Jim Shooter's Post Unity VALIANT Universe

[ManofTheAtom]

Another reason Shooter's Post-Unity VALIANT would have rocked is that he would have a lot more money to work with.

Pre-Unity they had to keep the costs down which is why they had a lot of unknowns and 'out of fashion' artists. He would have been able afford some of the higher priced Marvel and DC veterans for writers and artists.

I could see him hiring Larry Hama to do Rising Spirit, Ninjak, or HardCorps. Would have been fun to see Hama let loose in the more mature VALIANT universe, not held back by GIJoe being a toy license for kids. Stern on Magnus and Rai. Gruenwald, Claremont, Nocenti all would have been great to see on more mature properties, and they were falling out of favor at Marvel anyway.

Instead Layton gets first-timers and interns to write most of the flagship titles (Simpson on Harbinger, Gonzalez on X-O, Vanhook on Bloodshot, etc.). I mostly like Vanhook as a writer but it's insane that one of his first professional writing gigs was Bloodshot 1 that sold over a million copies and was tons of people's first (and only) exposure to VALIANT comics.

Then again, Birthquake and VH 2 showed us that renown did not necessarily mean that famous people are a good fit for VALIANT.

VALIANT needs people that care about these characters like those famous people care about DC and Marvel characters.

[Ryan]

Another reason Shooter's Post-Unity VALIANT would have rocked is that he would have a lot more money to work with.

Pre-Unity they had to keep the costs down which is why they had a lot of unknowns and 'out of fashion' artists. He would have been able afford some of the higher priced Marvel and DC veterans for writers and artists.

I could see him hiring Larry Hama to do Rising Spirit, Ninjak, or HardCorps. Would have been fun to see Hama let loose in the more mature VALIANT universe, not held back by GIJoe being a toy license for kids. Stern on Magnus and Rai. Gruenwald, Claremont, Nocenti all would have been great to see on more mature properties, and they were falling out of favor at Marvel anyway.

Instead Layton gets first-timers and interns to write most of the flagship titles (Simpson on Harbinger, Gonzalez on X-O, Vanhook on Bloodshot, etc.). I mostly like Vanhook as a writer but it's insane that one of his first professional writing gigs was Bloodshot 1 that sold over a million copies and was tons of people's first (and only) exposure to VALIANT comics.

Then again, Birthquake and VH 2 showed us that renown did not necessarily mean that famous people are a good fit for VALIANT.

VALIANT needs people that care about these characters like those famous people care about DC and Marvel characters.

Right, famous creators have usually been bad for VALIANT.

The reason I chose these names is not because of renown but because all of them are story-first creators that thrived under Shooter at Marvel. Had Shooter stayed, he wouldn't have continued to write all the titles (they had already hired Hall to write Shadowman), but with Shooter as EIC they would have stuck to the style and tone of writing that Pre-Unity had established.

In my totally subjective opinion, there's a good chance that in that case that Post-Unity could have actually been much better than Pre-Unity. Shooter has limitations as a writer, especially when writing so many titles at once, and there are some writers that write in the 'Shooter style' better than he does. For example, compare Avengers by Shooter in the early 200's against Stern's run from about 250-270 while Shooter was still EiC. Stern's run is in the same straightforward, clear style, but has become a classic run for readers while Shooter's isn't as much.

That's not to say the magic might have disappeared anyway, or it just wouldn't have worked, we're way off in what if land heheh.

But I think the Birthquake and VH2 are different cases. Those creators were more like mercenaries paid big bucks to sell books based on their names with little editorial direction. There's no way Shooter would have brought in people like Ennis or Busiek and let them do whatever they wanted just because of their big names.

[ManofTheAtom]

Another reason Shooter's Post-Unity VALIANT would have rocked is that he would have a lot more money to work with.

Pre-Unity they had to keep the costs down which is why they had a lot of unknowns and 'out of fashion' artists. He would have been able afford some of the higher priced Marvel and DC veterans for writers and artists.

I could see him hiring Larry Hama to do Rising Spirit, Ninjak, or HardCorps. Would have been fun to see Hama let loose in the more mature VALIANT universe, not held back by GIJoe being a toy license for kids. Stern on Magnus and Rai. Gruenwald, Claremont, Nocenti all would have been great to see on more mature properties, and they were falling out of favor at Marvel anyway.

Instead Layton gets first-timers and interns to write most of the flagship titles (Simpson on Harbinger, Gonzalez on X-O, Vanhook on Bloodshot, etc.). I mostly like Vanhook as a writer but it's insane that one of his first professional writing gigs was Bloodshot 1 that sold over a million copies and was tons of people's first (and only) exposure to VALIANT comics.

Then again, Birthquake and VH 2 showed us that renown did not necessarily mean that famous people are a good fit for VALIANT.

VALIANT needs people that care about these characters like those famous people care about DC and Marvel characters.

Right, famous creators have usually been bad for VALIANT.

The reason I chose these names is not because of renown but because all of them are story-first creators that thrived under Shooter at Marvel. Had Shooter stayed, he wouldn't have continued to write all the titles (they had already hired Hall to write Shadowman), but with Shooter as EIC they would have stuck to the style and tone of writing that Pre-Unity had established.

In my totally subjective opinion, there's a good chance that in that case that Post-Unity could have actually been much better than Pre-Unity. Shooter has limitations as a writer, especially when writing so many titles at once, and there are some writers that write in the 'Shooter style' better than he does. For example, compare Avengers by Shooter in the early 200's against Stern's run from about 250-270 while Shooter was still EiC. Stern's run is in the same straightforward, clear style, but has become a classic run for readers while Shooter's isn't as much.

That's not to say the magic might have disappeared anyway, or it just wouldn't have worked, we're way off in what if land heheh.

But I think the Birthquake and VH2 are different cases. Those creators were more like mercenaries paid big bucks to sell books based on their names with little editorial direction. There's no way Shooter would have brought in people like Ennis or Busiek and let them do whatever they wanted just because of their big names.

Definitely.

[buff-beardo]

I’m always still surprised Jim gets so much credit. He’s amongst my favs, but he did it all flying by the seat of his pants with a ton of help from many.
Jim didn’t create everything himself imo anymore than did Stan Lee did with Marvel.

[buff-beardo]

I love Solar 0-4. But, it reminds me a lot of Moore’s Miracleman run for the first few issues.

[buff-beardo]

Pre Unity. 6 titles. 2 were gold key updates. Harbinger and X-O equal x-men and Iron Man/Conan. Rai 1-5 is average/boring as is Shadowman 1-3. Pre-Unity Shooter is overrated around here.
I prefer that time right after Unity. The 6 months afterwards. Awesome stories during that time.

[ManofTheAtom]

I’m always still surprised Jim gets so much credit. He’s amongst my favs, but he did it all flying by the seat of his pants with a ton of help from many.
Jim didn’t create everything himself imo anymore than did Stan Lee did with Marvel.

I'm sure we acknowledge that, but it has more to do with his creative vision than with his creating anything in specific.

[ManofTheAtom]

I love Solar 0-4. But, it reminds me a lot of Moore’s Miracleman run for the first few issues.

I've never read Miracleman, so I cannot make that comparison.

[ManofTheAtom]

Pre Unity. 6 titles. 2 were gold key updates. Harbinger and X-O equal x-men and Iron Man/Conan. Rai 1-5 is average/boring as is Shadowman 1-3. Pre-Unity Shooter is overrated around here.
I prefer that time right after Unity. The 6 months afterwards. Awesome stories during that time.

There definitely were. This thread was more about what might have been, the decisions that were lost, of which I think there were some good ones.

[Ryan]

I’m always still surprised Jim gets so much credit. He’s amongst my favs, but he did it all flying by the seat of his pants with a ton of help from many.
Jim didn’t create everything himself imo anymore than did Stan Lee did with Marvel.

I do think early VALIANT was great because Shooter was using and playing off the ideas of many others around him. Layton, BWS, and others deserve a lot of credit for sure.

But it was Shooter's attention to detail that made it all work and made it unique. It was Shooter's vision to do a realistic 'hard sci-fi' universe where everything mattered (big events had consequences for other books in a realistic manner) and the story progressed in real time. Because that was his vision for the New Universe, it just got perfected at VALIANT.

It was also Shooter that had an affinity for the Gold Key characters (and the relationship with the CEO of Western Publishing) and had the vision to update them in a respectful way that was true to their GK roots while being modern. That's why he gets a lot of the credit.

I love Solar 0-4. But, it reminds me a lot of Moore’s Miracleman run for the first few issues.

They are similar stories, both realistic takes on someone with god-like powers. I always find Moore a bit too cynical and pretentious for me. Shooter at his best does realism by applying real science and adult logic, but doesn't abandon the heroism aspect of superheroes.

[Ryan]

Some excerpts from Shooter talking about the New Universe in Marvel Age #44 from November 1986:

The New Universe is going to be the kind of leap away from the standard of today, which is set by Marvel, that the Marvel Universe was when it appeared twenty-five years ago.

In 1961, the difference in credibility between Marvel Comics and all other comics was awesome. I remember reading AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2. The problems that Peter Parker had in that story were unheard of. Nobody had ever before seen anything like that in comics. And I have to tell you, probably at any other comic book company the whole idea of comic book characters having human, real-life problems would have been scoffed at because those companies would have claimed the idea was too dull and too boring.

On the contrary, it was exciting! And it really made Marvel different throughout the sixties and seventies. Now what has happened in the twenty-five years since Stan started it, pretty much everyone has latched onto the idea of doing stories in a more credible manner. In other words, the other companies have come around and are now trying to do what Marvel does. I think Marvel does it better and that Marvel always will.

The point of the New Universe is to take that next leap in realism. All the other people in the other companies are going to scoff and claim that it won't work-that it will be dull. But I think it will be exciting. I think it will break all the rules again, just like Marvel broke all the rules back in 1961. Only this time, we're going to break rules that we, ourselves, established.

-
The reason for the New Universe was to revolutionize the medium. We came up with a thought just to change the way comics were being done.

-
I think that the key word for it is credibility. The New Universe is the universe outside your window. The New Universe takes place in the real world.

-
So it's not the concept, it's the stories that you feel are most important.

Right. It is definitely the story. This whole thing I've been talking about, credibility and stuff like that, should be incidental to the reader. All it should do is open the door, so to speak, so that the reader can enter the fantasy of the story so much more easily.

-
Most other comic book companies don't have a fundamental concept. Either they don't have a "universe" at all, or if they do, it really doesn't have consistency or a solid internal logic. Sometimes they'll even try to paste one on retroactively. What Stan did back in 1961 was create a universe where there was internal logic from the beginning. The Marvel Universe wasn't entirely consistent with the real world, but it was internally consistent.

So now we are taking that next great leap, saying that not only will we be consistent, but we will also be consistent to the real world.

-
Another element of the New Universe that will become apparent is that it will take place in real time. Now it may not be directly even with the calendar, because sometimes a story that takes two issues to tell will not have lasted two months, but by the end of the year, everything will have advanced a year. In order to do stories in a real world, we have to have real time pass. I can't claim this concept as mine, because other strips have used this as an element, but no one else has created a whole universe using the idea of real time.

These are the exact same fundamentals that the VALIANT universe was built on. To try and "revolutionize the medium". I think of it more as an evolution than a revolution. The next logical step from Marvel.

But like he says, the fundamental concepts of the universe shouldn't be what readers are focusing on or even that aware of. The stories and characters have to grab the readers first. The universe concepts are just the scaffolding, the foundation.

Of course great stories and great comics can be made without that scaffolding. And bad or mediocre comics can also be made with all the best scaffolding.

But as VALIANT got farther away from these fundamental concepts, they got more like everything else and lost their uniqueness.

[ManofTheAtom]

Some excerpts from Shooter talking about the New Universe in Marvel Age #44 from November 1986:

The New Universe is going to be the kind of leap away from the standard of today, which is set by Marvel, that the Marvel Universe was when it appeared twenty-five years ago.

In 1961, the difference in credibility between Marvel Comics and all other comics was awesome. I remember reading AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2. The problems that Peter Parker had in that story were unheard of. Nobody had ever before seen anything like that in comics. And I have to tell you, probably at any other comic book company the whole idea of comic book characters having human, real-life problems would have been scoffed at because those companies would have claimed the idea was too dull and too boring.

On the contrary, it was exciting! And it really made Marvel different throughout the sixties and seventies. Now what has happened in the twenty-five years since Stan started it, pretty much everyone has latched onto the idea of doing stories in a more credible manner. In other words, the other companies have come around and are now trying to do what Marvel does. I think Marvel does it better and that Marvel always will.

The point of the New Universe is to take that next leap in realism. All the other people in the other companies are going to scoff and claim that it won't work-that it will be dull. But I think it will be exciting. I think it will break all the rules again, just like Marvel broke all the rules back in 1961. Only this time, we're going to break rules that we, ourselves, established.

-
The reason for the New Universe was to revolutionize the medium. We came up with a thought just to change the way comics were being done.

-
I think that the key word for it is credibility. The New Universe is the universe outside your window. The New Universe takes place in the real world.

-
So it's not the concept, it's the stories that you feel are most important.

Right. It is definitely the story. This whole thing I've been talking about, credibility and stuff like that, should be incidental to the reader. All it should do is open the door, so to speak, so that the reader can enter the fantasy of the story so much more easily.

-
Most other comic book companies don't have a fundamental concept. Either they don't have a "universe" at all, or if they do, it really doesn't have consistency or a solid internal logic. Sometimes they'll even try to paste one on retroactively. What Stan did back in 1961 was create a universe where there was internal logic from the beginning. The Marvel Universe wasn't entirely consistent with the real world, but it was internally consistent.

So now we are taking that next great leap, saying that not only will we be consistent, but we will also be consistent to the real world.

-
Another element of the New Universe that will become apparent is that it will take place in real time. Now it may not be directly even with the calendar, because sometimes a story that takes two issues to tell will not have lasted two months, but by the end of the year, everything will have advanced a year. In order to do stories in a real world, we have to have real time pass. I can't claim this concept as mine, because other strips have used this as an element, but no one else has created a whole universe using the idea of real time.

These are the exact same fundamentals that the VALIANT universe was built on. To try and "revolutionize the medium". I think of it more as an evolution than a revolution. The next logical step from Marvel.

But like he says, the fundamental concepts of the universe shouldn't be what readers are focusing on or even that aware of. The stories and characters have to grab the readers first. The universe concepts are just the scaffolding, the foundation.

Of course great stories and great comics can be made without that scaffolding. And bad or mediocre comics can also be made with all the best scaffolding.

But as VALIANT got farther away from these fundamental concepts, they got more like everything else and lost their uniqueness.

Nice.

Ellis' newuniversal was great. It sucked that it ended as soon as it did.

[Ryan]

Some excerpts from Shooter talking about the New Universe in Marvel Age #44 from November 1986:

The New Universe is going to be the kind of leap away from the standard of today, which is set by Marvel, that the Marvel Universe was when it appeared twenty-five years ago.

In 1961, the difference in credibility between Marvel Comics and all other comics was awesome. I remember reading AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2. The problems that Peter Parker had in that story were unheard of. Nobody had ever before seen anything like that in comics. And I have to tell you, probably at any other comic book company the whole idea of comic book characters having human, real-life problems would have been scoffed at because those companies would have claimed the idea was too dull and too boring.

On the contrary, it was exciting! And it really made Marvel different throughout the sixties and seventies. Now what has happened in the twenty-five years since Stan started it, pretty much everyone has latched onto the idea of doing stories in a more credible manner. In other words, the other companies have come around and are now trying to do what Marvel does. I think Marvel does it better and that Marvel always will.

The point of the New Universe is to take that next leap in realism. All the other people in the other companies are going to scoff and claim that it won't work-that it will be dull. But I think it will be exciting. I think it will break all the rules again, just like Marvel broke all the rules back in 1961. Only this time, we're going to break rules that we, ourselves, established.

-
The reason for the New Universe was to revolutionize the medium. We came up with a thought just to change the way comics were being done.

-
I think that the key word for it is credibility. The New Universe is the universe outside your window. The New Universe takes place in the real world.

-
So it's not the concept, it's the stories that you feel are most important.

Right. It is definitely the story. This whole thing I've been talking about, credibility and stuff like that, should be incidental to the reader. All it should do is open the door, so to speak, so that the reader can enter the fantasy of the story so much more easily.

-
Most other comic book companies don't have a fundamental concept. Either they don't have a "universe" at all, or if they do, it really doesn't have consistency or a solid internal logic. Sometimes they'll even try to paste one on retroactively. What Stan did back in 1961 was create a universe where there was internal logic from the beginning. The Marvel Universe wasn't entirely consistent with the real world, but it was internally consistent.

So now we are taking that next great leap, saying that not only will we be consistent, but we will also be consistent to the real world.

-
Another element of the New Universe that will become apparent is that it will take place in real time. Now it may not be directly even with the calendar, because sometimes a story that takes two issues to tell will not have lasted two months, but by the end of the year, everything will have advanced a year. In order to do stories in a real world, we have to have real time pass. I can't claim this concept as mine, because other strips have used this as an element, but no one else has created a whole universe using the idea of real time.

These are the exact same fundamentals that the VALIANT universe was built on. To try and "revolutionize the medium". I think of it more as an evolution than a revolution. The next logical step from Marvel.

But like he says, the fundamental concepts of the universe shouldn't be what readers are focusing on or even that aware of. The stories and characters have to grab the readers first. The universe concepts are just the scaffolding, the foundation.

Of course great stories and great comics can be made without that scaffolding. And bad or mediocre comics can also be made with all the best scaffolding.

But as VALIANT got farther away from these fundamental concepts, they got more like everything else and lost their uniqueness.

Nice.

Ellis' newuniversal was great. It sucked that it ended as soon as it did.

Ellis is a good writer. His Stormwatch which became Authority feels like it uses a lot of similar concepts to what the New Universe and VALIANT were doing. Sci-fi realism in superheroes, but still fun and exciting.

[Sunlight on Snow]

Now I need a copy of Marvel Age #44 !!!

Thanks for sharing this.

[ManofTheAtom]

Some excerpts from Shooter talking about the New Universe in Marvel Age #44 from November 1986:

The New Universe is going to be the kind of leap away from the standard of today, which is set by Marvel, that the Marvel Universe was when it appeared twenty-five years ago.

In 1961, the difference in credibility between Marvel Comics and all other comics was awesome. I remember reading AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #2. The problems that Peter Parker had in that story were unheard of. Nobody had ever before seen anything like that in comics. And I have to tell you, probably at any other comic book company the whole idea of comic book characters having human, real-life problems would have been scoffed at because those companies would have claimed the idea was too dull and too boring.

On the contrary, it was exciting! And it really made Marvel different throughout the sixties and seventies. Now what has happened in the twenty-five years since Stan started it, pretty much everyone has latched onto the idea of doing stories in a more credible manner. In other words, the other companies have come around and are now trying to do what Marvel does. I think Marvel does it better and that Marvel always will.

The point of the New Universe is to take that next leap in realism. All the other people in the other companies are going to scoff and claim that it won't work-that it will be dull. But I think it will be exciting. I think it will break all the rules again, just like Marvel broke all the rules back in 1961. Only this time, we're going to break rules that we, ourselves, established.

-
The reason for the New Universe was to revolutionize the medium. We came up with a thought just to change the way comics were being done.

-
I think that the key word for it is credibility. The New Universe is the universe outside your window. The New Universe takes place in the real world.

-
So it's not the concept, it's the stories that you feel are most important.

Right. It is definitely the story. This whole thing I've been talking about, credibility and stuff like that, should be incidental to the reader. All it should do is open the door, so to speak, so that the reader can enter the fantasy of the story so much more easily.

-
Most other comic book companies don't have a fundamental concept. Either they don't have a "universe" at all, or if they do, it really doesn't have consistency or a solid internal logic. Sometimes they'll even try to paste one on retroactively. What Stan did back in 1961 was create a universe where there was internal logic from the beginning. The Marvel Universe wasn't entirely consistent with the real world, but it was internally consistent.

So now we are taking that next great leap, saying that not only will we be consistent, but we will also be consistent to the real world.

-
Another element of the New Universe that will become apparent is that it will take place in real time. Now it may not be directly even with the calendar, because sometimes a story that takes two issues to tell will not have lasted two months, but by the end of the year, everything will have advanced a year. In order to do stories in a real world, we have to have real time pass. I can't claim this concept as mine, because other strips have used this as an element, but no one else has created a whole universe using the idea of real time.

These are the exact same fundamentals that the VALIANT universe was built on. To try and "revolutionize the medium". I think of it more as an evolution than a revolution. The next logical step from Marvel.

But like he says, the fundamental concepts of the universe shouldn't be what readers are focusing on or even that aware of. The stories and characters have to grab the readers first. The universe concepts are just the scaffolding, the foundation.

Of course great stories and great comics can be made without that scaffolding. And bad or mediocre comics can also be made with all the best scaffolding.

But as VALIANT got farther away from these fundamental concepts, they got more like everything else and lost their uniqueness.

Nice.

Ellis' newuniversal was great. It sucked that it ended as soon as it did.

Ellis is a good writer. His Stormwatch which became Authority feels like it uses a lot of similar concepts to what the New Universe and VALIANT were doing. Sci-fi realism in superheroes, but still fun and exciting.

Cool.

[Ryan]

Now I need a copy of Marvel Age #44 !!!

Thanks for sharing this.

Some of the Marvel Age issues have gotten pricey over the years. It is fun to look at some of the previews over the years, and things that never came out. There's a number of New Universe articles that are worth checking out.

[Ryan]

I came across an interesting blog post that talks about some things that we're discussing in this thread.

It's by the comics writer Chris Roberson from 2007. It's quite long, but well worth reading. I'll pull a few relevant quotes out.

Mark Gruenwald, the father of modern superhero comics

But it was nothing compared to The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. In TOHOTMU, as it’s sometimes called, editor Gruenwald brought the fan’s obsessive eye for detail and rationalization to the forefront, provided detailed schematics of secret bases and flying cars and jetpacks and trick arrows; rating the relative strength and speeds of heroes and villains, gods and monsters; and slowly working out an entire detailed history of a fictional universe that included everything from Norse gods to teleporting dogs to blue-skinned mermaids to mutants to dark dimensions to WWII super-soldiers. For the obsessive fan, it isn’t enough for stories to be good; they have to make sense.

These are obviously some things that Gruenwald and Shooter shared; an obsessive eye for detail and a passion for making fictional universes conform to logic and believability.

The tenor of both the DC and Marvel universes in recent years is owed in extremely large measure to the obsessive rationalization of TOHOTMU, and to editor Gruenwald. (And it can be argued that the Ultimate Marvel universe is the finest realization of this kind of rationalization to date, but more on that later.)

I would say New Universe and pre-Unity VALIANT are better realizations of the 'rational' approach. But Ultimate Marvel was certainly a bigger deal at the time. This is from 2007, Iron Man 1 came out in 2008. The 'rational' realistic approach to superheroes was about to go mainstream.

