My Problem with XO and Why I am Excited for #4

[jmatt]

For me XO has been the weakest launch of the 4.

The problem in my opinion is that in writing a comic book character that many potential readers will be unfamiliar with, even if the high concept can be boiled down easily to Visigoth warrior in a suit of alien super-armour, that they two key elements need to dove-tail within the pages of that first issue. Which they did not, other than the cover. This problem could have been easily circumvented (start with him in armour then flashback up to the present), but the other titles have simply put more solidly set out the 'who' they are and 'what' is happening to their central characters by the end of the first issue.

+1

Start with a big bang fight scene, we see Aric 'lose' as a building collapses on him. "Goodskin, how did it come to this?" moment. Flashback to everything we've seen so far, then "Diedre? My wife? Where is Diedre?!" as he erupts from the wreckage and into the modern world.

Maybe even get a little Tarantino and start each of the first 3 issues with a little of the Coliseum fight and a lot of flashback following it.

[SJS4]

First comment is that there is no right way to tell a story.

With that said, I am glad they are telling this tory the way they are. X-O is my favorite of the bunch so far. In general I find the "flashback" method of storytelling annoying and tiresome. The flashback moments you describe have always struck me as marketing interfering with the actual story.

[leonmallett]

For me XO has been the weakest launch of the 4.

The problem in my opinion is that in writing a comic book character that many potential readers will be unfamiliar with, even if the high concept can be boiled down easily to Visigoth warrior in a suit of alien super-armour, that they two key elements need to dove-tail within the pages of that first issue. Which they did not, other than the cover. This problem could have been easily circumvented (start with him in armour then flashback up to the present), but the other titles have simply put more solidly set out the 'who' they are and 'what' is happening to their central characters by the end of the first issue.

but you are not looking at it from the point of view of a reader who is unfamiliar with the high concept. you are looking at it from the perspective of somebody who has read and liked the VH1 X-O#1. We have a new reader in this board who likes how X-O is running so far!

The current comic book market has shown that it can sustain storytelling that does not have the hero donning the costume in the first issue. Ultimate Spider-Man did that.

I think unless you can peer into my mind, that I know how I feel about the matter.

Spider-man is a different matter since he is so well known, the high concept does not need explanation due to other media saturation over the past 5 decades. It is NOT a like for like comparison.

[BugsySig]

For me XO has been the weakest launch of the 4.

The problem in my opinion is that in writing a comic book character that many potential readers will be unfamiliar with, even if the high concept can be boiled down easily to Visigoth warrior in a suit of alien super-armour, that they two key elements need to dove-tail within the pages of that first issue. Which they did not, other than the cover. This problem could have been easily circumvented (start with him in armour then flashback up to the present), but the other titles have simply put more solidly set out the 'who' they are and 'what' is happening to their central characters by the end of the first issue.

but you are not looking at it from the point of view of a reader who is unfamiliar with the high concept. you are looking at it from the perspective of somebody who has read and liked the VH1 X-O#1. We have a new reader in this board who likes how X-O is running so far!

The current comic book market has shown that it can sustain storytelling that does not have the hero donning the costume in the first issue. Ultimate Spider-Man did that.

I think unless you can peer into my mind, that I know how I feel about the matter.

Spider-man is a different matter since he is so well known, the high concept does not need explanation due to other media saturation over the past 5 decades. It is NOT a like for like comparison.

+1

When you are launching the flagship book of a new universe, to not show the character to fruition (at least visually) except on the cover is a negative to peaking reader interest. I suppose the opposite could be said--that it creates more interest in the next issue--but I don't think that is as valid in this case. I think it is more likely that some readers feel ripped off that in an oversized issue with 7 preview pages in it, they didn't see the main character in the title suit of armor.

[jmatt]

First comment is that there is no right way to tell a story.

With that said, I am glad they are telling this tory the way they are. X-O is my favorite of the bunch so far. In general I find the "flashback" method of storytelling annoying and tiresome. The flashback moments you describe have always struck me as marketing interfering with the actual story.

The present way is just pretty linear, and as another poster mentioned, when you're debuting the first title of a resurrected line, new readers may feel entitled to see at least a little bit of the guy in his suit.

The entire first ten issues of Solar were my suggestion on steroids: a ten part mini-series telling his back story one issue at a time (with a ten panel 'connect the pages' poster, noless). I think many original Valiant fans liked the approach.

The new approach is fine, we're just spitballing about things that might have been more intriguing.