Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Is anything known about how Daniel Way's Venom run was supposed to end? It was canceled on a cliffhanger with the villains seemingly triumphant, and then promptly ignored apart from a few details like Venom's clone Mania.

Even the Handbooks just say something like the evil plan was "apparently unsuccessful."

If the handbook entry leaves it vague like that then we presumably don't know (I say presumably because I didn't write the entry in question). Either we didn't ask for the resolution of the cliffhanger, or did but it wasn't forthcoming; sometimes writers are happy to provide such details, other times they prefer to leave it in the hope of one day getting to resolve it in another story.

RVcousin wrote:

The Infinity Comics from Marvel Unlimited could be a good place for new handbooks, what do you think ?

I wouldn't disagree, but it's not me, or indeed any of the handbook writers, you need to convince. Feel free to suggest it to Marvel.

When did Don Blake go from "Human guy channeling the power of Thor" to "Literally Thor?" I know he started as the former but it just struck me that I have absolutely no idea when the switchover to the latter happened.

Although Simonson and others later embellished upon it, the precise relationship between Donald Blake and the "real" Thor was first addressed in Thor #159 which introduced the back-story of Thor having been banished from Asgard for lacking humility.

During the original Spider-Verse storyline Dan Slott killed off what he considered to be the Spider-Friends from the Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends cartoon series. Because he used a different reality number, people online have insisted he only killed off the versions from the comic book tie-in (previously treated as the same version being an episode tie-in) though Slott still insists he killed off the animated version. Have any official works confirmed that he only killed off the comic book tie-in version?

Both have been seen on panel together and both have been X-Men members so i say yes.

RVcousin wrote:

Lonewolf36 wrote:

Both have been seen on panel together and both have been X-Men members so i say yes.

Yes but like Old Man Logan/Wolverine or like the Time displaced original 5 ? 😶

No she was hatched on Krakoa when Talon was believed dead. She is not time displaced and more like a clone of a clone. I could be wrong but much like twins i consider them seperate.

I'm deleting the photo covers thread and moving the discussion here because it seems to be more of a general question and not something that needs a separate thread. It was also in the wrong section (Individual Official Marvel Handbook, Guidebook, and Files Book Discussion) is for threads on specific Handbooks). If there was an actual Handbook or Files book called "Question about photos" featuring Phil Sheldon, Peter Parker, and other photographers of the Marvel Universe it would belong there. Here's a screen capture of the conversation thus far so it can be continued here:

Spider-Giddeon wrote:

@zuykd1 Excuse me for piracy, but here's multiple pictures of the Marvel Fact Files on Miles Morales using textless covers:
https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/2/229812/5/29013085/image56487-01-merged.jpg

Hmmm, not being familiar with those individual issues I'm not sure how much those covers add to or differ from the stories inside. Do any of those images depict "an event that was never shown in a comic"?

My own inclination is to consider a cover canon if it doesn't conflict with other canon. But that's just my own personal head-canon, not official policy.

BTW it's fine to post or link to images, as long as it's within reason—i.e. don't post an entire issue.

Spider-Giddeon wrote:

Picture under character identity is an obvious cover photo that never appeared in the comics. So is the one that says ...continued the Spider-Man identity...

So is the one with Katie Bishop and the Spider-Man costume in the street alley.

The first three are fairly generic images. Did Miles ever make that face with his mask torn? Did Katie ever dangle a spider in quite that way? Perhaps. I think it's fine to think of it whichever way you want. The mere inclusion of such an image in a handbook entry probably doesn't change its canon status; the image is meant to be a symbolic illustration, just as it is on the cover. It's included in the handbook entry because it's a striking image. On the other hand, it's unlikely that a handbook entry would incorporate a cover image that blatantly couldn't have occurred.

As for the street alley illustration, it was probably used on the cover—and in the handbook entry—because it pays homage to a very famous panel from Amazing Spider-Man #50, and those who are familiar with the original story would instantly understand that Miles is going through a similar situation that Pater did. I skimmed the issue and there doesn't seem to be any natural place that scene could have occurred. But it could have easily happened at the end of the previous issue.There's nothing to suggest that after ripping up his costume Miles dumped it in a street trashcan... but there's nothing to suggest that he didn't. (Apart from the fact the suit on the cover doesn't look like it's been ripped to shreds... but "artistic license" and all that.)