A conceit of superhero comics, from the Golden Age onwards, is that the presence of beings with superpowers just doesn’t change the world all that much. Superman may have been flying in the skies over the DC Universe in the 1940s, but he wasn’t able to prevent World War II in that fictional reality anymore than the Flash was able to stop Lee Harvey Oswald’s bullet. The fictional worlds of the DC and Marvel universes map to the real world, the one that the readers inhabit, too closely for the worlds to diverge too much to be recognizable.

This is a huge point that made VALIANT so great. The events in the comics had consequences for the whole world, and realistically a world with superpowered people would start become a much different world than our own. This has been taken further by many writers since.

The second issue picks up the baton and runs with it, and introduces the second way in which Squadron Supreme differed from other books. A month had passed since the first issue appeared on newsstands, out here in the real world, and exactly a month had passed in the fictional reality of the book, as well.

Squadron Supreme played out in real time. Twelve issues over twelve months, with a month gap in the story between each monthly issue. Readers of DC Comics’ recently concluded 52 weekly series will recognize this gimmick. And though it had been used in other media before (Gasoline Alley, most notably), this was the first time the trick had been employed in the pages of a superhero comic book.

Superhero comics playing out in real time? Sounds familiar. Squadron Supreme 1 came out in 1985. New Universe in 1986. Gruenwald also wrote the best and longest running New U series, DP7.

The current state of superhero comics, with its obsessive attention to continuity and rationalization, line-wide crossovers, multiple realities, and increasing divergence from the real world, resembles nothing so much as a Mark Gruenwald comic writ large. Everything that Gruenwald pioneered, from the late seventies through the mid-nineties, has now become industry standard. And the mainstream superhero comics of today resemble Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme more than they resemble the mainstream comics of the day.

And that is why Mark Gruenwald is the father of modern superhero comics.

The Authority, Kick-A$$, The Ultimates, The Boys, early MCU, and many others are all indebted to the Gruenwald and Shooter style of realistic superheroes. Early VALIANT had that style perfected. It would have been amazing to see what that would've looked like in year 5, year 10, etc. if Shooter had been able to stay and keep it going in that style.

[ManofTheAtom]

I came across an interesting blog post that talks about some things that we're discussing in this thread.

It's by the comics writer Chris Roberson from 2007. It's quite long, but well worth reading. I'll pull a few relevant quotes out.

Mark Gruenwald, the father of modern superhero comics

But it was nothing compared to The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. In TOHOTMU, as it’s sometimes called, editor Gruenwald brought the fan’s obsessive eye for detail and rationalization to the forefront, provided detailed schematics of secret bases and flying cars and jetpacks and trick arrows; rating the relative strength and speeds of heroes and villains, gods and monsters; and slowly working out an entire detailed history of a fictional universe that included everything from Norse gods to teleporting dogs to blue-skinned mermaids to mutants to dark dimensions to WWII super-soldiers. For the obsessive fan, it isn’t enough for stories to be good; they have to make sense.

These are obviously some things that Gruenwald and Shooter shared; an obsessive eye for detail and a passion for making fictional universes conform to logic and believability.

The tenor of both the DC and Marvel universes in recent years is owed in extremely large measure to the obsessive rationalization of TOHOTMU, and to editor Gruenwald. (And it can be argued that the Ultimate Marvel universe is the finest realization of this kind of rationalization to date, but more on that later.)

I would say New Universe and pre-Unity VALIANT are better realizations of the 'rational' approach. But Ultimate Marvel was certainly a bigger deal at the time. This is from 2007, Iron Man 1 came out in 2008. The 'rational' realistic approach to superheroes was about to go mainstream.

