Who Watches the Watchers - Forum for the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe & Similar Works

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



4/01/2021 3:53 am  #121


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Another Truth related one, though this one is based in the real world publication.

Incorrect: Isaiah Bradley was intended to be the original Captain America, before Steve, but they had to change the story due to negative fan reaction (read: racist fans objecting).
Truth: As far as I can ascertain, they did change the story, but not because of negative fan reaction.

Full disclosure here - as I was obviously not involved nor privy to creative discussions about Truth, I'm going on what I've learned from interviews and other publicly available facts.

Robert Morales makes it clear that originally Truth was not going be in 616, as explained in the foreword to the original TPB:
"Truth was originally planned to be outside of the Marvel Universe's official continuity."
In the non-616 timeline Truth was meant to be part of, Isaiah would indeed have pre-dated Steve. However, this was changed, not because of fan outrage, but because editorial decided they liked the story so much they wanted to have it in continuity, which would allow potential future stories to follow up on it.
Morales again in that foreword: "The editorial decision to place it 
into continuity meant explaining Timely Comics' first publication of Joe Simon and Jack Kirby’s Captain America in 1940—a full year before Pearl Harbor and the true start of our story."
So it was indeed the change that necessitated placing Isaiah after Steve, because Steve becomes Cap well prior to Pearl Harbor, and Truth established that attack was what prompted Isaiah's enlistment.

Could negative fan reaction have been a factor? Almost certainly not from reaction to the actual issues, as Truth#4 is the issue that confirmed Steve was already around; knowing how far in advance stuff has to be in for the printers based on handbook schedules, I'm fairly sure (if not 100% certain) that by the time Truth#1 hit the stands Truth#4 had to already be completed and sent to the printers.

Could it have been negative reaction to pre-publicity, mentions of Truth in Previews for example? That could in theory have happened far enough in advance for the storyline to be changed, but I'm not sure the story was well enough pre-publicized for this to happen. The articles Andy provides links for a couple of posts back were both written after the first issue came out.

Was there some negative fan backlash from Truth? Yes. That's not in doubt. But did it prompt a scared Marvel to change the course of the story to placate them? I don't think the publication timeline supports that possibility.

 

 

4/01/2021 4:25 am  #122


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

And another:
Incorrect: Isaiah was experimented on as part of Project Rebirth.
Correct: Project Rebirth was the one with Erskine, and died with him. Isaiah was part of the follow-up Project Super Soldier.

We see this in Truth#3:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7889828-untitled.jpg

 

4/08/2021 5:55 pm  #123


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

This one might have been mentioned on the Capes (Optional) site. It's even made it to the Handbooks:

Incorrect: Phil Sheldon first appeared in Marvels #1
Truth: Phil Sheldon first appeared unidentified (one panel cameo) in Amazing Spider-Man #122 before being fully identified in Marvels #1


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
     Thread Starter
 

4/18/2021 1:09 am  #124


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

This one might have been mentioned on the Capes (Optional) site. It's even made it to the Handbooks:

Incorrect: Phil Sheldon first appeared in Marvels #1
Truth: Phil Sheldon first appeared unidentified (one panel cameo) in Amazing Spider-Man #122 before being fully identified in Marvels #1

Yeah, there are a few cases where characters have been retconned to have been someone we saw in the background of an earlier comic but who wasn't identified at the time, or was identified as someone else.

 

4/18/2021 7:55 am  #125


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Not Marvel related, but nevertheless:

Incorrect: The Scarlet Pimpernel was the first masked vigilante character in fiction.
Truth: The Pimpernel may well be the one that caught the public imagination and popularised the concept, but he wasn't the first.

This came to my attention through a meme listing female contributions to SF fandom, which claims Baroness Orczy "created" the masked vigilante genre. As such, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to denigrate Orczy's achievements or contributions to the field - the Pimpernel is a great creation and was hugely influential. But I can't agree with saying she created the genre when the Pimpernel wasn't the first such character. And the Pimpernel debuted in 1903, which places him after the Human Bat, who debuted in the story paper The Funny Wonder in 1899. It's possible others predated him - for example, I've seen it claimed that a Penny Dreadful portrayed the urban legend Spring-Heeled Jack as being a costumed vigilante even earlier than this, but that's not something I've been able to confirm - but regardless of whether the Human Bat turns out to be the first or not, he still predates the Scarlet Pimpernel. 

