In Hindsight, does anyone wish VEI would've kept the OG VALIANT continuity?

[slack]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

[Ryan]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

In my recollection, the first few years of VEI was just a 'modern' retelling of early VH1.

Imo, even with the flaws, VH1 was the far deeper and more beloved continuity.

[ManofTheAtom]

I do.

I get the advantages of rebooting with an 'Ultimate' style restart, but it also neuters one of VH1's greatest strengths which was the tightly woven universe and Rai 0.

Rebooting everything from the beginning and hitting some of the same broad stroke plot points as the original runs the risk of in the long run being seen as a pale imitation. E.G. Ultimate Marvel. No one would argue that Bendis and Bagley's Ultimate Spider-Man isn't a more modern, sophisticated, realistically rendered take on Spider-Man compared to Lee and Ditko's. But which is the definitive version? Which version will still be reprinted 100 years from now?

I get that writers and artists don't want to be burdened by all the continuity and constraints of fitting their story into what has come before. But the thing is, continuity isn't for writers, it's for readers. Don't you think it would've been easier for Stan Lee just to say muck it, I got this crazy cool new idea who cares what happened in FF 56. But no, he understood it was worth it to constrain his stories to fit what had come before, because for a reader, the illusion that every story fits together into one huge uber epic is one of the great joys of reading comics. And keeps people coming back.

So the question always was, do you go from X-0 68 with the whole dream ending or do you even go back to the end of Unity and everyone pops out of their BWS bubbles in the current year?

I miss the days when this board was full of discussions of this nature. The pulse seems faint now. I hope all the Pro-grannies and Anti-grannies can agree everyone wants the same thing, great Valiant comics.

How many times did I say before I was banned, before VEI launched, that they should have kept the original continuity? lol

The receipts are right here on this board, lol.

[Chiclo]

No, any benefits the continuity would be outweighed by inaccessibility to new readers and the editorial limitations.

[ManofTheAtom]

No, any benefits the continuity would be outweighed by inaccessibility to new readers and the editorial limitations.

Claremont didn't reboot the X-Men when he did Giant X-Men #1.

[ManofTheAtom]

To put it another way, VALIANT's Magnus Robot Fighter #1, published in 1991, pretty much picked up on the same narrative and character threads from the original series published by Gold Key that concluded in 1977, 14 years earlier.

VALIANT Entertainment's X-O Manowar #1 launched in 2012, which was 14 years after Acclaim published VH 2's Magnus Robot Fighter #18, the final issue of that series, in 1998, and 13 years after the publication of the three issues of Unity 2000 in 1999.

Had VEI picked up on the same narrative and character threads from VH 1 and VH 2, they would have just been doing the same thing Shooter and Voyager did 21 years before them.

[Chiclo]

Are you saying that you want VEI to continue what, DC Lite?

[ManofTheAtom]

Are you saying that you want VEI to continue what, DC Lite?

VH 2 is DC Lite.

VEI could have resolved the disparity between VH 1 and VH 2.

[leonmallett]

No, because that would simply have been fan-service to a diminishing audience from 25-30 years ago, let alone the GK3 headaches, and far from new-reader-friendly. It would have likely overly constrained the stories that Venditti, Kindt, Dysart, Swierczynski, Van Lente et al set out to tell.

[ManofTheAtom]

No, because that would simply have been fan-service to a diminishing audience from 25-30 years ago, let alone the GK3 headaches, and far from new-reader-friendly. It would have likely overly constrained the stories that Venditti, Kindt, Dysart, Swierczynski, Van Lente et al set out to tell.

Maybe. Shooter birthed a new (new) universe using established canon from Gold Key.

Maybe Dysart's Harbinger would have merely focused on a new generation of characters.

[Ryan]

No, any benefits the continuity would be outweighed by inaccessibility to new readers and the editorial limitations.

So was Star Trek The Next Generation inaccessible and limiting? Should they have rebooted with a new Kirk and Spock in 1987? That would have been more successful in your eyes?

No, because that would simply have been fan-service to a diminishing audience from 25-30 years ago, let alone the GK3 headaches, and far from new-reader-friendly. It would have likely overly constrained the stories that Venditti, Kindt, Dysart, Swierczynski, Van Lente et al set out to tell.

This argument just goes around and around with the same arguments. The new-reader-friendly argument leads to the constant soft reboots we are seeing all the time now. Nothing can be too complicated or complex, it might scare the 'new readers' away. That just leads to shallow, bland, and repetitive stories (DMG anyone?).

One of the first comics I ever read was Uncanny X-Men 278. It was super dense and complex with all sorts of things I had no idea about, but I was drawn to the fact that it was intelligent and demanded attention from the reader. Comics used to be made for the smart kids.

The reboot vs. non-reboot argument is a matter of opinion. But one objective fact is that Valiant fandom was much stronger post-VH1 than it is post-VEI. I've never heard a good explanation as to why that is from the people who claim VEI was the greatest comics ever created.

[Ryan]

No, any benefits the continuity would be outweighed by inaccessibility to new readers and the editorial limitations.

Claremont didn't reboot the X-Men when he did Giant X-Men #1.

That's a great example. As if a devoted fanbase, years of history, and a beloved universe are just slight benefits that barely tip the scale compared to 'inaccessibility' and making the editors and writers read the old books. Oh the horror.

[slack]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

So, you aren't actually advocating for the real OG VH1 continuity... just the cherry-picked pieces of it you would like to see continued?

[The Harbinger]

I hate what VEI became in the Antos era, but there were some strong characters that came around (Harada of VEI I think is superior to Harada of VH1). It was good to see the great characters (Sunlight on Snow or Angela Vessel for example) vs the ones that were terrible (Kris, Psi-Lords).

Harbinger, if you're around you might be a good one to ask: what exactly was the Antos era of VEI? I wasn't paying much attention. I didn't buy anything after THE VISITOR and I think that was Fred Peirce who did that.

To preface, DMG buyout of VEI starts Jan 2018. Their first official issues are November 2018. She went in at start of 2019, made it about 2 years.

Antos was a cancer elsewhere in the industry that tends to keep failing upward. Antos signals the beginning of the other failed upwards hires with no sales success (see IDW currently doing the literal same thing with same defenders despite all the warning signs since they're in the process of the crash and burn).

Vita Ayala's run of Livewire throwing out Harbinger Wars 2 plot as she writes herself in as a character for the 100th time, Mags Vissagio revamping another character, this time Dr. Mirage, etc. If it wasn't a brand being handed to a person that spends their time fighting twitter eggs and virtue singalling, it was a series that went through months of delays to never finishing (Visitor) or an illegible fever dream (Psi-Lords, The Harbinger) that nobody can sit and explain who it's for

You can find some pretty entertaining threads here of people in denial about the quality of books in 2020 that the publisher and hiring can't be a problem.

The big problem with Antos is the same problem I have with Adam Sessler, disregarding the toxic personalities. You can't even tell they work for company X on their social media because it's all venomous politics through the whole timeline.

[ManofTheAtom]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

So, you aren't actually advocating for the real OG VH1 continuity... just the cherry-picked pieces of it you would like to see continued?

I'm reminded of fans of the original Battlestar Galactica who wanted Ronald Moore to continue from where the original series left off "but ignore Galactica 80". I think I recall him pointing out that same kind of cherry picking.

I'm of the opinion that it should all be acknowledged but fixed. Fix Birthquake, fix VH 2. Don't ignore it.

[Ryan]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

So, you aren't actually advocating for the real OG VH1 continuity... just the cherry-picked pieces of it you would like to see continued?

Not exactly. Every new continuation of a previous continuity is going to emphasize what they like and ignore some things. Not everything has to be acknowledged.

Let's take the 2 good examples we've been using, 1991 Magnus and 1987 Star Trek TNG. They both continued the continuity of cult classic, short-lived series from the 1960s. They both updated everything for the modern audience, more realistic, deeper, no more camp. But they did it in a way that it could still be regarded as a continuation of the original series'.

That didn't mean they had to acknowledge or discuss every detail from the 60s series'. The things that were too goofy, campy, or outdated were simply ignored or 'retconned' in a way that made sense. That's exactly what I'm saying could have been done for Birthquake silliness.

The way you use 'cherry picking' sounds like a negative thing, but it's just the normal process of how anyone would restart a dead fictional universe.

[Ryan]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

So, you aren't actually advocating for the real OG VH1 continuity... just the cherry-picked pieces of it you would like to see continued?

I'm reminded of fans of the original Battlestar Galactica who wanted Ronald Moore to continue from where the original series left off "but ignore Galactica 80". I think I recall him pointing out that same kind of cherry picking.

I'm of the opinion that it should all be acknowledged but fixed. Fix Birthquake, fix VH 2. Don't ignore it.

Sure, fix it in a broad general way. That doesn't mean every detail has to be acknowledged and explained. Just like TNG didn't have to use Tribbles a new VH1 wouldn't have to use, acknowledge, or explain the X-O bike to be considered a true continuation of the continuity.

[Ryan]

I'm reminded of fans of the original Battlestar Galactica who wanted Ronald Moore to continue from where the original series left off "but ignore Galactica 80". I think I recall him pointing out that same kind of cherry picking.

I'm of the opinion that it should all be acknowledged but fixed. Fix Birthquake, fix VH 2. Don't ignore it.

I'm talking about a continuation of the original continuity in the modern day, like 91 Magnus, 87 ST:TNG, 1975 Giant-Size X-Men 1. New adventures set in the previously established world. How much of Birthquake or VH2 would actually have to be acknowledged or 'fixed' for that to happen?

The X-O dream ending and Jack jumping off a building, what else? With it being 25-30 years since most of those stories, a lot could be left in the past without it being contradicted or written out of continuity.

Just like the above-mentioned titles, the focus would be on the new adventures of the characters going forward built on the foundation of the previously established world, not on trying to explain every detail of how the past continuity fits. That's what I would call a bad use of continuity, and that's the kind of thing that's makes people dislike having too much continuity.

All 3 of the examples set their stories firmly in the previous continuities without being over-burdened by trying to explain how everything fits together. That's the right balance I'm talking about.

[ManofTheAtom]

No. By birthquake everything was so bad...

The first few years of VEI were very good (except the first Eternal Warrior arc).

Most of Birthquake could be easily ignored or written out.

So, you aren't actually advocating for the real OG VH1 continuity... just the cherry-picked pieces of it you would like to see continued?

I'm reminded of fans of the original Battlestar Galactica who wanted Ronald Moore to continue from where the original series left off "but ignore Galactica 80". I think I recall him pointing out that same kind of cherry picking.

I'm of the opinion that it should all be acknowledged but fixed. Fix Birthquake, fix VH 2. Don't ignore it.

Sure, fix it in a broad general way. That doesn't mean every detail has to be acknowledged and explained. Just like TNG didn't have to use Tribbles a new VH1 wouldn't have to use, acknowledge, or explain the X-O bike to be considered a true continuation of the continuity.

The X-O bike and the like is not something that requires explanation, but X-O #68 and many other things that happened during and after Birthquake do.

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm reminded of fans of the original Battlestar Galactica who wanted Ronald Moore to continue from where the original series left off "but ignore Galactica 80". I think I recall him pointing out that same kind of cherry picking.

I'm of the opinion that it should all be acknowledged but fixed. Fix Birthquake, fix VH 2. Don't ignore it.

I'm talking about a continuation of the original continuity in the modern day, like 91 Magnus, 87 ST:TNG, 1975 Giant-Size X-Men 1. New adventures set in the previously established world. How much of Birthquake or VH2 would actually have to be acknowledged or 'fixed' for that to happen?

The X-O dream ending and Jack jumping off a building, what else? With it being 25-30 years since most of those stories, a lot could be left in the past without it being contradicted or written out of continuity.

Just like the above-mentioned titles, the focus would be on the new adventures of the characters going forward built on the foundation of the previously established world, not on trying to explain every detail of how the past continuity fits. That's what I would call a bad use of continuity, and that's the kind of thing that's makes people dislike having too much continuity.

All 3 of the examples set their stories firmly in the previous continuities without being over-burdened by trying to explain how everything fits together. That's the right balance I'm talking about.

Well, that fits the cherry picking criticism, though. It has all or nothing, which is a point Moore made to those who wanted the new BSG to continue from the old BSG.

TNG may not have used tribbles, but DS9 did. And they even went beyond it, sending the DS9 crew to the TOS era.

So, something like an X-O bike may not need to be explained, but if current VALIANT heroes went back in time and saw Aric riding it, a simple "we don't talk about it" like when -Worf dismissed the appearance of TOS-era Klingons can suffice.

Something like that may not require a more intricate explanation like ENT's Augment virus, but other things might.

I for one would have greatly enjoyed seeing the effect Jack killing himself would have had on the timeline given his predestined death in 1999. How did his preventing it change things? Or did it? Maybe Nettie and the Coven brought him back just in time for it. Who knows.

[Ryan]

Well, that fits the cherry picking criticism, though. It has all or nothing, which is a point Moore made to those who wanted the new BSG to continue from the old BSG.

TNG may not have used tribbles, but DS9 did. And they even went beyond it, sending the DS9 crew to the TOS era.

So, something like an X-O bike may not need to be explained, but if current VALIANT heroes went back in time and saw Aric riding it, a simple "we don't talk about it" like when -Worf dismissed the appearance of TOS-era Klingons can suffice.

Something like that may not require a more intricate explanation like ENT's Augment virus, but other things might.

Every relaunch or continuation of a previous story uses some form of 'cherry-picking' by necessity. The only reason Tribbles were brought back was because the Star Trek franchise had become so successful that nearly every aspect of the TOS was mined for material. I'm sure they weren't part of the original TNG relaunch story bible though.

Had Shooter stayed involved with Magnus and it had stayed successful, I'm sure he would've eventually gotten to Danae and the Neo-Animals, and updated them to fit in the modern style while downplaying their 60s goofiness. All without negating their previous appearances.

I for one would have greatly enjoyed seeing the effect Jack killing himself would have had on the timeline given his predestined death in 1999. How did his preventing it change things? Or did it? Maybe Nettie and the Coven brought him back just in time for it. Who knows.

I agree with that. Everything that happened in the comics is part of the characters' history. Big things would have to be dealt with. But 25-30 years later in the characters' world, many of those things would be in the past and no longer relevant.

All I'm saying is that there is a good way to relaunch characters within a previous continuity without it being "inaccessible" or "new-reader unfriendly", as has been argued here. Magnus, TNG, and GS X-Men 1 are all superb examples of how it can be done.

The first VALIANT comic I ever read was Magnus 4. The Gold Key character cards and all the situations I didn't fully understand didn't make it feel inaccessible. On the contrary, it made the world feel rich and interesting, and made me want to read more.

[ManofTheAtom]

Well, that fits the cherry picking criticism, though. It has all or nothing, which is a point Moore made to those who wanted the new BSG to continue from the old BSG.

TNG may not have used tribbles, but DS9 did. And they even went beyond it, sending the DS9 crew to the TOS era.

So, something like an X-O bike may not need to be explained, but if current VALIANT heroes went back in time and saw Aric riding it, a simple "we don't talk about it" like when -Worf dismissed the appearance of TOS-era Klingons can suffice.

Something like that may not require a more intricate explanation like ENT's Augment virus, but other things might.

Every relaunch or continuation of a previous story uses some form of 'cherry-picking' by necessity. The only reason Tribbles were brought back was because the Star Trek franchise had become so successful that nearly every aspect of the TOS was mined for material. I'm sure they weren't part of the original TNG relaunch story bible though.

Had Shooter stayed involved with Magnus and it had stayed successful, I'm sure he would've eventually gotten to Danae and the Neo-Animals, and updated them to fit in the modern style while downplaying their 60s goofiness. All without negating their previous appearances.

I for one would have greatly enjoyed seeing the effect Jack killing himself would have had on the timeline given his predestined death in 1999. How did his preventing it change things? Or did it? Maybe Nettie and the Coven brought him back just in time for it. Who knows.

