. That when Shooter was there, the company had tight and steady control/vision/growth. But, by the end, things had gotten out of hand to the point where the lunatics were trashing the asylum. I for one can certainly see less "vision" after immediate post-Unity was finished. By Chaos Effect, it wasn't TOO much different from other CBU's. But once BQ rolled around, the train was off the tracks.

[Daniel Jackson]

Good question, Ryan.

I imagine we would have had some periods where certain story lines would not have been so great, but I can't imagine Jim doing the things that Valiant did after he was gone. He respected the characters and continuity way too much to have let things slide that bad.

It's a shame we'll never know for sure what the future would have held with him still at the helm. Personally, I think we would have had a lot of memorable issues that would be equal to, if not better, than the Pre Unity quality standard that he set.

[Zaphod]

Here is where I had kept various weblinks for reference because I am probably going to be the contrary voice in this discussion...at least initially.

Bob has stated (at least once) in interviews that at the time he took over Voyager (and of course Valiant in turn) was on hard times financially. Now I don't know the business well enough, don't know a damn person who was involved behind the scene's but I am sure that somewhere someone can refute or confirm that and I tend to believe it.

Valiant had been running off venture capital from when he tried and failed to purchase Marvel. It had been a few years and very little to show for it other than publishing licensed properties to little fanfare and a small, burdgeoning universe.

There were alot of factors to Valiants success.

Marketing is a big one. The steps they took were innovative, they went out of their way to involve their fans in their marketing ideas and they truly did what they could to harbor a feeling of a shared universe in more ways than just through their stories. Lets also keep in mind though, that through their dealer incentive programs, coupon redemption practices they were appealing to the fans but they were also appealing to the speculators. Sure Shooter himself went out of his way to make it clear his purpose for the coupon books was not to convince consumers to purchase more than one book but lets not be entirely naive either.

The Comics Boom of the 90's, along with the expansion of the Valiant line. Lets face it, comic books are an industry that is based upon unit sales but back in the 90's a huge factor to a company surviving (or not) was shelf space. Valiant couldn't remain at 10 titles or less for long and expect to survive. I can't speak for every comic shop that was out there but I can say that it took me years to notice Valiant (well after Shooter was gone) and it was only at the behest of a friend that I picked up my first copies of A&A. My argument is that Valiant would have been crowded out by DC, Marvel, Image and Dark Horse if they hadn't expanded. The speculator boom of the 90's also exponentially expanded individual title sales, without it I don't know if Valiant would have survived either.

Good writing is Shooters legacy but it also goes with those other people involved in early Valiant and well up to (and sometimes past) Chaos...but it is what Shooters vision of Valiant seemed to be. They truly were the alternate to the flashy Image or Marvel or DC. Cliff said it better than I.

Now if Jim had stayed and continued to get his way, with no attempts to expand I am not convinced that those venture capitalists would not have shut the doors down before Unity was even completed. The money people seemed hell bent on getting rid of Jim and had he found a way to stay in that power struggle it very well could have torn the whole thing apart sooner.

[Cyberstrike]

I think Valiant would have expanded it's line just a little slower. I think we would still have seen titles like Turok, HARD Corps, Bloodshot, and others. The ones that I mentioned may have been a lot different (not better mind you but different) than what we know them. I do think some series would have been much better and some would have been much worse had Jim Shooter stayed.

I also don't think we would have seen a lot fewer of Valiant TPBs then those that were released since it's rumored that back in the 1990s Shooter didn't see any value or reason for them.

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

[Daniel Jackson]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

[cliffvanmeter]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

Again.. not how I heard it, but I was coming in right after so I got the POV of those that stayed and they didn't tend to be kind to Shooter. Certainly the VC guys wanted to make a buck on their investment, that's what VCs do.

This in fact led to some (I think) bad decisions later on down the road with regard to stifling early license offers for t-shirts, action figures and even movie deals so as to maximize the value of the property (Valiant) to a potential buyer.

My understanding at the time was that Unity was the break that Valiant needed to stay afloat. We were right on the edge of shutting the doors and if Unity hadn't been a break-out hit it would have been over and done very soon after.