 

4/18/2021 8:11 am  #126


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Another non-Marvel one:

Incorrect: The Yellow Kid was the first merchandized comic strip character.
Truth: He was beaten on the merchandise front by Britain's Alley Sloper at the very least.

For a long time many early internet sites claimed Yellow Kid was the first ever comic strip character, but that myth gradually got beaten down by people pointing out the Kid's predecessors. However, it seems that the myth that he's the first one to get his own merchandise persists. Since the Yellow Kid debuted in 1895, and Ally Sloper had merchandise that predates this by at least a decade, the claim that the Kid was the first to have his own merchandise also falls down.

 

4/18/2021 4:53 pm  #127


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

This one might have been mentioned on the Capes (Optional) site. It's even made it to the Handbooks:

Incorrect: Phil Sheldon first appeared in Marvels #1
Truth: Phil Sheldon first appeared unidentified (one panel cameo) in Amazing Spider-Man #122 before being fully identified in Marvels #1

Related to this:

Incorrect: Venom (Eddie Brock)'s first appearance is Amazing Spider-Man #299 or 300
Truth: Venom first appeared in Web of Spider-Man #18. It was only a cameo, literally just an arm that pushes Peter into the path of a subway, but it was latter to be confirmed to be Venom.

 

4/22/2021 3:05 am  #128


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Sidney Osinga wrote:

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

This one might have been mentioned on the Capes (Optional) site. It's even made it to the Handbooks:

Incorrect: Phil Sheldon first appeared in Marvels #1
Truth: Phil Sheldon first appeared unidentified (one panel cameo) in Amazing Spider-Man #122 before being fully identified in Marvels #1

Related to this:

Incorrect: Venom (Eddie Brock)'s first appearance is Amazing Spider-Man #299 or 300
Truth: Venom first appeared in Web of Spider-Man #18. It was only a cameo, literally just an arm that pushes Peter into the path of a subway, but it was latter to be confirmed to be Venom.

Yep. "Secret cameo" and retcon first appearances catch a lot of people out - I lump them both together in this statement because it's often hard to tell them apart, but the basic rule of thumb is if the background character/person in shadows/only the arm shown appearance was always meant to be a given new character the it's the secret cameo (for want of a better term), and if the intention wasn't there at the time and was added later then it's a retcon.

 

4/22/2021 2:00 pm  #129


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

I know you guys probably get this question a lot, but can you refresh my memory on the name origins for Venom's "children," because they've gotten a lot more prominent recently? I know Scream was named in the comics, some were named by their action figures, and some had fan nicknames that got canonized apparently by accident, but I can't for the life of me recall which are which.

Thanks.

 

4/22/2021 2:04 pm  #130


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

I know you guys probably get this question a lot, but can you refresh my memory on the name origins for Venom's "children," because they've gotten a lot more prominent recently? I know Scream was named in the comics, some were named by their action figures, and some had fan nicknames that got canonized apparently by accident, but I can't for the life of me recall which are which.

Thanks.

First page of this thread covers it, though I'll grant that because it lost its formatting when it got moved to this newer forum the original posts can be hard to wade through. Here's the relevant bit verbatim:

More fake namery on Wiki sites: Venom's symbiote offspring. If you were to trust Wikipedia, you'd believe Venom's offspring included Scream, Lasher, Phage, Riot and Agony. A shout-out to Wikipedia user Crazy Penguin, who explains the truth very well (and so I'll quote and credit him, rather than paraphrasing him):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sy...)#LF_symbiotes

"Scream was never a fan name for the yellow symbiote character. She had an action figure produced in the Spider-Man: Venom: Planet of the Symbiotes toy line from 1996. The slim green symbiote character also had an action figure produced named Lasher. Unlike Scream, Lasher's name has never been used in a Marvel publication, but it still exists on an official Marvel product and so could still be considered his "real" name.

The other three Life Foundation symbiotes did not have action figures. There was an action figure called Riot, but that was a four-armed character who had never appeared in the comics and had a biography on the back of the box that made it clear he was not one of the five Life Foundation symbiotes.

Phage is short for Xenophage, an alien from the Venom comic books that is not a symbiote - it eats symbiotes. The Xenophage action figure was called Phage. I have absolutely no idea why a certain fan chose to use this name in reference to one of the Life Foundation symbiotes, it's a completely separate and unrelated character.

The name Agony comes from nowhere. It was just made up.

Allow me to reiterate, the only two Life Foundation symbiotes officially named were Scream (the yellow one) and Lasher (the green one), both in the action figure line. The only one to have their name carried over into the comic books and publications is Scream.

