Shadowman's Future?

Mozz · Post by **Mozz** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:28 pm

Hi all. With all the excitement of the return of Valiant, I was pondering about how things were left off with certain characters, specifically Shadowman. If they decide to start publishing new books, do you think they should go back to the way the first volume was or continue on where the Acclaim series left off? I really liked the old-school Shadowman, but there is something cool about the Ennis run too.

cjv · Post by **cjv** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:31 pm

And here I thought you were stealing my thunder.

I like the VH1 Jack.

Chris

Mozz · Post by **Mozz** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:37 pm

Wow. That was weird timing.

JustCallMeAric · Post by **JustCallMeAric** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:44 pm

VH1 Jack was the best. I hope they bring him back.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:45 pm

I liked both, it would be cool if they could find a place for both Jack Boniface and Mike LeRoi.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:51 pm

Shhhhh. Jack died in 1999. We had a thread about it. We have probably had many, but we were told in that thread that it couldn't be any other way. Quiet now. You'll wake up that thread again if you aren't careful...

Vault-Keeper · Post by **Vault-Keeper** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:58 pm

I want to see a SHADOW-GOAT. I would pre-order 100 copies and have them all CGC graded.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:58 pm

leonmallett wrote:Shhhhh. Jack died in 1999. We had a thread about it. We have probably had many, but we were told in that thread that it couldn't be any other way. Quiet now. You'll wake up that thread again if you aren't careful...

Just to get the facts right,

I didn't tell you that it couldn't be any other way, I asked you to prove how it could be any other way, but you refuse to do so. Everyone refuses to offer any proof that Jack doesn't have to die, or that Elya and Rai #0 are wrong.

Saying that it's fiction is not proof.

Saying that it's your opinion is not proof.

Finding some quote from the comics, posting issue numbers, page numbers, panel numbers, dialogue... that would be proof.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:08 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:
leonmallett wrote:Shhhhh. Jack died in 1999. We had a thread about it. We have probably had many, but we were told in that thread that it couldn't be any other way. Quiet now. You'll wake up that thread again if you aren't careful...
Just to get the facts right,

I didn't tell you that it couldn't be any other way, I asked you to prove how it could be any other way, but you refuse to do so. Everyone refuses to offer any proof that Jack doesn't have to die, or that Elya and Rai #0 are wrong.

Saying that it's fiction is not proof.

Saying that it's your opinion is not proof.

Finding some quote from the comics, posting issue numbers, page numbers, panel numbers, dialogue... that would be proof.

Okay first off, I was making a joke. Now I won't emphasize that in large writing to make my point like you have tendency to do, so please don't jump on me.

Secondly - you knowledge is immense, better than mine, but not perfect, when it comes to these books. What has been postulated and offered by you is the printed scenes/panels from Unity. Now you say I have to prove it is any other way? Why do I have to do this? To provide you opportunity to show how 'right' you are? I don't think so, even if you are not infallible, I doubt you would accept it. I have an open mind that the facts could have been as alluded to in the Unity/Rai 0 sources, or in a book that we never saw they could have been different. We will never know. I am not saying they were. I say simply that one version of events is alluded to, but there is potential for more to be done in a creative sense. Due to the demise of Voyager/VALIANT through the buyout by Acclaim, we will not know how the story would have actually panned out as we didn't get the books from 1999, did we?

Now please settle down.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:15 pm

leonmallett wrote:Why do I have to do this?

Because you're challenging them.

To provide you opportunity to show how 'right' you are? I don't think so, even if you are not inafllible, i doubt you would accept it.

See how you keep making this personal?

I'm trying to bring this joke of a debate on track and argue the merits, yet all you and the others can do is insult me.

When BloodofHeroes pointed out that the Archies' were not a reliable source, I had no problem accepting it (once I took the time to find the comic since he was too lazy to quote from it himself), so it's not about proving me wrong or me being unable to accept that I'm wrong, it's about you getting off your butt and opening the comics to find evidence that supports your argument.

I have an open mind that the facts could have been as alluded to in the Unity/Rai 0 sources, or in a book that we never saw they could have been different.

An open mind is not the same as having facts or evidence. Were the information in Rai #0 wrong, why would it only be wrong with Jack and Archer's deaths? Why was it right with everything else?

What makes it wrong in those two cases? Just the fact that the stories haven't been published?

We will never know.

We might.

I am not saying they were. I say simply that one version of events is alluded to, but there is potential for more to be done in a creative sense.

There is no proof of that possibility, in fact everything points to it being IMPOSSIBLE for things to happen differently than they did in Rai #0.

MAYBE if you could be bothered to open the comics and search for evidence to back up your argument we might have proof to support it, but no one here wants to do that. It's easier to stick with "it's my opinion" and pout.

Mozz · Post by **Mozz** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:22 pm

"I'm trying to bring this joke of a debate on track and argue the merits, yet all you and the others can do is insult me. "

I didn't mean to start a debate, merely inquiring what people would like to see.

For all we know, a series might come out detailing Jack's final years, leading to his demise. Or maybe a new Shadowman series comes out and there's no sign of Jack at all besides a passing word about him being dead.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:23 pm

Mozz wrote:"I'm trying to bring this joke of a debate on track and argue the merits, yet all you and the others can do is insult me. "

I didn't mean to start a debate, merely inquiring what people would like to see.

Sorry, Mozz, that wasn't aimed at you.

For all we know, a series might come out detailing Jack's final years, leading to his demise. Or maybe a new Shadowman series comes out and there's no sign of Jack at all besides a passing word about him being dead.

Those sounds like really cool possibilities. Shadowman as an urban legend, kindda.

Mozz · Post by **Mozz** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:36 pm

No worries MOTA.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:38 pm

Mozz wrote:merely inquiring what people would like to see.

Well, what I'd like to see is a sort of anthology focused on the Mask of Shadows traveling around the world.

Not so much like Dark Horse's the Mask, but certantly something along those lines.

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:43 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:
leonmallett wrote:Why do I have to do this?
Because you're challenging them.

To provide you opportunity to show how 'right' you are? I don't think so, even if you are not inafllible, i doubt you would accept it.
See how you keep making this personal?

I'm trying to bring this joke of a debate on track and argue the merits, yet all you and the others can do is insult me.

When BloodofHeroes pointed out that the Archies' were not a reliable source, I had no problem accepting it (once I took the time to find the comic since he was too lazy to quote from it himself), so it's not about proving me wrong or me being unable to accept that I'm wrong, it's about you getting off your butt and opening the comics to find evidence that supports your argument.

I have an open mind that the facts could have been as alluded to in the Unity/Rai 0 sources, or in a book that we never saw they could have been different.
An open mind is not the same as having facts or evidence. Were the information in Rai #0 wrong, why would it only be wrong with Jack and Archer's deaths? Why was it right with everything else?

What makes it wrong in those two cases? Just the fact that the stories haven't been published?

We will never know.
We might.

I am not saying they were. I say simply that one version of events is alluded to, but there is potential for more to be done in a creative sense.
There is no proof of that possibility, in fact everything points to it being IMPOSSIBLE for things to happen differently than they did in Rai #0.

MAYBE if you could be bothered to open the comics and search for evidence to back up your argument we might have proof to support it, but no one here wants to do that. It's easier to stick with "it's my opinion" and pout.

My original post in reply was lost as the board became suspended, so quickly:

Don't equate stories as facts. Don't equate 'facts' as presented in stories as facts. Neither is scientifically robust. What is a 'fact' is that in two sources the death of Jack Boniface/Shadowman was presented to be in 1999. The evnt is still not a fact, it is a story element. What it remains is a work of fiction. What we are left with is your opinion that no-one should consider any possibility other than everything in Rai 0 to be a literal truth. That assumes that everything contined was not contradicted anywhere else? Well we will never know because some of those stories were never written fully, and some would never have been written in our lifetimes. Because A, B, C and D were shown to be correct, does not mean E must also be right. The argument actually runs that because A, B, C and D were shown to be correct, that E is very likely correct. You cannot see this, unfortunately.

Secondly - accusing others of lazyness as you do directly and indirectly in your post in several ways is no less 'personal', so please get off your high horse.

jedimarley · Post by **jedimarley** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:44 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:
leonmallett wrote:Shhhhh. Jack died in 1999. We had a thread about it. We have probably had many, but we were told in that thread that it couldn't be any other way. Quiet now. You'll wake up that thread again if you aren't careful...
Just to get the facts right,

I didn't tell you that it couldn't be any other way, I asked you to prove how it could be any other way, but you refuse to do so. Everyone refuses to offer any proof that Jack doesn't have to die, or that Elya and Rai #0 are wrong.

Saying that it's fiction is not proof.

Saying that it's your opinion is not proof.

Finding some quote from the comics, posting issue numbers, page numbers, panel numbers, dialogue... that would be proof.

I've proven time and time again the Jack does not die in Rai #0 and yet you, with no proof, keep saying he does.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:46 pm

Don't equate stories as facts. Don't equate 'facts' as presented in stories as facts. Neither is scientifically robust. What is a 'fact' is that in two sources the death of Jack Boniface/Shadowman was presented to be in 1999. The evnt is still not a fact, it is a story element. What it remains is a work of fiction. What we are left with is your opinion that no-one should consider any possibility other than everything in Rai 0 to be a literal truth.

Everything else in Rai #0 came true as shown (unless you can prove different), so why shouldn't these two?

That assumes that everything contined was not contradicted anywhere else? Well we will never know because some of those stories were never written fully, and some would never have been written in our lifetimes. Because A, B, C and D were shown to be correct, does not mean E must also be right. The arguemnt actually runs that because A, B, C and D were shown to be correct, that E is very likely correct. You cannot see this, unfortunately.

So while stories set in the 37th Century that supported Sho Sugino getting the blood of heroes were written, since stories set in 1999 were not, that means they never will be?

Secondly - accusing others of lazyness as you do directly and indirectly in your post in several ways is no less 'personal', so please get off your high horse

It is lazyness... it's not that hard to open a comic, find evidence to support your claims, and quote it.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:48 pm

jedimarley wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:
leonmallett wrote:Shhhhh. Jack died in 1999. We had a thread about it. We have probably had many, but we were told in that thread that it couldn't be any other way. Quiet now. You'll wake up that thread again if you aren't careful...
Just to get the facts right,

I didn't tell you that it couldn't be any other way, I asked you to prove how it could be any other way, but you refuse to do so. Everyone refuses to offer any proof that Jack doesn't have to die, or that Elya and Rai #0 are wrong.

Saying that it's fiction is not proof.

Saying that it's your opinion is not proof.

Finding some quote from the comics, posting issue numbers, page numbers, panel numbers, dialogue... that would be proof.
I've proven time and time again the Jack does not die in Rai #0 and yet you, with no proof, keep saying he does.

No you haven't. You offered that it's possible for Maxim or the clone to be the ones that die, but when asked follow up questions you turn into an *SQUEE* and decide not to answer them.

Suggesting that it's possible for Maxim or the clone to die does not answer the questions left by the scene.

If it was the clone that did, why would the heroes mourn him?

If it was Maxim, why don't the records say that he died?

Where was Jack?

Avoiding the questions, or offering unsuportable maybes, doesn'tt make your suggestion stronger.

jedimarley · Post by **jedimarley** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:51 pm

Can someone please send me a copy of Rai #0. Mine seems to be missing the page where it states that Jack Boniface dies.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:52 pm

Here's one more question.

It is established fact from Shadowman #25 that, according to Nettie (and as demonstrated by Shadowman), no one can survive without their "dark side".

Assuming that it was Maxim that rid the world of the Darque Power, how do you propose that Jack would survive without his dark side?

The fact is that Jack is dead no matter what since he can't survive without darque power anymore than Master Darque. The question is how you want him to go, like a hero or a punk who does nothing.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:53 pm

jedimarley wrote:Can someone please send me a copy of Rai #0. Mine seems to be missing the page where it states that Jack Boniface dies.

It's the one where it says that the heroes gather to mourn Shadowman.

See, Shadowman is Jack Boniface, just like Clark Kent is Superman.

greg · Post by **greg** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:55 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:...just like Clark Kent is Superman.

Why are you using a fake universe as proof? You just want DC-Lite.

ManofTheAtom · Post by **ManofTheAtom** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:55 pm

greg wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:...just like Clark Kent is Superman.
Why are you using a fake universe as proof? You just want DC-Lite.

I'm using an example from a comic that exist in the VALIANT Universe as proof.

jedimarley · Post by **jedimarley** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:56 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:
jedimarley wrote:Can someone please send me a copy of Rai #0. Mine seems to be missing the page where it states that Jack Boniface dies.
It's the one where it says that the heroes gather to mourn Shadowman.

See, Shadowman is Jack Boniface, just like Clark Kent is Superman.

Oh boy....DC-lite!!!!!

Remember when everyone thought Superman was dead????? And all the phony Supermen came out of the woodwork???

Bad comparison MotA....

greg · Post by **greg** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:57 pm

ManofTheAtom wrote:
greg wrote:
ManofTheAtom wrote:...just like Clark Kent is Superman.
Why are you using a fake universe as proof? You just want DC-Lite.
I'm using an example from a comic that exist in the VALIANT Universe as proof.

A comic that exists in the VALIANT Universe is a work of fiction, not based upon the VALIANT reality.

You can't use something not based upon VALIANT reality to prove a VALIANT reality.

You might as well use Elf Quest as proof of something, since Faith Herbert wears the T-Shirt.