Theory about the VEI universe and Armor Hunters Shake-up

[lorddunlow]

So I posted in my discussion about the Bleeding Monk #0 issue that I get the feeling that something big is coming, in the same way that it felt when reading all of the titles of VH1 in the months preceding Unity - I can't quite put my finger on it, but something is brewing under the scenes for every title (I'm even starting to feel Q&W are involved with the Goat #0 issue and the fact they are crossing paths with A&A.)

Here's the thought I can't shake (and if I'm right, I'm not sure I'm happy about it, but I'm not sure I'm upset either - I guess I'm ambivalent):

In short, I think the VEI universe is going to be reset/reshaped just like Solar reshaped his universe into the VH1 universe.

In long:
1. VEI has not merely rehashed any of the concepts, but they have stayed very true to the things that made VH1 awesome. Everything feels new, but familiar at the same time. Dysart and others have already shown that they love to mess with the old school fans' heads (Pretending to kill Torque, little shout outs, other fake outs based on VH1 concepts, taking VH1 concepts and flipping them on their heads, etc.)

2. The "Solar creating the universe" thing was a big thing in VH1, and I really think that Dino and crew plan on having a similar element in their universe - I know we don't have Solar, but we do have an extremely powerful character who literally has stated that he has chosen to shape the world as he sees fit - the Bleeding Monk.

3. VEI has been very tight-lipped about what is going on with the titles (what is being continued, what is happening to numbering, what's an ongoing, what's a mini, etc.). We previously complained about them giving away too many spoilers, but there was a very rational reason why they did that - to generate buzz and interest. This tight-lipped approach is not in their best interest as it is alienating people... unless there is something so big, so awesome, that they want to take the readers by surprise. I really think they are going to try to replicate some of the buzz that the original Unity got - not a complete carbon copy, but something that will make the comic industry lift its head up to see what's going on. A complete universe restructuring (that has in-story continuity - I'm not talking the messy DC New52 or the non-reset of MarvelNOW - something that is actually scripted/plotted and makes sense) would definitely accomplish that. The books are in limbo because the characters and concepts may get jumbled around and we end up with wholly new, but familiar, books.

4. There are now multiple characters who have spoken about cause and effect, time, etc. not being set in stone, but malleable, unpredictable. Pretty much the same as the little "time is not absolute" tag that permeated immediately pre-Unity in VH1. Both Ivar and the Bleeding Monk not only talk about possible futures, but possible pasts. They see the VEI universe for what it is - a big multiverse in flux. Both have mentioned they wish to change some of those things to occur more to their liking - this could definitely lead to restructuring the universe we know.

5. The thing that really set my mind on this path was the FVL Twitter interaction that kjjohansson had:

Okay, now I'm confused. I tweeted him to say I was disappointed to hear he was leaving A&A and asked if he might go to another title after Delinquents. His response:

"I'm not leaving -- we're wrapping up all the storylines in a mind-blowing finale! "

I bolded what I think makes this interesting. Why "we're" wrapping up? He's the only person who has written for A&A. I suppose he could mean he and the editors, but I don't think so. He also refers to "all the storylines". Now, that could mean all of the storylines he has going on in A&A, but I really don't think so, especially since he used "we're". I think he let slip (not really by anything he said, but by the subtlety of language that one often has a hard time controlling when trying to tell an incomplete truth) that all storylines for all titles are coming to a "mind-blowing finale".

I think there will be a major cataclysmic event throughout all of the titles that the Armor Hunters event will set off, and I think the Bleeding Monk, the Eternal Brothers, Archer, Bloodshot, and X-O will be central to this event.



Okay, that's my crazy theory.

Like I said, I'm ambivalent about it. I don't like change, but it could be awesome. We have pointed out many continuity problems throughout the books and many agree there have been some missteps (EW and Shadowman come to mind, but there are other issues in all the books). Lately, VEI seems to have found its voice and its direction, but they are sort of restricted by the previous continuity. This would solve that problem and let them have a pure editorial vision with a great base of characters, concepts, and creators to rebuild an even stronger, more awesome universe.

This would also make the VEI books more accessible - we would be starting at square one. New people wouldn't feel they need to read any of the previous stuff, but there would still be an incentive to go out and buy the trades and HC because it would all be relevant - some characters will survive and reference the original universe, but in a way that makes the first 2 years of books just icing on the cake - not absolutely necessary reads.


Thoughts?

[ShadowTuga]

As I was discussing the Bleeding Monk issue with my gf, I actually thought about Solar and the "shape the Universe" thing. Because of thats same sentence you referenced.

Reading this, I see a lot of stuff that makes sense and I can certainly see your POV. Good stuff, man.

[Phoenix8008]

I HAAAAAAATE the idea of a reboot. A reboot that is totally planned and executed as a function of the story itself would be ... less hated ... than a regular reboot. It would be unique, yes. It would make alot of new #1's, yes. But it would also make a VEI2verse and set VEI right next to Marvel and DC as universe rebooters just for profit (or so it would look, despite the uniqueness of an 'in story' universe reboot).

Also, I don't think the Bleeding Monk has the power to reshape/reset the whole universe. Maybe something from the Faraway though? Or a combination of powerful person and some techo-Mcguffin from the Faraway?

Neat theory though, but it would really bug me.

[bygranddesign]

Some cool thoughts Mr. Lord Dunlow...

Perhaps the boon can reset the universe?

The Boon has been speculated as both destroying and recreating both Aram and Mary-Maria from nanites that also collected the souls of all the people that died from the boon and placing them all in Aram and MM's newly formed nanite bodies.

But perhaps the boon can be re-configured/controlled in a way to destroy the universe and recreate it perfectly anew (perhaps in the vision of the Bleeding Monk or Ivar) The conflict would be who would control the destiny of this new universe by controling the Boon - the Bleeding Monk or Ivar or Archer or XO or others...?

Having said that - I hope they explore that possibility but don't actually go through with the re-setting the universe idea.

[bamaphilosopher]

Interesting observations!

I don't think they will necessarily reboot as much as just shake everything up with Armor Hunters and its aftermath.

They've got me really excited about Armor Hunters. I bet that will attract attention from other comic collectors too, especially on Free Comic Book Day (which, obviously, they're aiming to do).

In that sense, maybe Armor Hunters is a little bit like Unity was for VH1...this might be the event that gets everyone's attention.

I hope it does get Valiant some notice and draws in new readers, because Valiant is putting out some really high-quality stuff that deserves attention. But, as they mention in a recent interview, a lot of other companies are apparently putting out some great stuff too, so it's forcing everyone to up their game.

It will be interesting if what you say is true. I certainly think you're right they are going to try to shake everything up and blow us all away. I am rather looking forward to it, if that's the case.

I don't think they'll go as far as a reboot, though...why mess with the stuff that is working? But, I guess we'll see.

[bamaphilosopher]

Some cool thoughts Mr. Lord Dunlow...

Perhaps the boon can reset the universe?

Good point! They've been setting up the Faraway, from the Gilgamesh epic, which has obvious parallels to the Lost Land in the Unity storyline. So, maybe they do have some plans along this line. It will be interesting to see what that is leading up to.

[jmatt]

Thoughts?

I'm thinking that I'm glad I bet against you.

There's no reason for a reboot. Yea, something grand may be in the works but I don't see a universe reset.

[leonmallett]

Thoughts?

I'm thinking that I'm glad I bet against you.

There's no reason for a reboot. Yea, something grand may be in the works but I don't see a universe reset.

Agreed.

A small number of continuity errors/mis-steps is not strong cause for a reboot.

The VEI universe is still in its infancy, and unless a square one re-start, I would argue that a partial reboot would add to confusion.

Not sure that such a hypothetical event would add anything of real value that could not be better or just as well done without some kind of start-over.

[kjjohanson]

I can't see them rebooting the continuity. However, the news of the X-O sellouts suggests that the event may be bringing a bunch of new readers in. That, along with the Rai launch (which I expect will do very well, at the very least for the whole first arc, with Crain's art), may be justification for restarting titles (many, if not all) with a new #1. I'm not a huge fan of the constant relaunch of titles, but if it serves to drive in new readers, I'd be okay with it. If the Death of a Renegade arc is going to be as big a game-changer as suggested, a reboot after 25 might not be so bad. And we're already seeing a hiatus with other series like Eternal Warrior (while Rai rolls out), A&A and Q&W (while they meet up in Delinquents, and perhaps after which FLV will leave A&A), Bloodshot (during Armor Hunters, and after what's looking to be a shakeup in his status quo), and Shadowman (while they publish End Times, and perhaps as Dr. Mirage is launched). That leaves what, just Unity and X-O? I don't see a reason for a reboot to those titles, pending where the results of Armor Hunters leaves Aric.

[bamaphilosopher]

I can't see them rebooting the continuity. However, the news of the X-O sellouts suggests that the event may be bringing a bunch of new readers in. That, along with the Rai launch (which I expect will do very well, at the very least for the whole first arc, with Crain's art), may be justification for restarting titles (many, if not all) with a new #1. I'm not a huge fan of the constant relaunch of titles, but if it serves to drive in new readers, I'd be okay with it. If the Death of a Renegade arc is going to be as big a game-changer as suggested, a reboot after 25 might not be so bad. And we're already seeing a hiatus with other series like Eternal Warrior (while Rai rolls out), A&A and Q&W (while they meet up in Delinquents, and perhaps after which FLV will leave A&A), Bloodshot (during Armor Hunters, and after what's looking to be a shakeup in his status quo), and Shadowman (while they publish End Times, and perhaps as Dr. Mirage is launched). That leaves what, just Unity and X-O? I don't see a reason for a reboot to those titles, pending where the results of Armor Hunters leaves Aric.

Good points...I agree with you that these constant re-launches are annoying, but DC and Marvel (from what I understand, since I don't read them) have benefitted from such re-launches. I wonder if Valiant is thinking maybe they can as well?

But, it seems too early for Valiant, to me. DC and Marvel had such long histories that reboots are necessary from time to time (though I hear these reboots are not technically reboots in some cases, since apparently a lot of the prior continuity is still in place, especially with Marvel - again, I don't know, I don't read Marvel, that's just what I've been hearing at my local comic shop).

[jmatt]

DC and Marvel had such long histories that reboots are necessary from time to time (though I hear these reboots are not technically reboots in some cases, since apparently a lot of the prior continuity is still in place, especially with Marvel - again, I don't know, I don't read Marvel, that's just what I've been hearing at my local comic shop).

I think it was Dunlow who called Marvel the "Etch-a-Sketch" universe, where once every 36 months they shake the tablet and start drawing it all over again. I think that's an apt metaphor.

[Jace]

I think it was Dunlow who called Marvel the "Etch-a-Sketch" universe, where once every 36 months they shake the tablet and start drawing it all over again. I think that's an apt metaphor.

I don't even read any Marvel titles anymore for this EXACT reason. They don't even have new creative teams on the books when they reboot them!!!! Waid and Samnee on Daredevil comes to mind. They are restarting over at #1 for only one single reason, #1 issues sell more books. Their was a recent interview on Newsarama with Alonso and one of their marketing guys where they tried to give other reason but it was so obviously crap. Say what you want about DC but at least they aren't restarting every title when it hits #20.


Found the article, you can read it here;
http://www.newsarama.com/20643-marvel-s ... ering.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BugsySig]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

[bygranddesign]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

i agree. I think its a good strategy. They are trying to sqeeze as much value out of 8-10 titles per month as they can.

Like they have said in interviews - adding too many titles might hurt the overall quality of the line by stretching talent and editors out too thin.

At some point they will need to get ambitious and really expand the line - but i think right now they are content to build up the universe slowly and collect small victories while waiting for real movie/tv news to start becoming a reality (or hoping one of these events starts a snowball effect of adding new readers).

[jmatt]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

[kjjohanson]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Part of it might be to not overwhelm the staff as well.

[Phoenix8008]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Part of it might be to not overwhelm the staff as well.

They very nearly spelled out in one interview lately that they didn't want to explode the number of titles and have the loss of quality be their downfall. It reminded me of when VH1 was pressuring Jim Shooter to add more titles and he didn't want to because the tight editorial control they had enjoyed would be blown away. Or, if you prefer, look at Birthquake where they decided to double ship all the titles. Yes, this was when the comic book bubble was bursting, but a parallel can be drawn for the dangers of over saturation.

The other good thing about putting some books on hiatus and running a mini is that it gives them a chance to introduce new characters in the universe that can later have their own titles when they are ready to grow some. It gives them a chance to have fans look at them and react and tell VEI what they think.

[leonmallett]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Another who feels annoyed here.

I am not so sure the logic actually stacks up; at some point hey either expand or they don't ever do it - but 'overwhelming readers' does not stand the test of logic; various publishers have managed to publish many, many books per month than that. To me that is a smokescreen, because what will the difference be when they want to go to 10, or 12 or 15 or however many titles per month?

My gut feeling is it may be a combination of resources and trying to stabilize or even grow sales on the current number of books. But even if that gut feeling is wrong (and it may very well be), like I say, the 'not wanting to overwhelm the fans' line does not really stand the test of logic for the reasons of proven evidence to the contrary with other publishers and should they choose to actually exceed that stated number of monthly books.

[Phoenix8008]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Another who feels annoyed here.

I am not so sure the logic actually stacks up; at some point hey either expand or they don't ever do it - but 'overwhelming readers' does not stand the test of logic; various publishers have managed to publish many, many books per month than that. To me that is a smokescreen, because what will the difference be when they want to go to 10, or 12 or 15 or however many titles per month?

My gut feeling is it may be a combination of resources and trying to stabilize or even grow sales on the current number of books. But even if that gut feeling is wrong (and it may very well be), like I say, the 'not wanting to overwhelm the fans' line does not really stand the test of logic for the reasons of proven evidence to the contrary with other publishers and should they choose to actually exceed that stated number of monthly books.

I agree that they are also not wanting to stress the employees that they have right now. But the thing is, Valiant is in kind of a unique niche. Yes, there are other publishers putting out 12 or 15 or 20 books a month successfully. But how many of those are shared universes of comics? Very few to none, I'd wager. And many of those small publishers doing that are using big name licensed properties which have a nearly garunteed draw. Marvel & DC are both way to big to reasonably have anyone but a millionaire collect their entire shared universe every month. Valiant is either alone or among the VERY few shared universes where that is reasonably possible. THAT is the overwhelm they are talking about I'd guess. They have said that they hear from lots of fans who like being able to collect the entire universe (I'm one of them as many others on these boards are I'm sure) and they'd like to not undo that if they can help it. I do expect them to eventually go up to 12 or 15 titles, but maybe they want to work on cementing their place first before expanding. Their watch words so far have been 'slow and steady' and it's worked okay so far.

[erwinrafael]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Another who feels annoyed here.

I am not so sure the logic actually stacks up; at some point hey either expand or they don't ever do it - but 'overwhelming readers' does not stand the test of logic; various publishers have managed to publish many, many books per month than that. To me that is a smokescreen, because what will the difference be when they want to go to 10, or 12 or 15 or however many titles per month?

My gut feeling is it may be a combination of resources and trying to stabilize or even grow sales on the current number of books. But even if that gut feeling is wrong (and it may very well be), like I say, the 'not wanting to overwhelm the fans' line does not really stand the test of logic for the reasons of proven evidence to the contrary with other publishers and should they choose to actually exceed that stated number of monthly books.

What comic book publisher other than Marvel or DC has a shared universe line of books that has ten or more titles? NONE. What proven evidence are you talking about?

Heck, even the Ultimate line of books in Marvel can not expand to more than five books a month.

I also do not understand the backlash against the renumbering and the variant covers. If it is a marketing gimmick that allows a line of books to survive, do it. Waid and Samnee's Daredevil has been mentioned. That book has reached as high as it can go in terms of sales, and there is no DD movie in the horizon. Marvel has already sold the "Eisner" label and the most feasible act to give the title a sales bump is to renumber it. If that is what they have to do to keep Waid and Samnee on Daredevil, then they should do it. the new status quo of DD gives a good "story" reason for a new number one, with DD 's identity now revealed in public, Murdock disbarred from practicing law in NY and the team moving his adventures to the West Coast.

[leonmallett]

I actually think the strategy of putting a book on hiatus for a few months while publishing a mini series (like End Times, Delinquents and the Armor Wars minis) is a decent strategy. Not a full reboot, but a way to draw in some new readers. Then continue with the regular numbering for another year or so with an easy to jump on arc for those new readers, especially a big anniversary issue or other major storyline.

Yes, it seems that Valiant is limiting itself to nine titles so as not to overwhelm readers, but then rotating titles out of that nine so they can be supplanted with a new mini or other character title.

I understand the market advantage of such a strategy but it's annoying that they have to use it.

Another who feels annoyed here.

I am not so sure the logic actually stacks up; at some point hey either expand or they don't ever do it - but 'overwhelming readers' does not stand the test of logic; various publishers have managed to publish many, many books per month than that. To me that is a smokescreen, because what will the difference be when they want to go to 10, or 12 or 15 or however many titles per month?

My gut feeling is it may be a combination of resources and trying to stabilize or even grow sales on the current number of books. But even if that gut feeling is wrong (and it may very well be), like I say, the 'not wanting to overwhelm the fans' line does not really stand the test of logic for the reasons of proven evidence to the contrary with other publishers and should they choose to actually exceed that stated number of monthly books.

What comic book publisher other than Marvel or DC has a shared universe line of books that has ten or more titles? NONE. What proven evidence are you talking about?

Heck, even the Ultimate line of books in Marvel can not expand to more than five books a month.

I also do not understand the backlash against the renumbering and the variant covers. If it is a marketing gimmick that allows a line of books to survive, do it. Waid and Samnee's Daredevil has been mentioned. That book has reached as high as it can go in terms of sales, and there is no DD movie in the horizon. Marvel has already sold the "Eisner" label and the most feasible act to give the title a sales bump is to renumber it. If that is what they have to do to keep Waid and Samnee on Daredevil, then they should do it. the new status quo of DD gives a good "story" reason for a new number one, with DD 's identity now revealed in public, Murdock disbarred from practicing law in NY and the team moving his adventures to the West Coast.

You mentioned shared universe, I didn't. I pointed out about publishing a number of books only.

The Ultimate line competes against Marvel's own product, so no like for like analogy there.

[jmatt]

The other fly in the ointment is going to be reader backlash when suddenly a title they started to be interested in disappears without explanation. 95% of their readers are probably not the nutjobs we are in following every announcement and company interview. To them, the title will simply disappear with nothing more than a "hiatus" mention at the end of the issue.

It's a smart idea in that it allows them to rotate in new characters and concepts but it is not without its perils.

[Badwire]

DC and Marvel had such long histories that reboots are necessary from time to time (though I hear these reboots are not technically reboots in some cases, since apparently a lot of the prior continuity is still in place, especially with Marvel - again, I don't know, I don't read Marvel, that's just what I've been hearing at my local comic shop).

I think it was Dunlow who called Marvel the "Etch-a-Sketch" universe, where once every 36 months they shake the tablet and start drawing it all over again. I think that's an apt metaphor.

It wasn't that way at Marvel back in the day (before the 90's). They had a pretty linear timeline and would make references to past events in prior issues. Remember the "*for the specifics check out issue 94" thing marvel used to do. you dont see that too often nowadays.

Back then DC had the universe that i felt was totally screwed up with it's earth 1 and 2 continuities. Dc really needed a reboot because of that. Valiant is brand new, a reboot now would only be confusing.

I like the fact that this Valiant universe is still linear.

[kjjohanson]

DC and Marvel had such long histories that reboots are necessary from time to time (though I hear these reboots are not technically reboots in some cases, since apparently a lot of the prior continuity is still in place, especially with Marvel - again, I don't know, I don't read Marvel, that's just what I've been hearing at my local comic shop).

I think it was Dunlow who called Marvel the "Etch-a-Sketch" universe, where once every 36 months they shake the tablet and start drawing it all over again. I think that's an apt metaphor.

It wasn't that way at Marvel back in the day (before the 90's). They had a pretty linear timeline and would make references to past events in prior issues. Remember the "*for the specifics check out issue 94" thing marvel used to do. you dont see that too often nowadays.

Well, the internet can provide most of the answers to "what was that a;; about" these days.

[lorddunlow]

DC and Marvel had such long histories that reboots are necessary from time to time (though I hear these reboots are not technically reboots in some cases, since apparently a lot of the prior continuity is still in place, especially with Marvel - again, I don't know, I don't read Marvel, that's just what I've been hearing at my local comic shop).

I think it was Dunlow who called Marvel the "Etch-a-Sketch" universe, where once every 36 months they shake the tablet and start drawing it all over again. I think that's an apt metaphor.

It wasn't that way at Marvel back in the day (before the 90's). They had a pretty linear timeline and would make references to past events in prior issues. Remember the "*for the specifics check out issue 94" thing marvel used to do. you dont see that too often nowadays.

Well, the internet can provide most of the answers to "what was that a;; about" these days.

I had to look at my keyboard to figure that typo out. I guess your right hand was shifted one key to the right.