Is Rai 0 still relevant ???

[siren3-4]

If that were true the comic would have been 3 pages long . . . it got about as detailed as my example above in a lot of instances . . .

Not really. It covered deaths and small events, like Faith leading the resistance and Kris writing a letter.

There are still many details to fill out in those two.

Prequels for the most part are a bad idea . . . It only works for very well loved concepts and characters . . . Rai 0 is more like knowing Vader is Luke's father before seeing Empire . . . or knowing Yoda dies . . or being told ahead of time that Jabba is thrown into the pit . . .

Valiant is not Marvel or DC . . they don't have characters that have been loved for decades that they can go back and show a prequel . . instead they decided to make their whole universe a prequel . . .

They did when their first comic was Magnus, which meant that their present was the 41st Century and the then-present day comics were their past.

That's a 2000 year difference . . . not a single generation . . .

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

I can tell by your response that you are not reading my posts correctly or you are not putting the emphasis on the correct subject . . .

The stories may be crap or they may be excellent (that's irrelevant). . but you take away a small degree of suspense that monthly published stories (like weekly televised programs) need in order to keep real interest . . .

[ManofTheAtom]

If that were true the comic would have been 3 pages long . . . it got about as detailed as my example above in a lot of instances . . .

Not really. It covered deaths and small events, like Faith leading the resistance and Kris writing a letter.

There are still many details to fill out in those two.

Prequels for the most part are a bad idea . . . It only works for very well loved concepts and characters . . . Rai 0 is more like knowing Vader is Luke's father before seeing Empire . . . or knowing Yoda dies . . or being told ahead of time that Jabba is thrown into the pit . . .

Valiant is not Marvel or DC . . they don't have characters that have been loved for decades that they can go back and show a prequel . . instead they decided to make their whole universe a prequel . . .

They did when their first comic was Magnus, which meant that their present was the 41st Century and the then-present day comics were their past.

That's a 2000 year difference . . . not a single generation . . .

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

I can tell by your response that you are not reading my posts correctly or you are not putting the emphasis on the correct subject . . .

The stories may be crap or they may be excellent (that's irrelevant). . but you take away a small degree of suspense that monthly published stories (like weekly televised programs) need in order to keep real interest . . .

DC has never published anything like Rai #0, yet I really doubt that Batman is going to die for good in the upcoming Batman Dies arc.

I also doubt that Batman will ever kill the Joker.

I don't need a DC version of Rai #0 to know that, all that is necessary is to know that the characters will never die... and even if they do, they'll just come back.

VALIANT was offering something different.

[cjv]

I'm not so much concerned that Rai #0 locked in certain events,
I'm more concerned that it didn't mention certain things.

If an event was important to the Valiant universe it was in Rai #0.

Unless a particular storyline in any Valiant title is related to a Rai #0 event,
they're basically telling us... "It's not important".

So, you're reading along in your favorite title... and it looks like the hero
is in grave danger and there's no way he'll be able to survive.
Is there suspense? Are you worried? Nope.
Rai #0 says he lives a while longer.
Whatever is happening, it's not important.

Ohhh... Chaos Effect! Oh no, Birthquake!!!
What does Rai #0 say about these extremely important books and events?
Nothing? Oh, well then they're not important.
Whatever happens, it wasn't even a "blip" on the
Valiant history radar that is Rai #0.

Rai #0 stories could be fantastically told. They would be key to the history of Valiant,
but everything else is automatically less important because
it didn't make the pages of Rai #0.

X-O Manowar goes 68 issues... nothing important happens.
X-O Manowar will die fighting Harada... someday...
and nothing in #0 - #68 can change that.
Whatever does happen in X-O after Rai #0 was printed,
if it's not related to X-O Manowar killing Harada,
it's not important enough to be "remembered".

Rai #0 set up the important events for the Valiant universe...
and it declared everything else irrelevant.

So, Rai #0 either needs to be invalidated...
or we're going to be reading stories that:
A) Aren't important enough to be mentioned in Rai #0
or
B) Are important enough to be in Rai #0, but weren't mentioned.
(Which seems to invalidate Rai #0's purpose.)

