VH 3 Artwork

[ManofTheAtom]

Ooo…I like landing on the proper acronyms on this board. What do people like better.

VH1
VH2
VH3

Or

V1
Acclaim
VEI

Or Something else?

What does the H stand for on the first option?

Need to right my acronyms which may be off for the last 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we use Acclaim, we might as well use Voyager, to make it,

Voyager
Acclaim
VALIANT Entertainment.

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

[aj583]

Heroes! Didn’t know that. I like Classic Valiant or VH1 over Voyager. Feel that is better understood by most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ryan]

Ooo…I like landing on the proper acronyms on this board. What do people like better.

VH1
VH2
VH3

Or

V1
Acclaim
VEI

Or Something else?

What does the H stand for on the first option?

Need to right my acronyms which may be off for the last 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we use Acclaim, we might as well use Voyager, to make it,

Voyager
Acclaim
VALIANT Entertainment.

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

Yeah, every way has its flaws. VH# isn't perfect and can be confusing too, I just prefer it from ease and being used to it.

Also Valiant Entertainment doesn't refer to itself using all-caps VALIANT, pretty sure that was a Shooter-only insistence that fell out of practice soon after he left. But again as long as we all know what each other is referring to, it doesn't really matter.

Screenshot 2023-08-27 203310.png

[ManofTheAtom]

Ooo…I like landing on the proper acronyms on this board. What do people like better.

VH1
VH2
VH3

Or

V1
Acclaim
VEI

Or Something else?

What does the H stand for on the first option?

Need to right my acronyms which may be off for the last 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we use Acclaim, we might as well use Voyager, to make it,

Voyager
Acclaim
VALIANT Entertainment.

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

Yeah, every way has its flaws. VH# isn't perfect and can be confusing too, I just prefer it from ease and being used to it.

Also Valiant Entertainment doesn't refer to itself using all-caps VALIANT, pretty sure that was a Shooter-only insistence that fell out of practice soon after he left. But again as long as we all know what each other is referring to, it doesn't really matter.

Screenshot 2023-08-27 203310.png

I like how it looks in all caps, heh.

[Ryan]

Ooo…I like landing on the proper acronyms on this board. What do people like better.

VH1
VH2
VH3

Or

V1
Acclaim
VEI

Or Something else?

What does the H stand for on the first option?

Need to right my acronyms which may be off for the last 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we use Acclaim, we might as well use Voyager, to make it,

Voyager
Acclaim
VALIANT Entertainment.

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

Yeah, every way has its flaws. VH# isn't perfect and can be confusing too, I just prefer it from ease and being used to it.

Also Valiant Entertainment doesn't refer to itself using all-caps VALIANT, pretty sure that was a Shooter-only insistence that fell out of practice soon after he left. But again as long as we all know what each other is referring to, it doesn't really matter.

Screenshot 2023-08-27 203310.png

I like how it looks in all caps, heh.

Nothing wrong with that

[ManofTheAtom]

Ooo…I like landing on the proper acronyms on this board. What do people like better.

VH1
VH2
VH3

Or

V1
Acclaim
VEI

Or Something else?

What does the H stand for on the first option?

Need to right my acronyms which may be off for the last 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we use Acclaim, we might as well use Voyager, to make it,

Voyager
Acclaim
VALIANT Entertainment.

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

Yeah, every way has its flaws. VH# isn't perfect and can be confusing too, I just prefer it from ease and being used to it.

Also Valiant Entertainment doesn't refer to itself using all-caps VALIANT, pretty sure that was a Shooter-only insistence that fell out of practice soon after he left. But again as long as we all know what each other is referring to, it doesn't really matter.

Screenshot 2023-08-27 203310.png

I like how it looks in all caps, heh.

Nothing wrong with that

[Ryan]

In the past, though, some have pointed out that Acclaim began long before VH 2, with Birthrquake.

It should be understood that in the context of the definition, however, Acclaim refers solely to the VH 2 iteration of the characters.

Exactly. The other reason is that Acclaim Comics started other imprints like Armada that published creator owned and licensed comics (Armed & Dangerous, Grackle, Magic the Gathering) that weren't in Valiant continuity.

Which is why the Acclaim Comics-Valiant Heroes distinction was created in the first place, to make it separate from other Acclaim Comics.

[nycjadie]

I’ve advocated for V1-V3 in the past, but have not gotten any traction! It seems easier to lump things together to me as collectors see it, and not in terms of ownership. The V1 Acclaim issues are a great example of that.

Of course, that is also imperfect, now that we have the DMG years, and soon, the Alien years.

What result now? I like:
V1 - Valiant
V2 - Acclaim, starting with Valiant Heroes
V3- Valiant Entertainment
V4 - DMG, starting with what? HW2?
V5 - Alien

[ManofTheAtom]

I’ve advocated for V1-V3 in the past, but have not gotten any traction! It seems easier to lump things together to me as collectors see it, and not in terms of ownership. The V1 Acclaim issues are a great example of that.

Of course, that is also imperfect, now that we have the DMG years, and soon, the Alien years.

What result now? I like:
V1 - Valiant
V2 - Acclaim, starting with Valiant Heroes
V3- Valiant Entertainment
V4 - DMG, starting with what? HW2?
V5 - Alien

I think we have two definitions; ownership and continuity.

In terms of the latter, we'd still be in VH 3 (technically 4 due to the unpublished post U2K reboot), meaning the canon that began with VEI and continues with Alien, unless they reboot.

[nycjadie]

Continuity is also hard to measure. We have had all new Bloodshot, X-O, etc. within V3/DMG, and even Acclaim. It seems that Alien is going to take a similar “fresh” approach.

[ManofTheAtom]

Continuity is also hard to measure. We have had all new Bloodshot, X-O, etc. within V3/DMG, and even Acclaim. It seems that Alien is going to take a similar “fresh” approach.

I haven't kept up. Did they change their origins from the ones VEI/Dinesh oversaw? Or was that just marketing, like "All-New, All Different X-Men!"?

[Ryan]

I’ve advocated for V1-V3 in the past, but have not gotten any traction! It seems easier to lump things together to me as collectors see it, and not in terms of ownership. The V1 Acclaim issues are a great example of that.

Of course, that is also imperfect, now that we have the DMG years, and soon, the Alien years.

What result now? I like:
V1 - Valiant
V2 - Acclaim, starting with Valiant Heroes
V3- Valiant Entertainment
V4 - DMG, starting with what? HW2?
V5 - Alien

V1-V3 is good, the 'H' is sorta useless and leads to confusion about a certain old music channel.

Continuity is also hard to measure. We have had all new Bloodshot, X-O, etc. within V3/DMG, and even Acclaim. It seems that Alien is going to take a similar “fresh” approach.

I haven't kept up. Did they change their origins from the ones VEI/Dinesh oversaw? Or was that just marketing, like "All-New, All Different X-Men!"?

That's a good question. My impression is that the DMG books are 'generally' in the same continuity as VEI, depending on the book. Some are definitely in continuity, some have minor contradictions, and some have major contradictions that seem to be in a separate continuity without explicitly saying that or explaining any of the contradictions.

That's why I would still lump it into VH3 (V3, VEI) and outliers from VH3 (like Ninjak vs. the Valiant Universe, produced by VEI but not taking place in VEI continuity). For a new V#, I think a continuity needs to be distinct and significant. Multiple titles over multiple storylines all taking place in the same continuity. A series or GN here and there are just outliers.

That's broadly speaking about the general significant continuities. Of course as fans we can break it down much further as we get into the details, different ownerships, Editor-in-Chief eras, significant continuity events and shakeups, etc.