Officially the others do not have codenames until Marvel tells us otherwise."

Unfortunately Crazy Penguin appears to be outnumbered by the misinformed, as a glance at the history of the various symbiote pages (most of whom are listed under the fake, fan-cruft names) shows that whenever he (or anyone else) has tried to fix the pages, others have rushed to return them to being incorrect.

So, summarising. Scream is an official name. Lasher is not an official name, but, in the absence of an official name, does have some legitimacy for being used to clarify which symbiote is being discussed, based on it being used by the toy line. Riot, Phage and Agony are just plain wrong.

Later edit: And now those names have been used in comics for the new hosts of those symbiotes. However, it is important to note that doesn't retroactively make them canon for the previous hosts - Peter Parker did not gain the alias Venom just because that was the name the symbiote and new host Eddie Brock took for themselves.

 

4/22/2021 3:06 pm  #131


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Thanks muchly. Would be interesting to know where the "fake" names originated from.

So who was the original Riot then? A toy-exclusive character?

 

4/22/2021 11:55 pm  #132


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Thanks muchly. Would be interesting to know where the "fake" names originated from.

Can't guarantee that this was the very first place it cropped up, but thanks to Wikipedia's history function I can confirm it was added to the Symbiotes page there on 6th December 2005 by IP address 12.5.1.207
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symbiote_(comics)&diff=next&oldid=30263549

They would seem to be the person who came up with the names, assuming they didn't just copy it from another site. However, that's not automatically a safe assumption - Wikipedians have an annoying tendency to plagiarise and to not check if what they are copy/pasting is accurate, as evidenced by the fact that fake names got added to the Marvel fan wiki a year later.

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

So who was the original Riot then? A toy-exclusive character?

This was the original Riot:
https://d1w8cc2yygc27j.cloudfront.net/7898472549396571137/-4840950743291062892.jpg

who as you can see in no way resembles the symbiote fans then began calling Riot (centre of image):
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7926580-9899892345-latest.jpg
Nor does the comics one fit the following bio information:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7926578-2505450352-s-l16.jpg

 

6/04/2021 8:16 pm  #133


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Comic Book Historians has done two very long but excellent interviews with Jim Shooter on YouTube. Both are very good and worth a listen. Combined they're about 10 hours' long, but if you're at all interested in Shooter, you'll probably make it to the end of the second one with the realization that if a third one comes out you'll be there.  But the second interview included a misconception that was originally discussed in this forum in the Marvel Legacy: The 1980s Handbook thread (one that is probably pretty commion):

Incorrect: Crystar was a licensed toy character.
Truth: Crystar was created to sell toys, but for Marvel. If Marvel wanted to do a 120-page Crystar graphic novel they could do it because they fully own the character. It would probably be a very bad idea, but they could do it.

 


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
     Thread Starter
 

6/05/2021 1:56 am  #134


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Assuming I've found the right bit of the video, I don't think he outright says Crystar was licensed, but instead mentions it in the same breath as other comics based on toys. But yes, you are correct to say that Crystar's comic was planned first, with the intent to license him for toys. As such it is kind of ironic that with all the current toys based on Marvel characters, there's not one for Crystar.

 

6/05/2021 4:53 am  #135


Re: Things people keep getting wrong (Round 2) redux

Loki wrote:

Assuming I've found the right bit of the video, I don't think he outright says Crystar was licensed, but instead mentions it in the same breath as other comics based on toys. But yes, you are correct to say that Crystar's comic was planned first, with the intent to license him for toys. As such it is kind of ironic that with all the current toys based on Marvel characters, there's not one for Crystar.

They don't say outright that Crystar was licensed, but they were discussing licensed material in general in that point in the video. Just before and after they discussed Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Battlestar Galactica, and Godzilla (any toys for the above were not directly connected to the Marvel license). So Crystar was being discussed in the overall context of licensed products.  It was just that a lot of Marvel's licenses did come from toys. Kind of like if a conversation delves into a discussion of Marvel characters; if you slip Batman into the middle of the conversation, you don't need to say outright that Batman is a Marvel character for that to be the implication. Again, this is not a knock on anyone; I assumed Crystar was licensed myself until the Handbook came out, and Shooter may have briefly forgotten (since over three decades had passed) or decided it was too minor to correct.


My photostream (over 5.6 million photos!)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/24917258@N05/
     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum