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?



1/10/2020 8:31 am  #1


Official Index to the Marvel Universe #5

Historical text from Comixfan:

Eric J. Moreels

Feb 19, 2009, 09:55 pm


Coming from Marvel in May...

OFFICIAL INDEX TO THE MARVEL UNIVERSE #5
Written by VARIOUS

Continuing the chronicle of the Marvel Universe, starting with Spider-Man (from Amazing Spider-Man on), Iron Man (from Iron Man #134) and the X-Men (from X-Men #219 on). Follow the history of the Marvel universe as it unfolds month by month with the All-New Official Index to the Marvel Universe. Each issue provides synopses for dozens of individual comics, including back-up strips, introducing you to the characters, teams, places and equipment that appeared within, providing vital information about first appearances, where they last showed up and where they appeared next!

64 PGS./Rated A …$3.99




Sidney Osinga

Apr 6, 2009, 08:52 pm


From where #4 left of, we'll see the following books covered:

Amazing Spider-Man #198 on
Iron Man #117 on
Uncanny X-Men #193 on

Also, the number of never before indexed books covered will increase, as the previous Spider-Man Index only went as far as #214.




golden_guardian

May 8, 2009, 01:14 am


I noticed no chronological placement of the Marvel 1985 mini for any of the X-Men characters. Is it not in continuity?




Stuart V

May 8, 2009, 06:00 am

golden_guardian wrote:

I noticed no chronological placement of the Marvel 1985 mini for any of the X-Men characters. Is it not in continuity?

Not 616 continuity.




golden_guardian

May 8, 2009, 11:47 am

  Stuart V wrote:

Not 616 continuity.

Just to clarify, I know that the reality in Marvel 1985 is not 616, but doesn't it involve the 616 characters?




Michael Regan

May 8, 2009, 12:08 pm

golden_guardian wrote:

Just to clarify, I know that the reality in Marvel 1985 is not 616, but doesn't it involve the 616 characters?

Based on 616 characters but does not take place on Earth-616




golden_guardian

May 8, 2009, 09:59 pm


I just bought Essential Spider-Man Vol. 9, and in issue 186 of Amazing Spider-Man, they mention Doc Ock's death in a Spider-Man novel called Mayhem in Manhatten. Yet this book is not listed in any of the indexes. Since it was mentioned in an in-continuity book, doesn't that make it canon? Or was it retconned later?




ToddCam

May 9, 2009, 12:54 pm

I just noticed a major omission. In X-Men Annual #10, none of the New Mutants (Cannonball, Cypher, Karma, Magik, Magma, Mirage, Sunspot, Warlock, Wolfsbane) are listed as appearing.

Are corrections going to be printed in any future issues?




Stuart V

May 9, 2009, 04:26 pm

ToddCam wrote:

I just noticed a major omission. In X-Men Annual #10, none of the New Mutants (Cannonball, Cypher, Karma, Magik, Magma, Mirage, Sunspot, Warlock, Wolfsbane) are listed as appearing.

That's annoying to say the least. I checked our proofing sheets, and the relevant text was there in the final round of proofs we saw - somehow it got cut between then and going to the printers. It should say:
New Mutants: Karma (next in NM #46, ’86), Cannonball, Cypher, Magik, Magma, Mirage, Sunspot, Warlock, Wolfsbane (all briefly become X-Men, all last in NM Ann #2, ’86, prev 8 next in NM #45, ’86);

ToddCam wrote:

Are corrections going to be printed in any future issues?

Yes. We're trying to compile them, but between writing upcoming issues while proofing others it's taking us a while to find the time.




shazam2271

May 12, 2009, 09:03 pm


Regarding Marvel 1985, I thought Millar said that it involved the 616 universe and was written as a sequel of sorts for Secret Wars.

Tommy Lee Edwards - "Yeah, I've hear Mark refer to 1985 that way. I can see where he's coming from, because the story continuity falls-in right as the Marvel characters are coming off "Secret Wars." Our main character, Toby, is all about "Secret Wars." Most of us were at that time. I read it back in 1985, and browse through it quite often today for inspiration on "1985." That's how I see our book relating to "Secret Wars." For me, it's a "spiritual" sequel. An inspiration. "

Millar - "We find out that something else is indeed going on," Millar continued. "This series is very much a sequel to the original 'Secret Wars' which ended in 1985. This series is what the Marvel villains did next. They discover a hole leading from the Marvel Universe into our world, the real world. So the villains have found a world with all the major metropolises: Los Angeles, Tokyo, New York. But there's no Fantastic Four, no Captain America, no X-Men to protect them."

Our defenseless world galvanizes the villains into action. "Word was passed around the villain community," Millar stated. "It was like, 'Come with us. We found a place where we can rule supreme.' So the villains come here to do horrible things. They can take out the White House, London, pretty much anywhere."

I don't see anything that would suggest that the Marvel Heroes aren't the ones from 616 and I prefer to think of the series as set in 616 continuity. It a great story and deserves to belong to 616.




Sidney Osinga

May 20, 2009, 06:45 pm

Boy, I'm behind on posting on what books were covered. And I KNOW how much people look forwards to that [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/img]Anyways, here we go:

Amazing Spider-Man #s 198 to 244
Amazing Spider-Man Annual #s 12 to 16
Iron Man #s 117 to 169
Iron Man Annual # 5
Uncanny X-Men #s 193 to 229
X-Men Annual #s 8 to 11
Heroes for Hope starring the X-Men # 1

Also included is a half page chronology about the Mutant Massacre.

The book that surprised me by being included is the Heroes for Hope book, which I didn't think was in continuity before the Wolverine: Weapon X Files handbook last month.




ToddCam

Jun 3, 2009, 02:23 pm


I was rereading it, and I noticed there was no entry for Amazing Spider-Man Annual #15. Does this book not exist?




Sidney Osinga

Jun 3, 2009, 05:09 pm

ToddCam wrote:

I was rereading it, and I noticed there was no entry for Amazing Spider-Man Annual #15. Does this book not exist?

It does exist, you just must have missed the entry. It's on page 13 between #223 and 224.




ToddCam

Jun 3, 2009, 05:17 pm


I must have lost my mind. Thanks!




ToddCam

Jun 7, 2009, 11:47 pm


More:

In ASM #208, it mentions Mike Mullaney appearing next in #210. He's not listed in that entry.

In ASM#229, it mentions Glory Grant last in Ann #15. She's not mentioned in that entry.

(I hope nobody sees this as ridicule! I am overwhelmed with the detail of these things. I just assume you guys want to be thorough!)




Michael Regan

Jun 8, 2009, 11:13 am


Attention to detail, or a possible lack of, should never be taken as ridicule, ToddCam, and would hope your observations are taken possitively.




Stuart V

Jun 8, 2009, 01:22 pm

ToddCam wrote:

More:

In ASM #208, it mentions Mike Mullaney appearing next in #210. He's not listed in that entry.

In ASM#229, it mentions Glory Grant last in Ann #15. She's not mentioned in that entry.

(I hope nobody sees this as ridicule! I am overwhelmed with the detail of these things. I just assume you guys want to be thorough!)

Thank you for spotting these and bringing them to our attention - and no, I don't see your helping here as ridicule. We do want to be as thorough as possible. It'd be ridicule if you spotted them, didn't bring them to our attention but instead ran around the net telling everyone you could about our mistakes (which I've seen happen occasionally with handbook entries, and frankly it's just rudeness). Telling us so we can correct our mistakes is being helpful, even if I cringe every time a mistake is found.

  Michael Regan wrote:

Attention to detail, or a possible lack of, should never be taken as ridicule, ToddCam, and would hope your observations are taken possitively.

I hate ToddCam's observations when he finds a mistake - but that's not because I dislike him or am angry at him spotting mistakes and pointing them out; I don't hate him or his observations. What I hate is that we have mistakes for him to spot in the first place. I accept it's probably inevitable that mistakes will slip through, but it's still disappointing to me that after all the research and proofing, stuff slips through.




Michael Regan

Jun 8, 2009, 01:27 pm

ToddCam wrote:

I hate ToddCam's observations when he finds a mistake - but that's not because I dislike him or am angry at him spotting mistakes and pointing them out; I don't hate him or his observations. What I hate is that we have mistakes for him to spot in the first place. I accept it's probably inevitable that mistakes will slip through, but it's still disappointing to me that after all the research and proofing, stuff slips through.

Well stated, Stuart. The bearer of bad news is often hated, and hopefully for the news he bears and not for himself.




ToddCam

Jun 8, 2009, 02:15 pm


And Shadowcat is not listed as appearing in UXM #210.




ToddCam

Jun 8, 2009, 02:32 pm

ToddCam wrote:

Thank you for spotting these and bringing them to our attention - and no, I don't see your helping here as ridicule. We do want to be as thorough as possible. It'd be ridicule if you spotted them, didn't bring them to our attention but instead ran around the net telling everyone you could about our mistakes (which I've seen happen occasionally with handbook entries, and frankly it's just rudeness). Telling us so we can correct our mistakes is being helpful, even if I cringe every time a mistake is found.

I suppose that was directed at me because of the Namor/Sub-Mariner thing. I actually believed that it was a conscious decision to reject the Sub-Mariner name (probably completely unjustified), it wasn't an attempt to flout something. My sincerest apologies!




Stuart V

Jun 8, 2009, 03:20 pm

  Michael Regan wrote:

Well stated, Stuart. The bearer of bad news is often hated, and hopefully for the news he bears and not for himself.

Yes, the bad news is what I hate, not the bearer. I welcome the bearer, because annoying as the news is, I need to hear it in order to fix it.

ToddCam wrote:

I suppose that was directed at me because of the Namor/Sub-Mariner thing. I actually believed that it was a conscious decision to reject the Sub-Mariner name (probably completely unjustified), it wasn't an attempt to flout something. My sincerest apologies!

No apology necessary - you are providing a valuable service, and I appreciate it. Spotting errors is vital, though I'm happier to have errors of ommission than wrong content. And the comment wasn't directed at your spotting of the Namor/Sub-Mariner bit - we missed something because, frankly, it was so obvious that he is the Sub-Mariner I don't think it our brains even considered the possibility it wasn't there.




Andy E. Nystrom

Jun 9, 2009, 12:13 pm

  Stuart V wrote:

And the comment wasn't directed at your spotting of the Namor/Sub-Mariner bit - we missed something because, frankly, it was so obvious that he is the Sub-Mariner I don't think it our brains even considered the possibility it wasn't there.

And likewise, as the person who first spotted, or at least first pointed out the Sub-Mariner error (ToddCam speculated on my original post but I beat him to the punch on this one, possibly in part due to the US holiday), when I used the ROTFL icon, it was meant as amusement for largely that reason, that after all the effort you probably spent finding obscure aliases, that one slipped through (so it was a gentle ribbing ROTFL, not a mean -spirited one). I suspect in part it was because you used a previous Namor the Sub-Mariner entry as a starting point but then shortened the entry name to Namor.




ToddCam

Jun 10, 2009, 09:07 am


Yeah, it was Andy who pointed it out. That's why I thought you thought I was just ridiculing with my speculation about Namor/Sub-Mariner. That was worded poorly. Andy beat me to it, though I had noticed it way back in the Avengers '04 handbook, and at the time, it had not occurred to me that it was an error, and not a choice.

BTW Andy, I miss your comparisons of older handbook versions!




shazam2271

Jul 3, 2009, 05:09 pm

According to the latest Fantastic Four issue, it places Marvel 1985 in current Marvel continuity as part of earth 616. Reed took Clyde Wycham after the heroes brought him to earth-616.

 


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

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum