posted
I was more than a bit annoyed -- you knew this was coming -- with the question in this current poll about Shikari. (And no, I'm not voting on that question or the rest of the poll.)
I'll put on record here what I've noted on the old DC boards: Shikari, from all I've seen, is one of the few cases where the creators of a character have spoken strenuously, repeatedly, and on the public record about what they intended and carried out.
I'm sorry, this isn't a matter of character archetypes, or one of a usual slot for The Winged Chick on the Team, but one of actual artistic motivations and actions.
Anyone who insists that Shikari was not created as an independent and unique character -- with no ties to Dawnstar or anyone else -- ought to have the courage to also state the resulting and necessary conclusions about Abnett and Lanning. Which would be that they are creatively weak with their one new heroine -- and, toward those buying their work, utter, repeated liars.
Yes, this is more vehemence than a poll question normally warrants. I admit it. I bring this up not only because this issue matters to me, but also because the reasonable range of opinion about such artistic matters is often far from being infinite.
In this case, it's quite narrow. Opinions about what DnA have done mean little where they have spelled out, themselves, precisely what they have done.
You're encouraged, of course, to suggest any reasons for holding otherwise. I'd like to know what they are. I am slightly famous, or notorious, for maintaining that not every matter about art is one of mere taste or opinion. So I'll warn you, this is one matter I'm willing to go to the mat and (civilly) wrestle about.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, because you didn't like 1 out of 20 questions, you refused to finish the poll? Isn't that a little... ummm... excessive? I mean, there have been questions that I either couldn't answer or didn't care about, so I just skipped them and moved on. It seems a shame that you let one question prevent you from filling out the remainder of the poll.
And as for that particular question, I don't think of it as so much as calling DnA liars as it is asking for individual interpretations. For instance, Sensor is the reboot of Projectra. Fairly obvious, and I believe that the creators have even said so. However, there are some who cling to the hope that one day the "true" Projectra will appear, and we will find out that they are two separate individuals. Does that mean that they felt the creators were lying when they said Sensor was Projectra? No, I don't think so.
With the Shikari/Dawnstar question, I took it as "what is your individual interpretation of the debate?" Do you think that the two are similar enough that there would be no place for Dawnstar as long as Shikari's around? Or do you feel that both characters could co-exist in the Legion? Or, as far as you are concerned, are they just the same character? It's just asking for opinions, not absolute facts.
But that's just my take on the issue
-------------------- Some people are like slinkys: not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when you knock them down a flight of stairs
From: Penthouse atop Levitz Hall, LMBP Plaza, Embassy Row, Legion World | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is like that episode of Friends where Phoebe tells Ross that she doesn't believe in evolution and Ross spends the rest of the show trying to prove to her the facts about evoulution and its existence.
My say on the Shikari/Dawnstar matter:
I hate to come back to cliches, but the proof is in the pudding...
Until they reboot Dawnstar, and put her side by side with Shikari, (I don't care what the creators say) she could possibly be the reboot Dawnstar. If for no other reason than that the presence of Shikari is keeping Dawnstar from being re-booted. She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.
If you want me to believe otherwise, then re-boot Dawnstar... as Dawnstar or Bountystar or Dounty or Lone Dountystar. I don't care which, but once that happens, I'd be more than willing to accept Shikari as Shikari. Plus, I wouldn't mind seeing those two squabble over who has the better wings or maybe who is the better tracker... Meow.
But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.
-------------------- Something Filthy!
From: NOVA by way of NOIN | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, if and when Dawnstar reappears, I will not look at Shikari as the one who was filled Dawny's place/role.
As it is, there are many differences between the two. There are also enough similarities that SEEM to suggest that it was intentional.
Personally, I would love to see Dawny return and Shikari go far far away. I just don't think it's in the cards...
-------------------- Touch the magic...
From: Morganfield, KY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
I don't know that there's really an answer to the question of whether such and such character is a "rebooted" version of another character.
That said, I see no reason to take Dawny and Shikari to be the same character in any way. There are similarities, yes, but there are similariaties between many characters in the Legion universe. Dawnstar and Shikari are no more similar than, say, Lazon and Quanto [that's his name, right? The guy from the Taurus gang], or Lume for that matter.
[ July 14, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Eryk Davis Ester ]
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[minesurfer] {[...] (I don't care what the creators say))
Well, you're being admirably forthright. If you don't care about what the creators say, then you clearly don't care whether -- on several occasions on the DC boards, and more than once in Arune Singh's and other interviews -- they're telling the truth about their actions and motivations.
{[...] She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.}
I wasn't talking about any of those categories, but about what the creators of Shikari actually did, by their own reports.
Since you mention it, though {rueful smile} ... neither in form (morphology and body type), nor spirit (attitudes, motivations, verbal facility), nor application (pathfinding vs. tracking -- I was waiting for others to note it again, as they did on another thread) "is" she Dawnstar.
These last points, true enough, do have the evidence ranging from fairly indisputable visual stylings to interpretations of how the characters were written. It gets decided, though, for honest observers, by trying to find facts. Not by asserting, to fit this all-is-relative age, that the facts can simply change at any time, thus it's not worth bothering to do so.
So, yes, this goes beyond two comics-stories characters. I find it more entertaining, and certainly easier to keep my interest up, when bringing forward matters of facts and objectivity on an example such as this. Rather than entirely in the abstract on a philosophy mailing list -- as I also happen to do.
{[...] But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.}
Bias? Not in my selecting a source. Abnett and Lanning created Shikari. Unless they're presumed to not know their own creative impulses -- from how they've been praised among current fans, and often beyond reason, this I doubt -- they are the most reliable reporters.
Even if DnA had said they did model their new character on the earlier one, I wouldn't presume that the facts of their admitted actions were murky and vague. I'd give DnA credit for being forthright, which you apparently are not willing to do.
And whatever they did report about themselves, whether I like or approve of what they have done is immaterial. You are confusing one's estimation of the importance of an issue with one's being "biased." These are two different issues. Anyone can be objective about facts, even if one doesn't like seeing their implications ... or if one does.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well OBVIOUSLY their different characters. Shikari and Dawnstar hold about as much similarity as say Saturn Girl and Mentalla. But it is true that Dawnstar is unlikely to get herself an L-belt while Shikari is around. Perhaps DnA should just introduce Dawny in the new Legion Academy which is apparently debuting in Legion #25 just to put the matter to rest.
BTW, isn't this all a bit excessive? Stating that people are accusing Dan and Andy of being "utter liars" merely by having an opinion about something as insignificant as a fictional character seems more than a bit over the top to me. I'm sure Dan and Andy aren't losing any sleep over it.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I was more than a bit annoyed -- you knew this was coming -- with the question in this current poll about Shikari. (And no, I'm not voting on that question or the rest of the poll.)
I just cannot understand the level of annoyance about a single question in a poll that would cause you to forego participating in the rest of the 20 questions. This board is supposed to be fun, and a way for us to get to know each other...right. So as the Princess suggested...why not just skip the question.
Why drag your personal annoyance into another forum? Why not just comment on it in the polls thread itself?
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I'll put on record here what I've noted on the old DC boards: Shikari, from all I've seen, is one of the few cases where the creators of a character have spoken strenuously, repeatedly, and on the public record about what they intended and carried out.
Very true. DnA have been very forward about Shikari...I still think of Shakira every time I see her name in print though..heh.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: I'm sorry, this isn't a matter of character archetypes, or one of a usual slot for The Winged Chick on the Team, but one of actual artistic motivations and actions.
What do think their motivations were?
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: Anyone who insists that Shikari was not created as an independent and unique character -- with no ties to Dawnstar or anyone else -- ought to have the courage to also state the resulting and necessary conclusions about Abnett and Lanning. Which would be that they are creatively weak with their one new heroine -- and, toward those buying their work, utter, repeated liars.
I think you're being a little unfair here. DnA can state something over and over again till they're blue in the face, and some fans will never accrpt it as being 100% truthful. This makes neither party an utter and repeated liar. Peter David tells a story of fans who were convinced that Jean DeWolfes (forgive the typo if I spelled her name wrong) was not "real" and that she would return...even though he titled the story "The Death of Jean DeWolfe", had her shot at close range with a shotgun, had a funeral, and buried her in the comics. Mind you, this was before the over abundance of ressurected characters had hit the market.
The fans that doubted were eventually proven wrong, and Peter proven correct in his straightforwardness about the characters demise.
Should either be called liars? Should either have to retract their opinions/thoughts? No. Comic readers are generally (from what I've seen) pessemistic, and no matter what a creator says, there will be those that doubt them at their word until such time that there is irrefutable proof...and even then, some fans will still maintain that the creator is wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: Yes, this is more vehemence than a poll question normally warrants. I admit it. I bring this up not only because this issue matters to me, but also because the reasonable range of opinion about such artistic matters is often far from being infinite.
We're dealing with comic fans that have seen just about anything...been lied to before by EiC's and don't trust any creator at his/her word...and then there are those that just hope that the creators are pulling their leg...so to speak.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: In this case, it's quite narrow. Opinions about what DnA have done mean little where they have spelled out, themselves, precisely what they have done.
See my Peter David example above. Also, read about Terra and the Teen Titans from Marv and George's perspective. All of the fans still don't buy what happened to her.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: You're encouraged, of course, to suggest any reasons for holding otherwise. I'd like to know what they are. I am slightly famous, or notorious, for maintaining that not every matter about art is one of mere taste or opinion. So I'll warn you, this is one matter I'm willing to go to the mat and (civilly) wrestle about.
Not going to get into the art thing with you again...we'll just agree to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: [minesurfer] {[...] (I don't care what the creators say))
Well, you're being admirably forthright. If you don't care about what the creators say, then you clearly don't care whether -- on several occasions on the DC boards, and more than once in Arune Singh's and other interviews -- they're telling the truth about their actions and motivations.
See above examples of fans responses to creators insistances that things are as they seem.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: {[...] She may not be Dawnstar in form or spirit, but she is in application.}
I wasn't talking about any of those categories, but about what the creators of Shikari actually did, by their own reports.
Since you mention it, though {rueful smile} ... neither in form (morphology and body type), nor spirit (attitudes, motivations, verbal facility), nor application (pathfinding vs. tracking -- I was waiting for others to note it again, as they did on another thread) "is" she Dawnstar.
These last points, true enough, do have the evidence ranging from fairly indisputable visual stylings to interpretations of how the characters were written. It gets decided, though, for honest observers, by trying to find facts. Not by asserting, to fit this all-is-relative age, that the facts can simply change at any time, thus it's not worth bothering to do so.
So, yes, this goes beyond two comics-stories characters. I find it more entertaining, and certainly easier to keep my interest up, when bringing forward matters of facts and objectivity on an example such as this. Rather than entirely in the abstract on a philosophy mailing list -- as I also happen to do.
Similarities are there between the two...but there are also differences. There is also the fact that there are numerous Kwai operating with the Legion at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Greybird: {[...] But an adamant fan's (with obvious bias) reporting of the "facts" (which I don't dispute now, but they are certainly open to change) doesn't convince me that Shikari isn't the reboot Dawnstar.}
Bias? Not in my selecting a source. Abnett and Lanning created Shikari. Unless they're presumed to not know their own creative impulses -- from how they've been praised among current fans, and often beyond reason, this I doubt -- they are the most reliable reporters.
Even if DnA had said they did model their new character on the earlier one, I wouldn't presume that the facts of their admitted actions were murky and vague. I'd give DnA credit for being forthright, which you apparently are not willing to do.
And whatever they did report about themselves, whether I like or approve of what they have done is immaterial. You are confusing one's estimation of the importance of an issue with one's being "biased." These are two different issues. Anyone can be objective about facts, even if one doesn't like seeing their implications ... or if one does.
Until DnA show otherwise, I agree with their assertations that She is not a rebooted Dawnstar.
She's a character created to fill a role, and the fact that there are similarities is coincidental.
I certainly don't mean your "bias" as a bad thing. You like what you like and apparently you like it alot. I respect that.
I'll try to rephrase my point... We are talking about serial (science) fiction when we discuss whether or not Shikari is the re-boot Dawnstar. When I say I don't care about what the creators say about their creation, I mean that DnA can assert all they want that Shikari is new and totally different from Dawnstar, and they may be right.
Their wings are different, their powers are quasi-different (path finding vs. tracking), and just about everything is different... Too many details to name them all. But, they created a character with a power very similar to Dawnstar's and she just happens to have wings. Not the type of wings you like, but wings none-the-less. Now, it just so happens that the only major character not re-booted yet has similar powers and wings.
Back to the nature of serial fiction... DnA can claim all they want that Shikari is not the re-boot version of Dawnstar. All it takes is one decision by WB/DC execs and DnA could be off of the title. The new writer comes in and sees the similarities between the characters and decides that Shikari is the new Dawnstar and writes her that way. I don't see where that is too far fetched. Let's ask Wildfire's creator what he thinks. Or Blok's, or Stone Boy's, et al.
So until DnA re-boot the Dawnstar character, it doesn't matter what they say about Shikari, there are enough similarities between the two characters that Shikari can easily be assumed as the "new" Dawnstar. Hence my assertion of Dawnstar by application.
-------------------- Something Filthy!
From: NOVA by way of NOIN | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, Grey, but I'm of the notion that ideas and opinions as originally stated are 100% open to change and evolution over time.
For example, I may have stated 2 years ago that someone I just met is "only a friend". However, after 2 years of hot sex and being treated like a Prince, that original statement may have evolved into something else. Doesn't mean I'm a liar.
I simply don't think DnA's years-old statements can still be 100% reliable in a "Shikari is NOT Dawnstar" scenario. I've thought this since the "Lone Star" issue of LLOST.
This -doesn't- mean, however, that I think Shikari IS Dawnstar. Far from it. In fact, I agree totally with the above statement that Dawny should go ahead and be re-intro'd into the coming LEGION ACADEMY to put the matter to rest. The sooner the better!
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
I'm still not sure what it would mean for Shikari to be a reboot of Dawnstar. What really counts as evidence for or against this claim?
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a frikkin' question. Reep could have asked, "Is Shikari a rebooted version of Eyeful Ethel?" and it still would have been as valid as any other question.
Grey, you go to great lengths to defend DnA's honor. Your devotion and trust in them is laudable. But it would be naive to think that creators never mislead fans in their intentions. One must bear in mind that DnA are working for DC Comics. Everything they say in interviews is geared toward selling LEGION comics and creating a favorable impression of the Legion in the media and among fans.
Thus, if TPTB had said to them, "We want you to create a new Dawnstar," they are NOT going to tell us that. Why? 1) It makes it sound as if DnA are not in charge of their own stories (which is true, but what creator wants to admit that?), and 2) it detracts from a character to call her a redone version of something else. DnA may have taken great pains to make Shikari as original as possible while fulfilling DC's hypothetical mandate to create a new Dawnstar. We'll never know the full story. But let's not pretend that everything we have been told is the complete and unvarnished truth.
Asking such a question in a fan poll (which TPTB will likely never see or care about) takes nothing away from DnA, or from Shikari.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes, it is. I've already admitted that it's also a hot button for me. Doesn't everyone pick something in particular to go to the (verbal) wrestling mat about, at times? This is what does it for me.
I have seen comics art and writing denigrated for too long as being derivative and imitative, or as having nothing to engage the mind and heart beyond mere adolescent fantasizing. I loathe and oppose this viewpoint, and have for years ... since I gave it up myself, as I've freely admitted.
At some point, the constant tearing-down of this art form -- and fanboys and ueber-fans can do some of the worst of this, ironically -- gets to a tipping point. Where you start screaming a bit.
For me, it's this casual casting of aspersions on DnA's honesty, in regard to two characters I care about ... yes, TWO. Everyone has a point where they can say, in regard to a larger issue, "That's enough already." This is my issue and breaking point. You each have yours, we simply haven't seen them yet -- in most cases.
{Grey, you go to great lengths to defend DnA's honor. Your devotion and trust in them is laudable. [...]}
"Devotion" isn't the right word. I haven't cared, in fact, for very many of the elements they've brought to the Legion mix -- though I've admitted all along that they can tell a serial story well. (Coipel couldn't, visually, not for a long time -- he was my sore point.)
What I admire is the admirable and candid attitude Lanning (the other guy won't talk) has shown about what they're creating and why. Perhaps it's from encountering artists and writers who don't know their own minds, and can't explain their art. Or won't. I've run into more than a few of those over the years.
As for "trust," I believe some signs of honesty come out over the longer term. Especially when a subject of an interview is allowed to ramble, as Arune Singh has done more than a few times, with DnA and others. That makes for harder going with readers, but it ends up revealing more about creators' attitudes. If this has added to such trust, well, so far for me, it's been earned by their demeanor.
{[...] if TPTB had said to them, "We want you to create a new Dawnstar," they are NOT going to tell us that. Why? It makes it sound as if DnA are not in charge of their own stories (which is true, but what creator wants to admit that?)}
It's very interesting that you use this example. In Lanning's first comments about Shikari on the old DCMBs, he reported that DnA approached the then-editor with the idea of their creation being the functional return of Dawnstar -- and the editor told them to not do so. They took up the implicit mandate to be more original.
Lanning, in other words, freely admitted what you doubt anyone would admit: that the one character he and his partner newly created was not allowed to be shaped on their original plan.
{[...] We'll never know the full story. But let's not pretend that everything we have been told is the complete and unvarnished truth.}
I'm not pretending any such thing. I simply need evidence for believing that DnA are, or would want to be, habitual liars -- in any sense other than the misdirection on the edges needed to not spoil upcoming surprises. Perhaps we don't have the same degree of cynicism about the industry and those who work in it.
{Asking such a question in a fan poll (which TPTB will likely never see or care about) takes nothing away from DnA, or from Shikari.}
True enough. It's a sign of being careless about looking at the facts, though, and that takes away from what's expected by fans from other fans. Where this is happening, I'd rather not endorse it. Where it involves characters and a story heritage I care about, I'd especially rather not do so.
From: Starhaven Consulate, City of Angels | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