1. Pre-heroes era - Nintendo and WWF
2. Pre-Unity - Jim Shooter Era
3. Post-Unity - Bob Layton EiC
4. Post-Chaos Effect - Cover design significant change, Acclaim buys Valiant
5. Birthquake - End of VH1 and Layton's Tenure
6. Acclaim Comics Valiant Heroes- Nicieza EiC
Etc. Etc.

Both kinds of breakdown can be useful to discuss the comics.

[ManofTheAtom]

I’ve advocated for V1-V3 in the past, but have not gotten any traction! It seems easier to lump things together to me as collectors see it, and not in terms of ownership. The V1 Acclaim issues are a great example of that.

Of course, that is also imperfect, now that we have the DMG years, and soon, the Alien years.

What result now? I like:
V1 - Valiant
V2 - Acclaim, starting with Valiant Heroes
V3- Valiant Entertainment
V4 - DMG, starting with what? HW2?
V5 - Alien

V1-V3 is good, the 'H' is sorta useless and leads to confusion about a certain old music channel.

Continuity is also hard to measure. We have had all new Bloodshot, X-O, etc. within V3/DMG, and even Acclaim. It seems that Alien is going to take a similar “fresh” approach.

I haven't kept up. Did they change their origins from the ones VEI/Dinesh oversaw? Or was that just marketing, like "All-New, All Different X-Men!"?

That's a good question. My impression is that the DMG books are 'generally' in the same continuity as VEI, depending on the book. Some are definitely in continuity, some have minor contradictions, and some have major contradictions that seem to be in a separate continuity without explicitly saying that or explaining any of the contradictions.

That's why I would still lump it into VH3 (V3, VEI) and outliers from VH3 (like Ninjak vs. the Valiant Universe, produced by VEI but not taking place in VEI continuity). For a new V#, I think a continuity needs to be distinct and significant. Multiple titles over multiple storylines all taking place in the same continuity. A series or GN here and there are just outliers.

That's broadly speaking about the general significant continuities. Of course as fans we can break it down much further as we get into the details, different ownerships, Editor-in-Chief eras, significant continuity events and shakeups, etc.

1. Pre-heroes era - Nintendo and WWF
2. Pre-Unity - Jim Shooter Era
3. Post-Unity - Bob Layton EiC
4. Post-Chaos Effect - Cover design significant change, Acclaim buys Valiant
5. Birthquake - End of VH1 and Layton's Tenure
6. Acclaim Comics Valiant Heroes- Nicieza EiC
Etc. Etc.

Both kinds of breakdown can be useful to discuss the comics.

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

[Ryan]

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

I haven't read a lot of them and I'm far from an expert on VEI continuity, hopefully others will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I did read the first Bloodshot: Rising Spirit in 2018 and it seemed like a complete reboot with no ties to VEI or previous versions. I think there have been 2 subsequent relaunches of Bloodshot, and I'm unsure which version they're using or just doing it 'Ultimate' style (taking the parts they like about the character and history then ignoring the rest.)

Livewire (2018) was continued from Harbinger Wars, and referenced VEI events but also had many contradictions. I chalk that up to them just wanting to tell their own story though, and not feeling too concerned about matching up to the previous stories.

The LIfe and Death of Toyo Harada was firmly in VEI continuity, due to it being written by one of the VEI architects and (I think) being produced or at least started before the DMG buyout.

So yeah you can go book by book and there's a different level of connection to the previous VEI continuity. But there is no explicit break from the continuity in the stories or otherwise, and it seems to be generally implied that they are still continuing the same universe.

From my fan pov I attribute it to DMG's scattershot approach, and leaving each book at the discretion of each creative team without mandates or requirements from editorial to follow a certain continuity.

[ManofTheAtom]

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

I haven't read a lot of them and I'm far from an expert on VEI continuity, hopefully others will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I did read the first Bloodshot: Rising Spirit in 2018 and it seemed like a complete reboot with no ties to VEI or previous versions. I think there have been 2 subsequent relaunches of Bloodshot, and I'm unsure which version they're using or just doing it 'Ultimate' style (taking the parts they like about the character and history then ignoring the rest.)