Also, you can't put too much emphasis on two of the guys running the show behind the scenes. Jon Hartz and Fred Pierce. Jon's marketing mojo put Valiant on the map and Fred Pierce ran the day-to-day squeezing every penny he could from vendors in a lot of innovative ways. Things like buying train carloads of paper to knock a few pennies off the cost of each issue.

There was, in my opinion, a lot more to Valiant than just Jim Shooter. Bob and Kevin provided the same kind of editorial vision that I think Shooter would have. Experienced creatives like Barry, Don Perlin, Bob Hall, and John Dixon were there showing the knobs what professionalism looked like day in and day out.

It was a unique environment, but in the same way that Sammy Sosa isn't the Cubs. I don't think that Jim Shooter WAS Valiant. He had the same opportunities to create an imprint from the ground up with Defiant and how long did that last?

Clifford VanMeter
<a href="http://cliffordvanmeter.com" target="_blank"> Website</a> | <a href="=http://cliffordblog.com" target="_blank"> Art Blog</a> | <a href="http://blog-arctosmedia.com" target="_blank">Design Blog</a>

[Rufusharley]

interesting thoughts. thank you.

[Daniel Jackson]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

Again.. not how I heard it, but I was coming in right after so I got the POV of those that stayed and they didn't tend to be kind to Shooter. Certainly the VC guys wanted to make a buck on their investment, that's what VCs do.

This in fact led to some (I think) bad decisions later on down the road with regard to stifling early license offers for t-shirts, action figures and even movie deals so as to maximize the value of the property (Valiant) to a potential buyer.

My understanding at the time was that Unity was the break that Valiant needed to stay afloat. We were right on the edge of shutting the doors and if Unity hadn't been a break-out hit it would have been over and done very soon after.

Also, you can't put too much emphasis on two of the guys running the show behind the scenes. Jon Hartz and Fred Pierce. Jon's marketing mojo put Valiant on the map and Fred Pierce ran the day-to-day squeezing every penny he could from vendors in a lot of innovative ways. Things like buying train carloads of paper to knock a few pennies off the cost of each issue.

There was, in my opinion, a lot more to Valiant than just Jim Shooter. Bob and Kevin provided the same kind of editorial vision that I think Shooter would have. Experienced creatives like Barry, Don Perlin, Bob Hall, and John Dixon were there showing the knobs what professionalism looked like day in and day out.

It was a unique environment, but in the same way that Sammy Sosa isn't the Cubs. I don't think that Jim Shooter WAS Valiant. He had the same opportunities to create an imprint from the ground up with Defiant and how long did that last?

Clifford VanMeter
<a href="http://cliffordvanmeter.com" target="_blank"> Website</a> | <a href="=http://cliffordblog.com" target="_blank"> Art Blog</a> | <a href="http://blog-arctosmedia.com" target="_blank">Design Blog</a>

Cliff, as I said in another thread a little while ago, I know that Jim wasn't totally on his own and there were others that contributed to the success of Valiant. I think most people here realize that as well. On the other hand, I don't think Valiant would have stood a chance without him.

When you get a free moment, I would like you read The Jim Shooter Interview and get your opinion on what the man says. I think you will be surprised at just how involved that Jim was in just about every aspect of Valiant.

[Zaphod]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

Again.. not how I heard it, but I was coming in right after so I got the POV of those that stayed and they didn't tend to be kind to Shooter. Certainly the VC guys wanted to make a buck on their investment, that's what VCs do.

This in fact led to some (I think) bad decisions later on down the road with regard to stifling early license offers for t-shirts, action figures and even movie deals so as to maximize the value of the property (Valiant) to a potential buyer.

My understanding at the time was that Unity was the break that Valiant needed to stay afloat. We were right on the edge of shutting the doors and if Unity hadn't been a break-out hit it would have been over and done very soon after.

Also, you can't put too much emphasis on two of the guys running the show behind the scenes. Jon Hartz and Fred Pierce. Jon's marketing mojo put Valiant on the map and Fred Pierce ran the day-to-day squeezing every penny he could from vendors in a lot of innovative ways. Things like buying train carloads of paper to knock a few pennies off the cost of each issue.

There was, in my opinion, a lot more to Valiant than just Jim Shooter. Bob and Kevin provided the same kind of editorial vision that I think Shooter would have. Experienced creatives like Barry, Don Perlin, Bob Hall, and John Dixon were there showing the knobs what professionalism looked like day in and day out.