Neither of those are very good options.

In fact, we've already seen A)... it was called post-Unity.
Except for 9 stories (out of 600 comics), everything that happened
(in those 600 comics) was unimportant to the history of Valiant.

Someone wants to say 9 out of 11 is a powerful statement about Rai #0.

I say 9 out of 600 is a more powerful statement that Rai #0 killed Valiant.

Pre-Unity Valiant... ANYTHING could happen. Major heroes could die at any time.
Major events could shift the foundation of the universe at ANY time.

Post-Unity Valiant... NOTHING IMPORTANT could happen, unless it was already in Rai #0.
Major heroes could die... at the appropriate time only.
Major events could only happen if they were mentioned in Rai #0.
If something LOOKED like a major event, but wasn't mentioned in Rai #0,
then there's no suspense... no uncertainty... no anxious moments...
we know it will turn into a minor event unworthy to be mentioned.
(So why am I reading this? No reason to read it... and by 1996, Valiant was dead.)

After consideration, I agree with you somewhat. If a character/event wasn't mentioned in Rai 0, I don't think it minimizes the importance, but rather simply means we don't know the outcome. If they don't mention Armorines, it means just about anything could happen in the Armorines title.

On the other hand, as you point out, if we have a comic where it looks like Aric might die - we know he has to live to kill Harada later. So it takes out some of the suspence.

A Rai 0 comic book (or type of comic book) could be very interesting, but I think it would have to be very vague - sort of like Nostradamus.

For example, rather than saying Jack Boniface died in 1999 to rid the world of Darque power, they should just say "Shadowman" to open various possibilities that Jack survives, there are different Shadowmen, etc.

Oh wait, they did that.

But seriously, as you say, we know Aric has to be alive, we know Kris can't get killed early on, etc etc. It does remove some of the suspense from potential cliff hangers.

Chris

[cjv]

Never really thought of Rai #0 like that before.

Kinda makes it like a Superman story (well, 99.9999% of the time)... you know he's not in any mortal danger and he will not die himself. The only drama is in whether the supporting cast will survive.

If there was a Rai #0 that was absolute truth in the D.C. universe,
you wouldn't even be worried about the supporting cast.

No reason to worry (or buy the comic) at all.

I wonder how many actual characters are mentioned in Rai 0..ie, we know Flamingo, Faith, Kris can't die fighting Harada, we know Aric can't die, etc. But for characters that aren't mentioned, anything could happen.

Chris

[siren3-4]

If that were true the comic would have been 3 pages long . . . it got about as detailed as my example above in a lot of instances . . .

Not really. It covered deaths and small events, like Faith leading the resistance and Kris writing a letter.

There are still many details to fill out in those two.

Prequels for the most part are a bad idea . . . It only works for very well loved concepts and characters . . . Rai 0 is more like knowing Vader is Luke's father before seeing Empire . . . or knowing Yoda dies . . or being told ahead of time that Jabba is thrown into the pit . . .

Valiant is not Marvel or DC . . they don't have characters that have been loved for decades that they can go back and show a prequel . . instead they decided to make their whole universe a prequel . . .

They did when their first comic was Magnus, which meant that their present was the 41st Century and the then-present day comics were their past.

That's a 2000 year difference . . . not a single generation . . .

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

I can tell by your response that you are not reading my posts correctly or you are not putting the emphasis on the correct subject . . .

The stories may be crap or they may be excellent (that's irrelevant). . but you take away a small degree of suspense that monthly published stories (like weekly televised programs) need in order to keep real interest . . .

DC has never published anything like Rai #0, yet I really doubt that Batman is going to die for good in the upcoming Batman Dies arc.

I also doubt that Batman will ever kill the Joker.

I don't need a DC version of Rai #0 to know that, all that is necessary is to know that the characters will never die... and even if they do, they'll just come back.

VALIANT was offering something different.

Valiant didn't need Rai 0 to be different . . Valiant was already different . . that is why they were successful . . .

Rai 0 detailed major plotlines, some with a ton of detail others with just a passing statement . . .

