Talk:Valiant Comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Shooter firing

There's no real dispute about the information I cite. There a few contradictory interviews given by Shooter while he was still in charge at Valiant, but those can be discounted as standard flacking, mostly insisting that the Nintendo and WWF books were selling successfully. There's really no question that the Nintendo/WWF losses drove a wedge between Shooter and his backers -- Shooter doesn't really argue this point, but says that he shouldn't have been blamed for the failure of other parts of the company, especially those run by Massarsky, for doing enough to exploit the properties outside the direct market. He also says that one reason Massarsky escaped blame was that he was hooked up romantically with a high-placed girlfriend at the venture capital firm, who covered for him. While Triumph was right or wrong to blame Shooter, nobody claims they didn't blame him. Shooter himself is a source for the "resisting the sale" point -- he didn't want to bloat the comics line, to temporarily boost revenues and market share at the expense of the line's long-term health. (He was right, too; sometimes you get fired for being right.) And the description of Layton's post-Shooter position comes from Layton, who probably knows what his job was. N. Caligon 19:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what interviews you are referring to. The point of contention comes from the information derived from his Defiant Comics editorials and the online interview sighted in Wikipedia's Jim Shooter article. Furthermore, his story appears to be backed by Janet Jackson and Debbie Fix (spelling?). Granted, the main point of contention pertains to the circumstances under which Jim Shooter was fired - Bob Layton's version lays blame on that fact that Shooter failed to generate significant sales while Shooter's version lays the blame on corporate manuever orcestrated by Massarsky. The evidence I've seen (which, granted, is mostly hearsay and writing with clear personal bias) supports both sides of the story. This is why I initially changed your information to come up with some sort of compromise that would allow for both of those posibilities (and, admittedly, I didn't do a particularly good job. As for Layton's job, I got it from the "credits" list of Harbinger #13, 14 and Unity #1.--Strannik 13:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some ambiguity in the article...

It states that certain Acclaim characters were re-imaginings of Valiant characters, yet the same characters appear in both the originals list and recreations lists. How exactly are they differentiated? MSJapan 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Acclaim used the same names of the titles/books when they re imagined the characters, they also added some new titles. Some of the characters somewhat similar, for instance X-O Manowar was still about a sentient suit of alien armor and Bloodshot was still about a man with nanites in his blood, while others were completely changed - Ninjak went from a James Bond type Ninja to a teenager who could turn into a video game superhero by uttering a silly catchphrase. I prefer the Valiant versions for the most part but some of the Acclaim books are very good. I suggest checking out Ninjak and Quantum & Woody from Acclaim and Harbinger and X-O Manowar from Valiant (though really everything Valiant did from Unity and earlier is about as good as comics get). Lw99dds 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most important ?

"The Valiant characters are often called the most important of those created after the Marvel revolution in the 1960s" - who said that ? And is that still a widely held view with hindsight ? -- Beardo 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Joe (current editor in chief of Marvel Comics) Quesada said that. I would agree too.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the quote itself is verifiable. I've added {{fact}} to it for the time being. g026r 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that even if someone said it, it is not said "often".

I think wording like "have been" rather than "often" would sound a little less fanboyish. The article that quote is taken from is informative but a little over the top on the pro-valiant bit. --Impulse 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the link to the Valiant F.A.Q., then I've removed it as the reference for the time being. It's not really what you'd call a source for the statement that they have been called "the most important since [...]", since it doesn't tell us who said that.
I've also made the change to "have been", since "often" is getting close to weasel words (IMHO). -- g026r 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "FAQ" as Source

Right, an anonymous user replaced the link with the edit comment "The writer of the FAQ called them that". I'm going to place my comments about this here so others can comment.

  • One: He isn't really calling them that. His exact words are "The Valiant characters are often called the most important of those created after the Marvel revolution in the 1960s (when Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four etc. were created), and one of the major justifications is their startling uniqueness." In other words, he's saying that other people called him that, and he's merely saying that they did. (Does he agree? Yes. But more on that later.) As is, that page is no more a source for the statement than this article would have been (prior to {{fact}} or the link being added in). Besides, the article you're referencing was only authored on July 10, 2006. The quote in question has been here far longer. Not the source.
  • Two: Let's say that he said "The Valiant characters are possibly [...]", leaving out the qualifiers. Then he is the source of the quote. At this point, the next step becomes: is he notable? HIs bio [1] notes that he's a "Staff Member" (I'm honestly not sure what the titles mean) of Sequart.com who has collected comic books for over 20 years. The question is, does that give his opinion anymore weight than that of my local comic shop owner? I'd argue no (and pull out WP:V Section 3.4 as my basis.)

Finally, I may have inadvertently found the ultimate source of the quote. He has one other article written on sequart.com: The Ten Most Important Comic Books of the 1990s. In the text for his number one comic: "In the editorial, VALIANT's Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter, tells us that the book we hold in our hands is the most important since Avengers #1." It's not exact, but it's close. Of course, if it's the ultimate source I say the quote goes altogether. Why? Because it's the company's founder, editor-in-chief, and writer of that particular issue calling his own comic that important. It's like if I wrote a play and called it "the most important work since Shakespeare". Would you believe me? Of course not. If he is the ultimate source, I'd say it's the same deal.

Now, you tell me: why should it currently stay as the source? -- g026r 05:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Staff information

This is just a curious question, but has anyone here ever considered giving a list of the creative staff for each of the books? Not on the main page, but on each individual page? an example of what I mean would be something along the lines of: Harbinger 1-?, written by Jim Shooter, pencils by David Lapham, ect... The point is that the creative staff for series are being ignored except in minor mentions such as Shooter, Layton, Vanhook, Hall, BWS. I think it would be a good idea to create this and I am readying to do this. Thoughts?Writersblock81 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] None but the Valiant

I pulled this:

"A few years later, without Jim Shooter's strong hand, Valiant Comics sales shrunk dramatically. Titles which has sold upward of 750,000 copies now moved 3000 units. Eventually, the company was bought out by a video game company, but they did nothing to stem the loss of sales. Valant's doors were closed a few years later."

from George Caragonne, if anybody wants to use it... Trekphiler (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)