It was a unique environment, but in the same way that Sammy Sosa isn't the Cubs. I don't think that Jim Shooter WAS Valiant. He had the same opportunities to create an imprint from the ground up with Defiant and how long did that last?

Clifford VanMeter
<a href="http://cliffordvanmeter.com" target="_blank"> Website</a> | <a href="=http://cliffordblog.com" target="_blank"> Art Blog</a> | <a href="http://blog-arctosmedia.com" target="_blank">Design Blog</a>

Cliff, as I said in another thread a little while ago, I know that Jim wasn't totally on his own and there were others that contributed to the success of Valiant. I think most people here realize that as well. On the other hand, I don't think Valiant would have stood a chance without him.

When you get a free moment, I would like you read The Jim Shooter Interview and get your opinion on what the man says. I think you will be surprised at just how involved that Jim was in just about every aspect of Valiant.

Says Jim. I hear Jim also invented the internet.

In all seriousness, you are taking the word from the man, about the man and Jim is notorious for claiming every good idea was his. If you believe that to be the case, it is very difficult to continue any kind of discussion and I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to offload and I will give you a sweet BIN offer, off Ebay of course.

[Daniel Jackson]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

Again.. not how I heard it, but I was coming in right after so I got the POV of those that stayed and they didn't tend to be kind to Shooter. Certainly the VC guys wanted to make a buck on their investment, that's what VCs do.

This in fact led to some (I think) bad decisions later on down the road with regard to stifling early license offers for t-shirts, action figures and even movie deals so as to maximize the value of the property (Valiant) to a potential buyer.

My understanding at the time was that Unity was the break that Valiant needed to stay afloat. We were right on the edge of shutting the doors and if Unity hadn't been a break-out hit it would have been over and done very soon after.

Also, you can't put too much emphasis on two of the guys running the show behind the scenes. Jon Hartz and Fred Pierce. Jon's marketing mojo put Valiant on the map and Fred Pierce ran the day-to-day squeezing every penny he could from vendors in a lot of innovative ways. Things like buying train carloads of paper to knock a few pennies off the cost of each issue.

There was, in my opinion, a lot more to Valiant than just Jim Shooter. Bob and Kevin provided the same kind of editorial vision that I think Shooter would have. Experienced creatives like Barry, Don Perlin, Bob Hall, and John Dixon were there showing the knobs what professionalism looked like day in and day out.

It was a unique environment, but in the same way that Sammy Sosa isn't the Cubs. I don't think that Jim Shooter WAS Valiant. He had the same opportunities to create an imprint from the ground up with Defiant and how long did that last?

Clifford VanMeter
<a href="http://cliffordvanmeter.com" target="_blank"> Website</a> | <a href="=http://cliffordblog.com" target="_blank"> Art Blog</a> | <a href="http://blog-arctosmedia.com" target="_blank">Design Blog</a>

Cliff, as I said in another thread a little while ago, I know that Jim wasn't totally on his own and there were others that contributed to the success of Valiant. I think most people here realize that as well. On the other hand, I don't think Valiant would have stood a chance without him.

When you get a free moment, I would like you read The Jim Shooter Interview and get your opinion on what the man says. I think you will be surprised at just how involved that Jim was in just about every aspect of Valiant.

Says Jim. I hear Jim also invented the internet.

In all seriousness, you are taking the word from the man, about the man and Jim is notorious for claiming every good idea was his. If you believe that to be the case, it is very difficult to continue any kind of discussion and I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to offload and I will give you a sweet BIN offer, off Ebay of course.

It all boils down to reading and listening to all sides involved. I've heard Layton's version and Shooters. Jim's makes far more sense to me. You can believe whatever you want.

[wrunow]

Well we've had this discussion so many times, but I'll throw my 2 cents in again as some new ideas have come up here.

1. IMO Jim Shooter wanted to build a comic company that would rival Marvel and DC and have intellectual properties that were household names and as such would have value. I believe that he knew that once these intellectual properties had mainstream acceptance the payoff would be big, real big. I believe he was building a company for the long term with long term viability and that is why the continuation was so important to him and so we have the VALIANT bible in such extraordinary detail.

2. I believe that the people who held the financial power at VALIANT (in respect for the deceased I will leave it at that) knew through the pre-orders for Unity and probably EW 1 also that VALIANT was soon to be a cash cow and they obviously didn't see eye to eye with the EIC's plans for the future and how to reinvest and/or pay off debt, so he was fired by the board by probably a 2/1 vote with him being the 1. It was a lot easier to get rid of him (buy hiim out or whatever) when the company was broke than when there was real cash value behind whatever percentage of the stock he owned.

3. I believe that certain people were probably paid more money than they had and would ever have the chance to make in their life to take over the day to day operations of the company while the new publisher created a package that would have the most value to a buyer within a 2 year framework. I believe they overpaid for some outside talent (Bart Sear's?) that created animosity with the knob row rank and file, and allowed these star creators to draw and write in a way that was not allowed any of the in house staff and that created a huge amount of animosity within the company creating some moral issues. I also believe that they paid some big name talent big money and accepted less than their best work (and that is an understatement in some cases).

Obviously #3 is the issue where JS would have made the difference. I don't think he would have overprinted books and tried to keep up with Marvel's printing practices of the early 90's, which were the real reason the comic market crashed. I also think he would have stuck with his people and built the company from within and then rewarded them accordingly. I don't think his goal was to shop the company to the highest bidder in the short term and the books and print runs would have remained of high quality with tight continuity not only in the stories but in the artistic style.

My opinions, and I'll admit, some could be totally wrong, are based on the interviews and also from talking to a lot of the former VALIANT people in NYC the last few years, some who worked with JS and some who came later.

[dave]

Well we've had this discussion so many times, but I'll throw my 2 cents in again as some new ideas have come up here.

1. IMO Jim Shooter wanted to build a comic company that would rival Marvel and DC and have intellectual properties that were household names and as such would have value. I believe that he knew that once these intellectual properties had mainstream acceptance the payoff would be big, real big. I believe he was building a company for the long term with long term viability and that is why the continuation was so important to him and so we have the VALIANT bible in such extraordinary detail.

excellent point.

what i would like to add to this point is the I believe that marvel and dc saw the same things happening-and viewed this as quite a threat. I also believe that the entire death of superman stunt was a response to this new company's increased market share. suddenly the same old same old wouldn't cut it.

when JS decided to begin again with Defiant, the threat was much easier to squash. i don't believe for a minute that it was love of the title "Plasmer" that resulted in the lawsuit-which effectively killed Defiant.

I'd also like to add that it has been a real treat to discuss these things with CVM. I would also like to make clear that I do not blame layton or van hook for the "downfall" of Valiant, i think they did the best they could with what they had. i simply look at the product with and without Shooter, and try to let the material speak for itself.

i think KVH was the best writer/editor that bloodshot ever had.

[xodacia81]

Bloodshot was pimp as hell and I maintain that title is not only underrated in general but maintained a reasonable amount of quality throughout.

The last VALIANT title I was regularly buying was Bloodshot.

I really liked Bloodshot. I loved XO, but Bloodshot and Shadowman were excellent the whole way.

[BloodOfHeroes]

Bloodshot was pimp as hell and I maintain that title is not only underrated in general but maintained a reasonable amount of quality throughout.

[wrunow]

I also was a fan of KVH's Bloodshot.

[cliffvanmeter]

I also agree with the comments about the outside talent and the treatment of the guys that had been there from the start. When they started bringing in "stars" rather than working pros like Ostrander, Vosburg, Dixon, and Perlin, they just gave up an pretense of control.

Don Perlin once told me something that put it all in perspective for me. As a younger artist he'd stayed up into the wee hours of the morning trying hard to make an impossible deadline. He'd just managed to catch a few minutes sleep when he was woken up by the garbage truck coming down the street. He realized at that point that if those guys hadn't shown up to pick up the trash that day a lot more people would have been upset and angry than if he'd been late turning in those pages.

It ain't like we're curing cancer here.

But the egos on some of that "outside talent" would have made you think otherwise. Guys like Don did their job. Two pages a day, every day, five days a week for decades. Dealing with others in a collaborative and open way. Thousands of pages in a career. I always respected that a lot more than the prima donnas who wanted to do it all.

Don't get me wrong. There were a couple of real *SQUEE*-heels among the homegrown bunch as well. One or two in particular I'd still wouldn't *SQUEE* on if they were on fire. In fact, I'd be tempted to put the fire out with a hammer. But I think if Valiant had stuck with their home-grown talent, and treated them well, they'd have been a lot better off in the long run.

BTW: I'm having a lot of fun with the debate as well. Its interesting to think about how things might have turned out if history had taken a couple of different turns. Shooter leaving opened a spot for Kevin to move to editorial and that created an in for me in the production department. Not long after that James Perham, our long-time friend and my partner in a small game publishing company, also came on board in operations. The three of us might never have ended up together in NYC, if Shooter had stayed on.

Clifford VanMeter
Website | Blog | Design & Deliver

[xodacia81]

I also agree with the comments about the outside talent and the treatment of the guys that had been there from the start. When they started bringing in "stars" rather than working pros like Ostrander, Vosburg, Dixon, and Perlin, they just gave up an pretense of control.

In my humble opinion, Ostrander is a star. The guy is a damn fine writer, was before he went to VALIANT and after.

I like what Cliff is getting at, though. That Ostrander didn't come in with a "superstar" attitude and try to change things to fit his ego and make it all about him. I know I'm in the minority, but I really enjoyed the Malev War-which he was the first writer on-and his work on Eternal Warrior, which I think was very good. Some say it was "a bad Punisher rip" but I never saw it that way.

[dave]

i haven't read that portion of EW, but i liked the malev war too-it was a really good story-my only problem with it was the focus on the new rai, which has nothing to do with the story really. i simply could not stop making comparison to tohru, and never connected with takao to the same level.
of course, every time he yelled "mindlock" i rolled my eyes too-but again, this is the character he'd been given.

for anyone who hasn't yet-re-read magnus 21 and watch the first matrix movie-you'll be surprised!

[Daniel Jackson]

i haven't read that portion of EW, but i liked the malev war too-it was a really good story-my only problem with it was the focus on the new rai, which has nothing to do with the story really. i simply could not stop making comparison to tohru, and never connected with takao to the same level.
of course, every time he yelled "mindlock" i rolled my eyes too-but again, this is the character he'd been given.

That just seemed so out of place for a Valiant character to go around yelling something like that. Seems more suited for a Saturday morning cartoon show than Valiant. The other ability he had to "inspire" people to do what he wanted (like Leeja) was equally annoying.

[dave]

other people have told me how annoying that power is as well-right after i use it on them.

DJ, you WILL send me all of your VVSS books.

[Cyberstrike]

I don't think Valiant would have survived had he stayed though.

I think the company would have survived if he had the right people financially backing him, instead of the ones who backstabbed him.

What I meant is that when the market crashed I don't think Valiant would have survived regardless if he had been at the helm or not. There were so many damn speculators wanting books for just to re-sell them and I don't see how a guy even like Jim Shooter could have stopped at a company like Valiant at the time he left.

I will have to say that the one thing has already impressed me with the whole Shooter/Valiant story was the fact that Shooter didn't sell out. I mean think about it if someone offered you a seven or eight figures to sell a company that you started and he didn't take the deal for money like a lot of people probably would have (I'm sorry to say that I probably would have sold out) and that others did.

I'm saying Shooter's a saint or anything but when a guy is being offered a lot of money to sell a company and he didn't take the money says a lot about kind of man he is.

[Daniel Jackson]

I will have to say that the one thing has already impressed me with the whole Shooter/Valiant story was the fact that Shooter didn't sell out. I mean think about it if someone offered you a seven or eight figures to sell a company that you started and he didn't take the deal for money like a lot of people probably would have (I'm sorry to say that I probably would have sold out) and that others did.

Well said.

The man is not perfect, but he has a lot of integrity. It certainly would have been a whole lot easier to have rode the money train with the rest, but he knew there was something special about Valiant. He was willing to fight and do what ever it took, but in the end he was fighting a losing battle.

I always enjoyed reading his editor comments in the Valiant books back in the day. You could tell from reading them that he was genuinely excited about what was being accomplished at Valiant. I never really got that same vibe from reading that sort of stuff in Marvel or DC books back then.