Livewire (2018) was continued from Harbinger Wars, and referenced VEI events but also had many contradictions. I chalk that up to them just wanting to tell their own story though, and not feeling too concerned about matching up to the previous stories.

The LIfe and Death of Toyo Harada was firmly in VEI continuity, due to it being written by one of the VEI architects and (I think) being produced or at least started before the DMG buyout.

So yeah you can go book by book and there's a different level of connection to the previous VEI continuity. But there is no explicit break from the continuity in the stories or otherwise, and it seems to be generally implied that they are still continuing the same universe.

From my fan pov I attribute it to DMG's scattershot approach, and leaving each book at the discretion of each creative team without mandates or requirements from editorial to follow a certain continuity.

It goes back to what I've been saying about their needing someone in charge whose creative vision is solid.

[Ryan]

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

I haven't read a lot of them and I'm far from an expert on VEI continuity, hopefully others will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I did read the first Bloodshot: Rising Spirit in 2018 and it seemed like a complete reboot with no ties to VEI or previous versions. I think there have been 2 subsequent relaunches of Bloodshot, and I'm unsure which version they're using or just doing it 'Ultimate' style (taking the parts they like about the character and history then ignoring the rest.)

Livewire (2018) was continued from Harbinger Wars, and referenced VEI events but also had many contradictions. I chalk that up to them just wanting to tell their own story though, and not feeling too concerned about matching up to the previous stories.

The LIfe and Death of Toyo Harada was firmly in VEI continuity, due to it being written by one of the VEI architects and (I think) being produced or at least started before the DMG buyout.

So yeah you can go book by book and there's a different level of connection to the previous VEI continuity. But there is no explicit break from the continuity in the stories or otherwise, and it seems to be generally implied that they are still continuing the same universe.

From my fan pov I attribute it to DMG's scattershot approach, and leaving each book at the discretion of each creative team without mandates or requirements from editorial to follow a certain continuity.

It goes back to what I've been saying about their needing someone in charge whose creative vision is solid.

For sure.

[ManofTheAtom]

Found it!

Darquead1.png

[grendeljd]

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

I haven't read a lot of them and I'm far from an expert on VEI continuity, hopefully others will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I did read the first Bloodshot: Rising Spirit in 2018 and it seemed like a complete reboot with no ties to VEI or previous versions. I think there have been 2 subsequent relaunches of Bloodshot, and I'm unsure which version they're using or just doing it 'Ultimate' style (taking the parts they like about the character and history then ignoring the rest.)

Livewire (2018) was continued from Harbinger Wars, and referenced VEI events but also had many contradictions. I chalk that up to them just wanting to tell their own story though, and not feeling too concerned about matching up to the previous stories.

The LIfe and Death of Toyo Harada was firmly in VEI continuity, due to it being written by one of the VEI architects and (I think) being produced or at least started before the DMG buyout.

So yeah you can go book by book and there's a different level of connection to the previous VEI continuity. But there is no explicit break from the continuity in the stories or otherwise, and it seems to be generally implied that they are still continuing the same universe.

From my fan pov I attribute it to DMG's scattershot approach, and leaving each book at the discretion of each creative team without mandates or requirements from editorial to follow a certain continuity.

It goes back to what I've been saying about their needing someone in charge whose creative vision is solid.

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

[ManofTheAtom]

That sucks. There was no need to contradict anything. What did they contradict?

I haven't read a lot of them and I'm far from an expert on VEI continuity, hopefully others will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.

I did read the first Bloodshot: Rising Spirit in 2018 and it seemed like a complete reboot with no ties to VEI or previous versions. I think there have been 2 subsequent relaunches of Bloodshot, and I'm unsure which version they're using or just doing it 'Ultimate' style (taking the parts they like about the character and history then ignoring the rest.)

Livewire (2018) was continued from Harbinger Wars, and referenced VEI events but also had many contradictions. I chalk that up to them just wanting to tell their own story though, and not feeling too concerned about matching up to the previous stories.

The LIfe and Death of Toyo Harada was firmly in VEI continuity, due to it being written by one of the VEI architects and (I think) being produced or at least started before the DMG buyout.

So yeah you can go book by book and there's a different level of connection to the previous VEI continuity. But there is no explicit break from the continuity in the stories or otherwise, and it seems to be generally implied that they are still continuing the same universe.

From my fan pov I attribute it to DMG's scattershot approach, and leaving each book at the discretion of each creative team without mandates or requirements from editorial to follow a certain continuity.

It goes back to what I've been saying about their needing someone in charge whose creative vision is solid.

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

This has been VALIANT's problem since Birthquake, which was one such soft reboot.

[Ryan]

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

Yeah it seems like a comics-wide issue. There used to be an adage in the industry that 'every comic was someone's first', so even though (for example) Daredevil 240 was part of a decades-long narrative, it would also supply everything one needed to understand and enjoy the story as a single unit. This is certainly a difficult balance to achieve, and some did it better than others, but I feel like that art form has mostly been lost in modern comics.

[Ryan]

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

This has been VALIANT's problem since Birthquake, which was one such soft reboot.

Yup, and I would go even further and say that every Valiant reboot, both soft and hard, has made the mistake of not going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful and loved in the first place. They all try to pander to audiences by copying whatever other comic companies are doing at the time, instead of embracing what made Valiant unique.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

This has been VALIANT's problem since Birthquake, which was one such soft reboot.

Yup, and I would go even further and say that every Valiant reboot, both soft and hard, has made the mistake of not going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful and loved in the first place. They all try to pander to audiences by copying whatever other comic companies are doing at the time, instead of embracing what made Valiant unique.

Yeah.

[cg1991cg]

I would still love to see some VH3 comics. Like some sort of multiverse story.

Valiant is barely getting anything out the door though, so that seems unlikely to ever happen

[grendeljd]

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

This has been VALIANT's problem since Birthquake, which was one such soft reboot.

Yup, and I would go even further and say that every Valiant reboot, both soft and hard, has made the mistake of not going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful and loved in the first place. They all try to pander to audiences by copying whatever other comic companies are doing at the time, instead of embracing what made Valiant unique.

The trouble with that kind of thinking (“going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful”) is that it is highly subjective - your idea of what was great about Valiant back then may be different from my idea of what was great about it back then. Which one of us is right if we differ? Neither one, since there is a personal experience factor involved that is different for you and I.

Sure we can collectively come to a kind of general consensus in opinion on some elements of the old books that would be great to pull forward and apply to modern sensibilities - but even that is difficult. Ultimately I don’t personally believe you can ever look backwards and pull something forward through time completely intact. I think the “classic” early 90’s Valiant books are great for their time… but I don’t think they would be considered equally great now by a modern audience if they were published exactly the same today. We all love ‘em because we were there *at the time* they were new and experienced them in their place in pop culture history.

And I’m not talking about whether or not there’s enough “woke/(insert whatever other trigger word here)” content, I just mean that times and tastes and methods and zeitgeists change. We learn things collectively over time and some stuff just falls by the wayside and/or dates itself. We can cling to the past but that ultimately leads to stagnation of thought too.

I’m not picking on you for saying anything above, Ryan - just trying to continue thinking critically here (probably mixed with a heavy dose of personal opinion too - plus rambling on a philosophical tangent ).

I do actually agree with your point about copying current trends - there is a kind of industry peer pressure aspect to chasing sales figures that I also think leads to a certain brand of laziness in following “successful” trends first over considering quality of content.

[ManofTheAtom]

I think that what you’re describing about the most recent DMG-era of Valiant books is not the victim of poor editorial vision or guidance, but rather part of an evolving marketing trend of doing “soft reboots” to create jumping-on points for new readers. They are meant to give people on ramps with no heavy ties to continuity in order to entice them in, while not entirely ignoring past continuity to try to keep long term fans invested.

This is not an easy manoeuvre to pull off successfully, and personally I think that it can easily (but not always) lead to more mediocre stories that do not have enough substance to them. The frequency in which this happens is also a huge part of the problem. Who really wants to read a series of generic mini-series on repeat that each try to have a “fresh start” that leads nowhere and is promptly replaced by another “fresh start”, *different* direction within a few short issues? No stakes, no reason to be invested in the story, no reason to buy. Marketing plans are driving the published content and it backfires when it overpowers the quality of the content by default.

In case it sounds harsh, I’m not bitter or angry about it - just trying to offer a critical view of what I think is going on. If the books are not appealing to me I just don’t buy them. I have still been picking up some Valiant books digitally when they do appeal to me in this DMG era.

I also understand the pressure to generate sales - everyone in the industry and the fans all want cool comics (a very subjective concept), but the company has to actually make money at it too. I would certainly still appreciate a tight knit small group of comics that had lots of threads of common continuity - it’s what I like best alongside the quality of the stories themselves. But I don’t know if the industry is willing or able to supply that for us anymore.

This has been VALIANT's problem since Birthquake, which was one such soft reboot.

Yup, and I would go even further and say that every Valiant reboot, both soft and hard, has made the mistake of not going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful and loved in the first place. They all try to pander to audiences by copying whatever other comic companies are doing at the time, instead of embracing what made Valiant unique.

The trouble with that kind of thinking (“going back and truly understanding what made Valiant successful”) is that it is highly subjective - your idea of what was great about Valiant back then may be different from my idea of what was great about it back then. Which one of us is right if we differ? Neither one, since there is a personal experience factor involved that is different for you and I.

Sure we can collectively come to a kind of general consensus in opinion on some elements of the old books that would be great to pull forward and apply to modern sensibilities - but even that is difficult. Ultimately I don’t personally believe you can ever look backwards and pull something forward through time completely intact. I think the “classic” early 90’s Valiant books are great for their time… but I don’t think they would be considered equally great now by a modern audience if they were published exactly the same today. We all love ‘em because we were there *at the time* they were new and experienced them in their place in pop culture history.

And I’m not talking about whether or not there’s enough “woke/(insert whatever other trigger word here)” content, I just mean that times and tastes and methods and zeitgeists change. We learn things collectively over time and some stuff just falls by the wayside and/or dates itself. We can cling to the past but that ultimately leads to stagnation of thought too.

I’m not picking on you for saying anything above, Ryan - just trying to continue thinking critically here (probably mixed with a heavy dose of personal opinion too - plus rambling on a philosophical tangent ).

I do actually agree with your point about copying current trends - there is a kind of industry peer pressure aspect to chasing sales figures that I also think leads to a certain brand of laziness in following “successful” trends first over considering quality of content.

VALIANT should change as the world outside our window changes, which is why having new characters is important to.

Characters like Peter Stanchek, Aric, etc (those that aren't immortal, like Glad, Aram, and Ivar) should definitely stay in the '90s, but new characters should continue the stories the series they were introduced in were about.

For instance, in an ideal scenario, Aric and Randy would have had a kid, and today, 25 years later, that kid would be the current bearer of the X-O Manowar. The child of a man from the past and a woman from the present. And that child would have a different arc than their father did.

Likewise, while Peter and Kris and Faith and Charlene's stories may change (i.e. Charlene would have been married to Archer for three years today), that of their conflict against Harada would continue, and involve an increasing number of other Harbingers of different age ranges who could take the spotlight in the Harbinger series while they recede into the background or shift to other series.