I am just telling you that some suspense was lost . . I liked the issue . . but I can see where it completely turned some people off and I really think I would have preferred it not been published with all that information . . .

I hate it when movie trailers reveal too much of a story . . . and that is just a 2 hour investment . . . They revealed too much . . .

[ManofTheAtom]

They revealed too much . . .

Not really, all they did was tell you that the characters died and showed a glipse of how it happened (in some instances, in others they only told you that they died but not how).

I've noticed that you ignored the question, so I'm gonna ask it again.

Takao's final fate (that Magnus broke his neck) was not covered in Rai #0. Does that mean that you think that his 12 issues as Rai are better than X-O Manowar's 60 issues that were published after Rai #0?

[cjv]

What battle could Aric, the barbarian in the universe's most fantastic armor,
have that would be exciting, thrilling, dangerous, mysterious, etc., when
we know he lives to be 100?

But isn't that really true for ANY major character in any comic universe? I mean, do you really think that the Vulture is going to kill Spiderman one of these times? Or that Mirror Master will finally and permanently defeat the Flash?

Barring any major "designed to boost sales event", we always know that the major characters will survive. And for the most part (with a few, notable exceptions) we know the supporting cast will survive as well. I mean, we could still have had some of the supporting cast die.

The only difference between Valiant and another universe is that Valiant told us SOME of the things the character will do in the future, and in some cases, told us WHEN the character will die.

I see the point you are bringing up - that Rai 0 takes away some of the excitement and mystery. And truthfully, given Valiant's past (where they did kill the leading or major characters like Torque and Rai) there could be some validity to that. But at worst, IMO, Rai 0 simply made them "more like" the other comic book companies, and can't really be blamed for killing Valiant (unless the only reason people bought into Valiant was because they weren't like the other companies).

Greg - do you think that Rai 0 might have worked better if it was more vague? Like instead of saying Aric lived to 100 and tried to kill Harada, the simply said something like Harada tried to take the armor, and was killed by a sword wielding barbarian? (Or even more vague than that?)

Or alternatively, they could have really made some drastic prediction, that would have kept people on their toes.

Like "In 1999, the new Shadowman is killed ridding the world of Darque power". Then we ask what happened to Jack? Was he still alive? Could he still be Shadowman? etc etc

Or something like showing Aric in a wheelchair with no legs, stabbing Harada...is simply showing someone else with the armor?


Chris

[siren3-4]

They revealed too much . . .

Not really, all they did was tell you that the characters died and showed a glipse of how it happened (in some instances, in others they only told you that they died but not how).

I've noticed that you ignored the question, so I'm gonna ask it again.

Takao's final fate (that Magnus broke his neck) was not covered in Rai #0. Does that mean that you think that his 12 issues as Rai are better than X-O Manowar's 60 issues that were published after Rai #0?

Your question is irrelevant . . .

Like I said . . . the story being good or bad doesn't matter to the overall statement I am making . . . I am talking about suspense . . .

In telemarketing sales, it is important to instill a fear of loss into the prospective buyer so that you hold their interest and you make the sale right then . . . if the buyer wants to think about it and call you back, you have most likely lost the sale . . .

You need that 1 percent chance of fear or doubt that your hero will make it out of this situation in order to make a monthly publication work for a mass audience . . .

You can still have very good stories . . but you have lost that "Anything can happen" feeling . . . That's why Marvel can successfully kill off Captain America, which also happens to be a damn good story (IMO), because they haven't taken away that 1 percent chance . . .

[greg]

I really don't know what would have been better... Rai #0 is fantastic on its own.
It's the effect that it has on the books that come afterward that became a concern.

If Rai #0 made Valiant more like other publishers, then it was a very bad idea.

Valiant wasn't like other publishers. They did kill Torque. They did kill Rai.

If I want to know that my hero will never die, I'll collect Superman.
He's an icon. He's someone I've known since I was 3 years old watching Christopher Reeve.
He's the All-American no-one-can-ever-beat-him-superhero-for-all-time.

Other guys might pick Batman, or Spider-man, but if we're just talking about
reading comic books about characters that can't be affected (permanently)...
then you won't pick Valiant over Marvel. Or DC. Or Image. Or Dark Horse.

Some might, but that's no way to build a fanbase to rival the big guys.
Being just like them won't keep people with Valiant.

Rai #0 took away what made Valiant... VALIANT.
The book itself is fantastic... an amazingly bold step for the future of the universe,
but the books that followed were wimpy steps sideways (or backwards).
The character can't die yet... so this storyline about his injuries isn't very important.
This big crossover event wasn't even mentioned, so it can't be "universe shaking".

If Rai #0 is absolute truth, then there are about 600 post-Unity Valiant books that contain unimportant details.
(At $2.50 each, that's $1,500 you'd spend on books that don't matter.)

If Rai #0 is not absolute truth, and something major/imporant/universe-shaking happens elsewhere,
then Rai #0 isn't what we gave it credit for being.

[ManofTheAtom]

They revealed too much . . .

Not really, all they did was tell you that the characters died and showed a glipse of how it happened (in some instances, in others they only told you that they died but not how).

I've noticed that you ignored the question, so I'm gonna ask it again.

Takao's final fate (that Magnus broke his neck) was not covered in Rai #0. Does that mean that you think that his 12 issues as Rai are better than X-O Manowar's 60 issues that were published after Rai #0?

Your question is irrelevant . . .

Like I said . . . the story being good or bad doesn't matter to the overall statement I am making . . . I am talking about suspense . . .

In telemarketing sales, it is important to instill a fear of loss into the prospective buyer so that you hold their interest and you make the sale right then . . . if the buyer wants to think about it and call you back, you have most likely lost the sale . . .

You need that 1 percent chance of fear or doubt that your hero will make it out of this situation in order to make a monthly publication work for a mass audience . . .

You can still have very good stories . . but you have lost that "Anything can happen" feeling . . . That's why Marvel can successfully kill off Captain America, which also happens to be a damn good story (IMO), because they haven't taken away that 1 percent chance . . .

That 1% chance that the hero might die doesn't exist. No matter what will happen in the story, the hero won't die unless sales are in the crapper and the publisher no longer wants to produce comics with it.

[siren3-4]

What battle could Aric, the barbarian in the universe's most fantastic armor,
have that would be exciting, thrilling, dangerous, mysterious, etc., when
we know he lives to be 100?

But isn't that really true for ANY major character in any comic universe? I mean, do you really think that the Vulture is going to kill Spiderman one of these times? Or that Mirror Master will finally and permanently defeat the Flash?

Barring any major "designed to boost sales event", we always know that the major characters will survive. And for the most part (with a few, notable exceptions) we know the supporting cast will survive as well. I mean, we could still have had some of the supporting cast die.

The only difference between Valiant and another universe is that Valiant told us SOME of the things the character will do in the future, and in some cases, told us WHEN the character will die.

I see the point you are bringing up - that Rai 0 takes away some of the excitement and mystery. And truthfully, given Valiant's past (where they did kill the leading or major characters like Torque and Rai) there could be some validity to that. But at worst, IMO, Rai 0 simply made them "more like" the other comic book companies, and can't really be blamed for killing Valiant (unless the only reason people bought into Valiant was because they weren't like the other companies).

Greg - do you think that Rai 0 might have worked better if it was more vague? Like instead of saying Aric lived to 100 and tried to kill Harada, the simply said something like Harada tried to take the armor, and was killed by a sword wielding barbarian? (Or even more vague than that?)

Or alternatively, they could have really made some drastic prediction, that would have kept people on their toes.

Like "In 1999, the new Shadowman is killed ridding the world of Darque power". Then we ask what happened to Jack? Was he still alive? Could he still be Shadowman? etc etc

Or something like showing Aric in a wheelchair with no legs, stabbing Harada...is simply showing someone else with the armor?


Chris

I think that having the one prediction or "prophecy" can be interesting . . . will it come to pass . . how does it fit into the overall story . . . but having 30 statements about the deaths of all your major characters (I'm exaggerating) is overkill . . .

[siren3-4]

That 1% chance that the hero might die doesn't exist. No matter what will happen in the story, the hero won't die unless sales are in the crapper and the publisher no longer wants to produce comics with it.

I don't think you understand writing when it comes to an ongoing published work . . . Unless you specifically state that the hero will never die . . that 1% is there . . .

It is an allowance or a "suspension of dis-belief" that readers give you when you write a good story . . . There is a vast difference between believing with all your heart that a hero won't die . .and just being told by the writer that the hero won't die . .

[depluto]

Mota's post count is through the roof!

[ManofTheAtom]

That 1% chance that the hero might die doesn't exist. No matter what will happen in the story, the hero won't die unless sales are in the crapper and the publisher no longer wants to produce comics with it.

I don't think you understand writing when it comes to an ongoing published work . . . Unless you specifically state that the hero will never die . . that 1% is there . . .

It is an allowance or a "suspension of dis-belief" that readers give you when you write a good story . . . There is a vast difference between believing with all your heart that a hero won't die . .and just being told by the writer that the hero won't die . .

So long as it's possible that the hero will die, the story will be good no matter what, but if you already know that the hero will die the story will suck?

Nah, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Again, fact is that no publisher has ever killed a character unless their series no longer sold. It had nothing to do with stories.

VALIANT was willing to kill Jack no matter how the comic sold, and took it a step further and did an entire issue devoted to showing how other characters woul die too.

That didn't take away from VALIANT, it's what helped make it different than the competition, their commitment to a linear story.

Rai #0 didn't kill VALIANT, incompetent writers and editors did.

[siren3-4]

That 1% chance that the hero might die doesn't exist. No matter what will happen in the story, the hero won't die unless sales are in the crapper and the publisher no longer wants to produce comics with it.

I don't think you understand writing when it comes to an ongoing published work . . . Unless you specifically state that the hero will never die . . that 1% is there . . .

It is an allowance or a "suspension of dis-belief" that readers give you when you write a good story . . . There is a vast difference between believing with all your heart that a hero won't die . .and just being told by the writer that the hero won't die . .

So long as it's possible that the hero will die, the story will be good no matter what, but if you already know that the hero will die the story will suck?

Nah, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

You and I are not having the same discussion. Please read my post again and understand that I am talking about a feeling that was taken away from the reader by the "writer" . . .

Again, fact is that no publisher has ever killed a character unless their series no longer sold. It had nothing to do with stories.

VALIANT was willing to kill Jack no matter how the comic sold, and took it a step further and did an entire issue devoted to showing how other characters woul die too.

That didn't take away from VALIANT, it's what helped make it different than the competition, their commitment to a linear story.

Rai #0 didn't kill VALIANT, incompetent writers and editors did.

You are just missing everything I am saying . . here . .

I believe Rai 0 took away more than it gave . . . it is like a trailer for the 6 Star Wars movies being seen by a person that has never watched the movies . . . showing in glimpses, the deaths of all the major characters, han solo being frozen, Luke shooting down the hole and the Deathstar exploding, and Darth Vader saying I am your father . . .

It would get you interested . . . it would look amazing . . . but it would kill a lot of the individual story moments . . . It would take away more than it gave . . .

[Chiclo]

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

Nobody in this thread has said that the stories are crap.

Greg was saying that some of the mystery was gone. And it was. Jack Boniface gets in a bind in a comic that takes place in 1995. His life is in peril. Big cliffhanger, how is Jack going to get out of this bind? Would you, ManofTheAtom, anticipate that next issue? You know that Valiant is not afraid to kill main characters like Rai. Would you wonder for the next month "Will Jack die?"

[Cyberstrike]

If that were true the comic would have been 3 pages long . . . it got about as detailed as my example above in a lot of instances . . .

Not really. It covered deaths and small events, like Faith leading the resistance and Kris writing a letter.

There are still many details to fill out in those two.

Prequels for the most part are a bad idea . . . It only works for very well loved concepts and characters . . . Rai 0 is more like knowing Vader is Luke's father before seeing Empire . . . or knowing Yoda dies . . or being told ahead of time that Jabba is thrown into the pit . . .

Valiant is not Marvel or DC . . they don't have characters that have been loved for decades that they can go back and show a prequel . . instead they decided to make their whole universe a prequel . . .

They did when their first comic was Magnus, which meant that their present was the 41st Century and the then-present day comics were their past.

That's a 2000 year difference . . . not a single generation . . .

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

I don't think Giffen likes overly complex continuity that says he can't write
a Shadowman showing Jack as an old man in 2034 recounting his
adventures to his grandson because Jack died 35 years earlier.

That kind of continuity where I have 6 books maybe 5 of those 6 I don't like or are really interesting to understand the 1 book that I do like, now kind of continuity is something that I absolutely hate.
I agree with Griffin that in first Galactus storyline back in the 60s Lee and Kirby didn't explain where are the Avengers, Spider-Man, the X-Men Daredevil, Dr. Strange and the rest were they were at during the arc and over 40 years later who still gives a damn? Writers like Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid would wet themselves in joy if they had a have a shot and they'll go back and retcon the whole arc.

That is the problem with both Marvel and DC (especially DC) where the continuity is so complex and so long that it's hurting the creativity, where a lot of writers are explain the 60-70 years of continuity, history, and baggage to help sell their books to an aging sellers. Attempts to change, purge, clean up, or disregard the continuity of said characters is now being considered to be a sin.

At certian point you have to say the hell with strict and complex continuity.

I want a consistent universe where the rules are set up are there but not
everything and every character's actions, thoughts, are determined by the situation that they're in and not by a 60 or 70 years of continuity.

[Lightning Strike]

Rai #0 has and always will be the Valiant Bible.

But like the bible it's all open to interpretation.

I agree, Rai #0 is open to interpretation

[Cyberstrike]

Rai #0 has and always will be the Valiant Bible.

But like the bible it's all open to interpretation.

I agree, Rai #0 is open to interpretation

Or misinterperation.

[ManofTheAtom]

If that were true the comic would have been 3 pages long . . . it got about as detailed as my example above in a lot of instances . . .

Not really. It covered deaths and small events, like Faith leading the resistance and Kris writing a letter.

There are still many details to fill out in those two.

Prequels for the most part are a bad idea . . . It only works for very well loved concepts and characters . . . Rai 0 is more like knowing Vader is Luke's father before seeing Empire . . . or knowing Yoda dies . . or being told ahead of time that Jabba is thrown into the pit . . .

Valiant is not Marvel or DC . . they don't have characters that have been loved for decades that they can go back and show a prequel . . instead they decided to make their whole universe a prequel . . .

They did when their first comic was Magnus, which meant that their present was the 41st Century and the then-present day comics were their past.

That's a 2000 year difference . . . not a single generation . . .

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

I don't think Giffen likes overly complex continuity that says he can't write
a Shadowman showing Jack as an old man in 2034 recounting his
adventures to his grandson because Jack died 35 years earlier.

That kind of continuity where I have 6 books maybe 5 of those 6 I don't like or are really interesting to understand the 1 book that I do like, now kind of continuity is something that I absolutely hate.
I agree with Griffin that in first Galactus storyline back in the 60s Lee and Kirby didn't explain where are the Avengers, Spider-Man, the X-Men Daredevil, Dr. Strange and the rest were they were at during the arc and over 40 years later who still gives a damn? Writers like Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid would wet themselves in joy if they had a have a shot and they'll go back and retcon the whole arc.

That is the problem with both Marvel and DC (especially DC) where the continuity is so complex and so long that it's hurting the creativity, where a lot of writers are explain the 60-70 years of continuity, history, and baggage to help sell their books to an aging sellers. Attempts to change, purge, clean up, or disregard the continuity of said characters is now being considered to be a sin.

At certian point you have to say the hell with strict and complex continuity.

I want a consistent universe where the rules are set up are there but not
everything and every character's actions, thoughts, are determined by the situation that they're in and not by a 60 or 70 years of continuity.

Ignoring continuity didn't help VALIANT when they did it the first time, starting with Birthquake and ending with VH 2.

Where's the benefit in ignoring it now?

[ManofTheAtom]

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

Nobody in this thread has said that the stories are crap.

Greg was saying that some of the mystery was gone. And it was. Jack Boniface gets in a bind in a comic that takes place in 1995. His life is in peril. Big cliffhanger, how is Jack going to get out of this bind? Would you, ManofTheAtom, anticipate that next issue? You know that Valiant is not afraid to kill main characters like Rai. Would you wonder for the next month "Will Jack die?"

I said it. They were crap, just not because of Rai #0 like Greg suggested, but because of poor writing.

[ManofTheAtom]

I believe Rai 0 took away more than it gave . . . it is like a trailer for the 6 Star Wars movies being seen by a person that has never watched the movies . . . showing in glimpses, the deaths of all the major characters, han solo being frozen, Luke shooting down the hole and the Deathstar exploding, and Darth Vader saying I am your father . . .

It would get you interested . . . it would look amazing . . . but it would kill a lot of the individual story moments . . . It would take away more than it gave . . .

Heh, that's how trailers air here, lol, and I hate it.

I asked you earlier if not knowing how Ninjak, Takao, or other of the characters that were not in Rai #0 were going to die made their comics better and you dismissed it as irrelevant, when it's right on point.

If not knowing how the characters are going to die automatically makes the stories better,what you and greg are arguing is that Ninjak's 26 issues and Takao's 12 are better than XO's 60's for thier ommision in Rai #0.

In my OPINION, Takao and Ninjak's issues were good, but not because they were not in Rai #0, but because the stories didn't involve a painter who burnt homeless people or an XO bike.

[Chiclo]

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

Nobody in this thread has said that the stories are crap.

Greg was saying that some of the mystery was gone. And it was. Jack Boniface gets in a bind in a comic that takes place in 1995. His life is in peril. Big cliffhanger, how is Jack going to get out of this bind? Would you, ManofTheAtom, anticipate that next issue? You know that Valiant is not afraid to kill main characters like Rai. Would you wonder for the next month "Will Jack die?"

I said it. They were crap, just not because of Rai #0 like Greg suggested, but because of poor writing.

Wow. I read a lot of posts from Greg and never did I see that he suggested that later Valiant comics were crap because of Rai #0.

Greg, did you suggest that later Valiant was crap because of Rai #0?

I personally would assign more blame to Rai #9.

[siren3-4]

So?

Just because you knew how the characters were going to end it did not mean that the stories had to be crap.

Aric's death was not responsible for the painter who burnt homeless people or the xo bike. Those came out of (apparently) Keith Giffen's head, as we just saw, he didn't much care for continuity.

Nobody in this thread has said that the stories are crap.

Greg was saying that some of the mystery was gone. And it was. Jack Boniface gets in a bind in a comic that takes place in 1995. His life is in peril. Big cliffhanger, how is Jack going to get out of this bind? Would you, ManofTheAtom, anticipate that next issue? You know that Valiant is not afraid to kill main characters like Rai. Would you wonder for the next month "Will Jack die?"

I said it. They were crap, just not because of Rai #0 like Greg suggested, but because of poor writing.

The writing being crap or not has nothing to do with the discussion . . .

The real question is, did Rai 0 have a net positive effect or a net negative effect on the Valiant universe and should it be the map for the new Valiant universe or not . . .

I am hoping not . . . because it took away more than it gave . . .

[siren3-4]

If not knowing how the characters are going to die automatically makes the stories better,what you and greg are arguing is that Ninjak's 26 issues and Takao's 12 are better than XO's 60's for thier ommision in Rai #0.

You are stuck on this thought and it is preventing you from listening . . .

The quality of the individual story is only going to be good or bad because of the talent of the storyteller on that particular day . . .

Rai 0 took away a feeling from the readers, as a whole, that is necessary for long term success . . .

I don't want to know the end fates of the main characters on HEROES right now and then try to enjoy the journey up to that point . . . right now, anything can happen on that show . . . a Rai 0 episode would kill that series . .