I agree with that. Everything that happened in the comics is part of the characters' history. Big things would have to be dealt with. But 25-30 years later in the characters' world, many of those things would be in the past and no longer relevant.

All I'm saying is that there is a good way to relaunch characters within a previous continuity without it being "inaccessible" or "new-reader unfriendly", as has been argued here. Magnus, TNG, and GS X-Men 1 are all superb examples of how it can be done.

The first VALIANT comic I ever read was Magnus 4. The Gold Key character cards and all the situations I didn't fully understand didn't make it feel inaccessible. On the contrary, it made the world feel rich and interesting, and made me want to read more.

It's all relative, though.

To this day, writers and editors at DC and Marvel still find ways to bring back old ideas from the '30s and '40s, sometimes more successfully than others.

While cherry picking is absolutely a thing, this things however ultimately never completely get rid of what came before. Sometimes to their benefit, others to their detriment.

So, while X-O Bike can be ignored, Master Darque dying in the X-O Manowar suit likely can't and shouldn't be.

[Ryan]

It's all relative, though.

To this day, writers and editors at DC and Marvel still find ways to bring back old ideas from the '30s and '40s, sometimes more successfully than others.

While cherry picking is absolutely a thing, this things however ultimately never completely get rid of what came before. Sometimes to their benefit, others to their detriment.

It's totally relative. Any relaunch/continuation/reboot/reimagining is an art, not a science.

VEI is the same, it's a reboot but it's most definitely also a form of "cherry-picking". They went through all the Valiant material and picked what to keep, what to throw out, what to change, what to ignore, etc.

The difference in keeping it in continuity is that it respects the material, history, and fans. It adds value to the previous stories instead of negating them. It brings all the fans together instead of dividing them.

So, while X-O Bike can be ignored, Master Darque dying in the X-O Manowar suit likely could and should not.

To do it properly, everything that happened in the comics, happened. There's always a little wiggle room (even more with VH1 due to the X-O dream ending), but no cheap or extravagant retcons are allowed.

I would have to do a thorough re-reading and note taking to address too many specifics though. I haven't read many of those since they came out.

[ManofTheAtom]

It's all relative, though.

To this day, writers and editors at DC and Marvel still find ways to bring back old ideas from the '30s and '40s, sometimes more successfully than others.

While cherry picking is absolutely a thing, this things however ultimately never completely get rid of what came before. Sometimes to their benefit, others to their detriment.

It's totally relative. Any relaunch/continuation/reboot/reimagining is an art, not a science.

VEI is the same, it's a reboot but it's most definitely also a form of "cherry-picking". They went through all the Valiant material and picked what to keep, what to throw out, what to change, what to ignore, etc.

The difference in keeping it in continuity is that it respects the material, history, and fans. It adds value to the previous stories instead of negating them. It brings all the fans together instead of dividing them.

So, while X-O Bike can be ignored, Master Darque dying in the X-O Manowar suit likely could and should not.

To do it properly, everything that happened in the comics, happened. There's always a little wiggle room (even more with VH1 due to the X-O dream ending), but no cheap or extravagant retcons are allowed.

I would have to do a thorough re-reading and note taking to address too many specifics though. I haven't read many of those since they came out.

Yeah.

[Ryan]

So, while X-O Bike can be ignored, Master Darque dying in the X-O Manowar suit likely could and should not.

I hadn't thought it through to this level, but I agree with you here. I'm also against the kind of cherry-picking that would ignore parts of the continuity in a contradictory way.

When I say ignore things, I mean not using them. For example, to ignore Darque dying in the X-O suit would be just not to use or mention Darque.

The other way of ignoring things would be to just use Darque without ever acknowledging that he died in continuity or explaining any of it. I am not arguing for this kind of cherry-picking.

I stand by that even the silliest things in Birthquake could be ignored or written around without contradicting or negating any of the published VH1 story.

I think some of the last 5 years of DMG comics have goofier and harder to integrate into VEI continuity aspects than Birthquake does into VH1. But that's a whole nother topic.