A conceit of superhero comics, from the Golden Age onwards, is that the presence of beings with superpowers just doesn’t change the world all that much. Superman may have been flying in the skies over the DC Universe in the 1940s, but he wasn’t able to prevent World War II in that fictional reality anymore than the Flash was able to stop Lee Harvey Oswald’s bullet. The fictional worlds of the DC and Marvel universes map to the real world, the one that the readers inhabit, too closely for the worlds to diverge too much to be recognizable.

This is a huge point that made VALIANT so great. The events in the comics had consequences for the whole world, and realistically a world with superpowered people would start become a much different world than our own. This has been taken further by many writers since.

The second issue picks up the baton and runs with it, and introduces the second way in which Squadron Supreme differed from other books. A month had passed since the first issue appeared on newsstands, out here in the real world, and exactly a month had passed in the fictional reality of the book, as well.

Squadron Supreme played out in real time. Twelve issues over twelve months, with a month gap in the story between each monthly issue. Readers of DC Comics’ recently concluded 52 weekly series will recognize this gimmick. And though it had been used in other media before (Gasoline Alley, most notably), this was the first time the trick had been employed in the pages of a superhero comic book.

Superhero comics playing out in real time? Sounds familiar. Squadron Supreme 1 came out in 1985. New Universe in 1986. Gruenwald also wrote the best and longest running New U series, DP7.

The current state of superhero comics, with its obsessive attention to continuity and rationalization, line-wide crossovers, multiple realities, and increasing divergence from the real world, resembles nothing so much as a Mark Gruenwald comic writ large. Everything that Gruenwald pioneered, from the late seventies through the mid-nineties, has now become industry standard. And the mainstream superhero comics of today resemble Gruenwald’s Squadron Supreme more than they resemble the mainstream comics of the day.

And that is why Mark Gruenwald is the father of modern superhero comics.

The Authority, Kick-A$$, The Ultimates, The Boys, early MCU, and many others are all indebted to the Gruenwald and Shooter style of realistic superheroes. Early VALIANT had that style perfected. It would have been amazing to see what that would've looked like in year 5, year 10, etc. if Shooter had been able to stay and keep it going in that style.

Cool find.

[grendeljd]

Oh sweet - even more discussion on the New U, since I last checked in

It really was an idea ahead of its time and was Jim’s precursor test-pilot for many elements that he perfected with Valiant. Not all of it worked, not all of it was great, but when it did what Jim intended it was fantastic. It resides deeply in my dna as an early influence on my tastes in comic books.

Gruenwald fully embraced the intention of it and wrote one of the best series to come out of the line next to Jim’s own (unfortunately brief) run on Star Brand. I’m glad he brought his own considerable passion and talent in to shape part of it - that’s interesting to read about the original Squadron Supreme also playing out in real-time, I didn’t know that. It’s on my list of classics that I intend to get around to reading someday - ironically, I am a huge fan of the rebooted versions of it from the early 20-aughts (Supreme Power etc.)

[ManofTheAtom]

Oh sweet - even more discussion on the New U, since I last checked in

It really was an idea ahead of its time and was Jim’s precursor test-pilot for many elements that he perfected with Valiant. Not all of it worked, not all of it was great, but when it did what Jim intended it was fantastic. It resides deeply in my dna as an early influence on my tastes in comic books.

Gruenwald fully embraced the intention of it and wrote one of the best series to come out of the line next to Jim’s own (unfortunately brief) run on Star Brand. I’m glad he brought his own considerable passion and talent in to shape part of it - that’s interesting to read about the original Squadron Supreme also playing out in real-time, I didn’t know that. It’s on my list of classics that I intend to get around to reading someday - ironically, I am a huge fan of the rebooted versions of it from the early 20-aughts (Supreme Power etc.)

I've never read Shooter's New Universe comics, but I do have the first printing of the Squadron Supreme trade (the one with Gruenwald's ashes mixed in with the ink).

I did get JMS' Supreme Power and Ellis' newuniversal. I thought they were both fantastic, at least until the first switched from being for mature audiences to all audiences. It sucks that Ellis had to cut his run short on account of his computer crashing.