Talk:Shadowman (comics)

Fanboy Alert
The introduction contained a large paragraph written in a narrative, "in-fiction" voice, providing an accounting of the character's origins that was excessively verbose while simultaneously vague on details (e.g. Jack is attacked by some unspecified "thing"). I deleted this paragraph, although it's largely regurgitated under "Publication History", inlcuding the inappropriate narrative style. I didn't remove this, because some of the essential details of events should remain, just not with all the ellipses and other book-jacket wankery. 74.174.59.10 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Death
Is there a good reason for removing the mention of him being unable to die before that date? The section which I remember was in a cross-over issue between Archer and Armstrong and Shadowman. Admittedly, since this was in an Archer and Armstrong issue, it could be that they were playing it for a joke, but, for instance, the main villain separated Shadowman's limbs from his body during the issue (at which point, oddly enough, the logo on the front of his suit also had separated limbs, possible proving it was supposed to just be comedic), commenting on how while he knew Shadowman could not die until his intended date, he could still be harmed. -Fuzzy 20:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I mentioned that Shadowman died in 1999 (Both VH-0 time and RL time) I figured that saying that he couldn't die until that date would've been a bit redundant. --Strannik 01:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * His arms and legs were removed in a voodoo reality (I think it all happened in his head, I'd have to go back and read the book again to check) i.e. it didn't really happen. If his arms and legs were removed he would likely die. The first mention of his death in 1999 was in Shadowman #4, during the Unity crossover. He meets his love, Elya, who is from the future. She tells him that he will die fighting Master Darque in 1999. It's not so much that he can't die before but that he isn't destined to. Lw99dds 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit with video game information
Or at least I think it's from the video game... it doesn't quite gibe with what I know of the Valiant character and it does fit with what I know of the video game. I changed the headings to clearly indicate that it pertains only to the video game. Also, the format is a bit odd, feels like it was directly ripped from a strategy guide or an instruction manual, has the same feel. Either way, it diesb;t quite fit in.

-Fuzzy 20:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Acclaim Comics (VH-2) version of Shadowman is simular, but not quite identical to the video game verson. --Strannik 00:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. ^_^ My experience with the Valiant comic is limited to one issue where he does a crossover with Archer and Armstrong and the occasional promotional mention of him in advertisements and talk pages. My roommate had the first game, though, and the combination of how familiar it all sounded and that the description basically entailed him having one enemy and one plot seemed to tip me off that this was a video game representation. *shrug* I figured that if I was wrong, someone would correct me right quickly. -Fuzzy 13:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical of the game selling successfully - having owned the PSX version, the play control was terrible, and it just wasn't very fun. I've also never really seen it for sale used, so I really wonder how many were even pressed.  I've made the same comment over at Valiant Comics as the same line appears there. MSJapan 03:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The PSX version of the game was by far the weakest version of Shadowman. Don't judge the game based on that piss-poor effort, please. NighTrekr 04:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I bought the game a few years ago second hand from a store that had 3 copies. I've seen it regularly sell on ebay (I know because I've been looking for the special edition package that came with a comic). I liked the game but my version was the PC version so it might have had better control. Lw99dds 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The game sold millions of copies. That's what made it 'successful.'  That does not mean, however, that Acclaim didn't print more than that.  This is why they're for sale everywhere for low prices.  As for control, the N64 version's controls were impeccable and astounding and I couldn't have been happier with them. meccaneer 23:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Split
The video game was taking over the article, so I split it off onto another page. Ace of Sevens 10:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not different continuities
To whoever said that the game and comics seem to take place in different continuities, I'd like to debate that point. Seriously. V2 of the comics is clearly the entire backstory of the video game character. All that stuff about the mob hit and the money is from the instruction manual, IIRC, and I honestly don't think it should be counted--the game doesn't reference it specifically as far as I know. (And no, I'm not saying that all instruction manual stuff is automatically non-canon, that'd be stupid--but this is One Of Those Cases where it's just oddball. See: Metal Gear's original NES release, or possibly Contra's.) That, and the game specifically mentions Tommy Lee Bones from the first four issues of Volume 2. I have the game script from the PC version, I can reference if need be. The references to Micheal St. James being the Shadowman preceeding Mike are simple, because in V2 it's explained that Mike is the first Shadowman (at least in a very long time) to "embrace the Shadow" and gain the ability to go to Deadside (an ability I'm assuming Jack Boniface lacks). Obviously, Micheal St. James was the last one to do that prior to Mike, with several totally mortal Shadowmen stepping in between that time.

These are all very convincing evidence that proves that the Shadowman game is in the same continuity as the comics.


 * The game is based on the Acclaim version of Shadowman rather then Valiant version. The "comics" section of the article describes the Valiant version. Thus, there is no contradition. --Strannik 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Except the Acclaim version is a direct sequel to the Valiant comics...The first four issues (and several others, I'm guessing) confirm this. Onslaught Six 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The comics explicitly establish on several different occasion that Acclaim Comics take place in Acclaim Universe, or Valiant Heroes 2 universe, which is different from the original Valiant Universe, or Valiant Heroes 1 universe. I can give you a number of examples to prove that point. In the end, the Acclaim version is different from the Valiant version. --Strannik 06:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the Acclaim COMICS follow up the Valiant COMICS is generally irrelevant as to whether the GAME is within continuity here. The fact is, the events of both games seem to wildly ignore the storylines of the comics. No Unity plot in 1999, no Master Darque, and the instruction manual mentions a Shadowman named Cole Cardinaux between Maxim and Jack- even though the comics state that Maxim and Jack were the only ones. The games fall outside fo the Valiant/Accaim shared universe. There were also no references to Deadside at all within the Valiant books, which almost excludes the Valiant series- keeping in mind that in V2, some Deadside goons kill Jack in 1997- 2 years before he is to die(a goof which Unity 2000 tried to fix by pulling an alternate Jack out of a parallel world, but by then it was already a mess. It wasn't even the SAME Master Darque). The events of the games do not directly tie in with the comics.
 * and now that I think about it, it's probably not too likely that Maxim created the Paths of Shadow in Deadside, given that the Prophecy and the note with it, in addition to sealing the doors and such, were carried out by Legion himself. He wrote a fake prophecy knwing he could goad a future Shadowman into fulfilling it and delivering the dark souls to him. There's also an inconsistency between the comics and games by that point in the timeline- in the 1999 comics, Mike no longer had the mask in his chest, but had the power- of which he seemed to have some use of in the day. Nettie was also dead and he worked as a radio talk show host. The Wild At Heart was destroyed. The game takes place in late 1999, Nettie is alive, Mike has the mask and the bar is intact.

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowman 01-00.jpg
Image:Shadowman 01-00.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowman 04-00.jpg
Image:Shadowman 04-00.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowman 19-00.jpg
Image:Shadowman 19-00.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowmanface.jpg
Image:Shadowmanface.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Series Creators Neccessary?
I've noticed someone went through and listed in many Valiant-related pages all the writers and artists who worked on that particular series. Is this neccessary? It seems like a list of miscellania, and I truly don't see how this is important. Xbriskox (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow
This article is horrible. It needs a lot more tags than just the one calling for additional citations.24.255.171.220 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is the worst article I can recall reading at Wikipedia. "The game is one of the video game industry's most acclaimed, garnering a rating of 9.1/10 on the prestigious IGN website." Prestigious IGN website?! LOL! --216.116.14.89 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

159.205.238.61 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the video game's page reports its aggregate scores at <80%, which makes it VERY far from "one of the video game industry's most acclaimed". Needs to get cleaned up.

You realize that the Shadowman comic series was and still is there most successful comic yet. It's the only comic that is widely known and got a lot of praise. Yes it may be shocking to you that a series you never heard about is actually quite popular (probably because you don't keep up with comics or you just got into them) but for us who have been reading these comics for years, it's very much possible. Foreverxnature (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment actually has nothing to do with what the other people are saying. Nobody disputes the popularity of the comic, only the way the article is written (and also the counterfactual claim that the game was one of the most acclaimed ever). 159.205.238.61 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone should add the collected Garth Ennis & Ashley Wood TPB run of Shadowman that's available to the Collected section of this page.2601:49:1:5316:2C59:E2D6:64DE:2609 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Shadowman Console?
"The Shadowman video game franchise proved so successful that Nintendo released a limited edition Shadowman themed N64 console." um.. is this real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.96.237 (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The mention of a Shadow Man limited edition N64
In the Video Games section, there is a mention of a console that says "Nintendo released a special Shadow Man themed limited edition N64 console." but to my knowledge this console does not exist. I even checked a database of all special edition N64 consoles and there is no Shadow Man one. I didn't delete it though because if someone wrote this then maybe they know something I don't but I have been unable to find this console anywhere on the net. 2601:5C4:300:4502:311F:9E1E:30CC:AE86 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)