clawsofwolverine

Dec 11, 2005, 06:28 pm

I have a question , in most handbooks everyone is in alphabetical order in their own themed handbooks , except for Wolverine, he appears first and THEN it goes alphabetical which I understand but why not do this with the Spiderman handbook , the Hulk handbook etc?

Also any chance of a Wolverine 2006?, as a die hard Wolverine fan I really really enjoyed his handbook, putting all his history in chronilogical order was really helpful. Excellent work!
Stuart V

Dec 12, 2005, 07:36 am

Chris Day wrote:

pardon my asking - what are M-forms? is that where humans see a human under Galactus's armour and skrulls see a skrull and so on...???

M-forms are Manifestation Forms. They are beings from the Dimension of Manifestations, living fractals who can assume any form, which are used by beings lacking their own physical body (Death or Eternity, for example) when they want to make a physical appearance. They are also used by some of the more powerful physical entities when they want to appear in more than one place simultaneously (or appear somewhere far from their current location without wasting energy and time travelling) - beings such as the Stranger and Galactus have been shown to use them. The Magus used M-forms to create the doppelgangers the Earth's heroes fought during the Infinity War.

clawsofwolverine wrote:

I have a question , in most handbooks everyone is in alphabetical order in their own themed handbooks , except for Wolverine, he appears first and THEN it goes alphabetical which I understand but why not do this with the Spiderman handbook , the Hulk handbook etc?

Though we try to stick to an overall format for the Handbooks, they have evolved as time has passed, leading to occasional variations in formatting from book to book. Also, while we have an overall head writer (Jeff Christiansen), who helps co-ordinate all the books, some books covering subsections of the Marvel universe have individual head writers (Eric on the X-Men, Michael and Ronald for the Golden Age, Al for Spider-Man, Sean and me for Ultimate), and we have some leeway to amending the format in our books if we want to. In the Wolverine book the title character was put at the start of the book, but afterwards the group felt that it didn't really make a lot of difference (lets face it, no one buying the book could have failed to find Wolverine's entry, even if it had been put in further back), and it was best to stick to alphabetical order for uniformity's sake.
Also any chance of a Wolverine 2006?, as a die hard Wolverine fan I really really enjoyed his handbook, putting all his history in chronilogical order was really helpful. Excellent work!
Though Wolverine could get a small update to cover what's happened to him in the last year or so, there would be little point doing a whole new entry for him yet, as the last one was so extensive. And with the alphabetical A-Z covering so many new characters, most of Wolverine's major friends or foes should have been covered by the end of 2006, so it's doubtful he'd need another Handbook to himself.




Eric J. Moreels

Dec 12, 2005, 07:39 am

clawsofwolverine wrote:

I have a question , in most handbooks everyone is in alphabetical order in their own themed handbooks , except for Wolverine, he appears first and THEN it goes alphabetical which I understand but why not do this with the Spiderman handbook , the Hulk handbook etc?

IIRC, Marvel were promoting the Wolverine Handbook as having *the* definitive profile of the character @ 10 pages long, and wanted it to lead off the issue.

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Also any chance of a Wolverine 2006?, as a die hard Wolverine fan I really really enjoyed his handbook, putting all his history in chronilogical order was really helpful. Excellent work!

Thanks definitely goes to my Wolvie '04 partner-in-crime Ronald Byrd for that one! As for a Wolvie '06 book, given that Marvel have opted to go for the A-Z series rather than themed one-shots its looking unlikely at this stage, but anything's possible, especially if enough people write to Marvel asking for such a book.


clawsofwolverine

Dec 12, 2005, 12:51 pm

Thanks for replying guys, I know it was trivial but I was curious, but this does lead me to another question, in the A-Z series when Wolverine gets covered it will be more than just an update right? I mean it won't be like the Spider-Man Update in the 2006 book, will it?

Another thing that caught my attention was in the front cover of the new X-Men handbook where you reference where readers might find other X-Men characters Wolverine's handbook was not referenced,(even though there are many characters there that are also "X-Men characters) was this becuase you felt it was more for die-hard Wolverine fans like myself as oppossed to the casual reader?Or Maybe yu figured X-Men fans picked that one up? Again,trivial, but I am curious.

Also a request, in the A-Z handbooks a profile on Sinsiter would be helpful to me, as I don't understand that characters appeal or gimmick.Thanks!


Jonah Hex

Dec 12, 2005, 10:44 pm

Does Marvel sell back issues of the Handbook?I never thought about buying them until recently?What would be the best Handbook for the 90`s?

I also have to ask this,even though it might not be the place for it.When i bought Book 1 of The AoA TPB,i saw Moreel`s name on the first page.Did he help in its publiciation?Who`s Pond Scum?





clawsofwolverine

Dec 14, 2005, 11:22 pm

Here I am to pester with more nerve racking questions!

Are you guys involved with the Essential reprints? If so, are any entries going to be left out like they were with the original trades?


Madison Carter
Dec 15, 2005, 10:29 am

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Here I am to pester with more nerve racking questions!

Are you guys involved with the Essential reprints? If so, are any entries going to be left out like they were with the original trades?

The Essentials are straight reprints of the original material, with no alteration in regards to history, images, etc., so there's little room for involvement on our end.


Stuart V
Feb 5, 2005, 09:09 am

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Here I am to pester with more nerve racking questions!

Are you guys involved with the Essential reprints? If so, are any entries going to be left out like they were with the original trades?

Not to disagree with Madison, and I haven't heard anything official to confirm this, but I'd lay good odds the entry on Rom will be removed, as it covers a licensed character Marvel no longer has a license for.


clawsofwolverine

Dec 16, 2005, 10:49 am

Something has occurred to me, but shouldnt Thomas Logan and Dog Logan be listed under Wolverines relatives? Something along the lines of Thomas Logan (possible biological father) and Dog Logan (possible half-brother)?

Another thing I was wondering about is, in the old Deluxe Edition there were some guidlines for what characters could be included, such as they would have had to appear in the past year to recieve an entry or have a "uniqueness"? Do you guys follow similiar guidelines?


Madison Carter
Dec 16, 2005, 12:14 pm

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Another thing I was wondering about is, in the old Deluxe Edition there were some guidlines for what characters could be included, such as they would have had to appear in the past year to recieve an entry or have a "uniqueness"? Do you guys follow similiar guidelines?

We have a little bit more freedom as far as this goes, at least so far as the appearance issue. Some of the characters are from the Golden Age, some are from this year, some are in-between. All are unique, to us at least.


Madison Carter
Dec 16, 2005, 12:16 pm

Stuart V wrote:

Not to disagree with Madison, and I haven't heard anything official to confirm this, but I'd lay good odds the entry on Rom will be removed, as it covers a licensed character Marvel no longer has a license for.

Yeah, forgot about ol' Rom. Dunno how they're going to deal with that one. Guess we'll find out.


Madison Carter
Dec 16, 2005, 12:24 pm

Jonah Hex wrote:

Does Marvel sell back issues of the Handbook?I never thought about buying them until recently?What would be the best Handbook for the 90`s?

Marvel itself does not offer back issues of any of their titles. Your best bet is to find them at your local comic store, or an online comic shop like Mile High Comics www.milehighcomics.com

As far as the best Handbook for the 90's...well, that's all up to your tastes. The only version of it created in the 90's was the Master Edition, the version with loose-leaf pages containing a lot of statistical information. However, a good bit of that series originated early in the 90's, so many of the characters thought of from that era are either missing or seriously lacking in detail. Your best bet are the themed books and the upcoming A-Z, all of which are, of course, more up to date and include a good bit of the characters from that decade. If you're a fan of 90's characters, I have a feeling you'll be really happy in the next half-year or so.




Playmobil

Dec 17, 2005, 01:09 pm

Jonah Hex wrote:

Does Marvel sell back issues of the Handbook?I never thought about buying them until recently?What would be the best Handbook for the 90`s?

I would recommend the 10-volume paperback. It covers a lot of characters.


Playmobil

Dec 20, 2005, 04:45 pm

I've been wondering, does Marvel keep a detailed failed on its charaters for future reference?


Chris Day

Dec 20, 2005, 09:11 pm

is it likely that we could see a cosmic beings handbook and a non-human races handbook in the near future with the ANNIHILATION event? and what about gods and pantheons?

for cosmic beings, there were the ones mentioned in the Fantastic four handbook (silver surfer, Galactus, Uatu) but what about the other Heralds? the elders of the universe/abstract entities?

off the top of my head:
Eternity, infinity, death, inbetweener, grandmaster, order, chaos, Thanos, Genis vell, Drax, the supreme intelligence, the living tribunal, celestials, celestial madonna (mantis), beta ray bill, quazar, Nova, ego the living planet, eon, ronan the accusor, adam warlock, Eve... and so on...

for non-human races
kree, skrulls, shi'ar, space phantoms, eternals, deviants, mutanity (mutants and mutates), inhumanity, saurids (Hauk'ka), dire wraiths, n'garai and ru'tai, badoon, the watchers... and whoever else is interesting enough to add...

for gods/pantheons:
Asgardians (though Absorbing Man, Thor and Odin already have existing entries...) what about the warriors three, Sif, loki, surtur, balder, the destroyer (made by Odin), etc.
and the olympians besides Hercules
and the hindu gods
and ancient egyptian gods
and desak the destroyer
and other gods


clawsofwolverine

Dec 23, 2005, 05:48 pm

I thought they couldnt cover liscened characters in the original handbooks, yet there was Rom, what gives?

Also do you guys happen to know if "Book of the Dead" and "Update '89" will be covered in the essentials?




Stuart V

Dec 23, 2005, 07:13 pm

Chris Day wrote:

is it likely that we could see a cosmic beings handbook and a non-human races handbook in the near future with the ANNIHILATION event? and what about gods and pantheons?

Don't know about a Cosmic Being Handbook, but a lot of the characters you mention will get coverage in the A-Z.

clawsofwolverine wrote:

I thought they couldnt cover liscened characters in the original handbooks, yet there was Rom, what gives?

At the time they held the license. Now they don't.

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Also do you guys happen to know if "Book of the Dead" and "Update '89" will be covered in the essentials?

No idea on both counts, though I hope so - I'd also like to see the handful of entries which were only in the double-sized reprints (such as Power Broker) included, but again, I don't know if they will or not.


clawsofwolverine

Dec 25, 2005, 09:49 pm

I know they had the liscense and now they don't , I just thought they had chosen not to cover characters like that. Must have read wrong somewhere.

Oh well, anyway I was reading "Maker" profile in the Women of Marvel, the way I understood the bio was that this character is the same character as the Beyonder, so shouldnt a different first appearance be listed for this characters, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?


Playmobil

Dec 27, 2005, 04:52 pm
I've been wondering, does Marvel keep a detailed failed on its charaters for future reference?
Guys, I meant 'file' not 'failed'. Homer me!


Madison Carter

Dec 29, 2005, 10:09 am

As far as Rom goes, I distinctively remember them mentioning in an article on either the original Handbook or the Deluxe Edition that they could include Rom at the time because their agreement with Parker Brothers was different from most of the regular licenses.


Madison Carter

Dec 29, 2005, 10:12 am

Playmobil wrote:

I've been wondering, does Marvel keep a detailed file on its charaters for future reference?

Theoretically, that's what the Handbooks are for. It was Gruenwald's original intentions to make sure every writer and artist had a copy of every issue to use. I think that has tended to lapse a little in recent years though.


Michael Regan

Dec 29, 2005, 11:49 am

clawsofwolverine wrote:

I thought they couldnt cover liscened characters in the original handbooks, yet there was Rom, what gives?

Also do you guys happen to know if "Book of the Dead" and "Update '89" will be covered in the essentials?

In other words, if you can get any profiles on these characters, not matter how old, keep it and treasure it 'cause it ain't comin' back!


Playmobil

Dec 29, 2005, 06:14 pm

Madison Carter wrote:

Theoretically, that's what the Handbooks are for. It was Gruenwald's original intentions to make sure every writer and artist had a copy of every issue to use. I think that has tended to lapse a little in recent years though.

But wouldn't an internal handbook have to be more detailed? It would also have to include every character and not a small selection.




Michael Regan

Dec 30, 2005, 12:38 pm

Playmobil wrote:

But wouldn't an internal handbook have to be more detailed? It would also have to include every character and not a small selection.

It has been generally discovered that fan-based listings and web sites have been more detailed that in-house lists due to constant "changing of hands" over the years. That is easily why comixfan.com and marvunapp.com have been listing in the latest issues of the Handbooks.

Chris Day

Jan 1, 2006, 08:09 pm

in what order were the 2004-2005 handbooks released? they don't have a month of publication...


Eric J. Moreels

Jan 1, 2006, 10:02 pm

Chris Day wrote:

in what order were the 2004-2005 handbooks released? they don't have a month of publication...

This thread has them listed in order of release and includes their month of publication:
OHOTMU 04/05 Entries



Chris Day

Jan 1, 2006, 10:09 pm

Eric J. Moreels wrote:

This thread has them listed in order of release and includes their month of publication:
OHOTMU 04/05 Entries

thanks,

BTW, did you know that the OHOTMU: X-men 2004 was in the 40 years of X-men dvd-rom?







^o^CORVUS^o^

Jan 1, 2006, 10:18 pm

BadMotives wrote:

Coloussus can lift ~75 tons

While he originally possessed class-75 strength, "Colossus" actually has class-100 strength. His strength increased following his long convalescence from the injuries he sustained during the Mutant Massacre.

The strength increase was stated and shown several times in the books, and the looseleaf handbook reflected this change by noting the class-100 strength level.


Eric J. Moreels

Jan 1, 2006, 10:21 pm

Chris Day wrote:

BTW, did you know that the OHOTMU: X-men 2004 was in the 40 years of X-men dvd-rom?

No, I didn't! That's very, very cool!


Chris Day

Jan 1, 2006, 10:30 pm

Eric J. Moreels wrote:

No, I didn't! That's very, very cool!

it's the bios section that includes it, but I don't think it has the front page credits, though it has all the entries as well as the new mansion designs




Playmobil

Jan 2, 2006, 12:04 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

It has been generally discovered that fan-based listings and web sites have been more detailed that in-house lists due to constant "changing of hands" over the years. That is easily why comixfan.com and marvunapp.com have been listing in the latest issues of the Handbooks.

How about the pre-Internet days? I remember Marvel used to reference back issues on their stories (with an *).



Playmobil

Jan 2, 2006, 12:06 pm

Eric J. Moreels wrote:

No, I didn't! That's very, very cool!

You should charge residuals...




Michael Regan

Jan 3, 2006, 01:26 pm

Playmobil wrote:

How about the pre-Internet days? I remember Marvel used to reference back issues on their stories (with an *).

That was in a less complicated age with far less titles and mini-series, not to mention far less people involved in writing and (of course) upper management.


Stuart V
date missing

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Another thing I was wondering about is, in the old Deluxe Edition there were some guidlines for what characters could be included, such as they would have had to appear in the past year to recieve an entry or have a "uniqueness"? Do you guys follow similiar guidelines?

Yes - they'll be discussed on the front page of the first A-Z issue.

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Oh well, anyway I was reading "Maker" profile in the Women of Marvel, the way I understood the bio was that this character is the same character as the Beyonder, so shouldnt a different first appearance be listed for this characters, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?

From the writer of that profile
"This is Kosmos, but the Beyonder information was necessary to explain her back story. Kosmos is not exactly the same as the Beyonder, as she was created from the Cosmic Cube created from the combined essences/power of the Beyonder and the Molecule Man. The profile was not intended to cover the Beyonder who had entries in previous handbooks."

Michael Regan wrote:

It has been generally discovered that fan-based listings and web sites have been more detailed that in-house lists due to constant "changing of hands" over the years.

I have to disagree with that comment. A lot of fan sites are error ridden or simply copied verbatim from the Handbooks - why rate a site that relies on plagiarism? There's some excellent, but narrow-focused sites out there which cover single characters or small groups in great detail. And there's a handful of broader sites out there which actually do their own research and strive for accuracy - this one, uncannyxmen.net (though that only covers the X-universe, it's still one of the wider focus sites which actually makes a real effort to keep the entries accurate), Spiderfan (same comment as last, except for the Spider-Man sub-universe), the Marvel Appendix. The Marvel Database is hoping to become a wide focus, accurate listing site, but it's a long way off yet, and there'll be some others I've missed out, but generally, if you want to cover a wide range of characters in any detail, the Handbooks are still your best bet.

Michael Regan wrote:

That is easily why comixfan.com and marvunapp.com have been listing in the latest issues of the Handbooks.

Actually, its because the Handbook writers mostly originated as some of the marvunapp.com contributors, plus Eric from comixfan and some of the guys from Spiderfan.


^o^CORVUS^o^

Jan 8, 2006, 03:46 am

The Handbooks are generally your best bet, but one must sometimes keep an eye out for errors when reading them.

For example, in the looseleaf edition of the OHOTMU, Thanos is listed as belonging to the "Elders of the Universe", which really isn't so. To be one of the elders, one must be the last survivor of one of the most ancient sentient races in the cosmos. The Eternals, and thus the Titans, have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, true, but there are still a fair amount of them about.

I also question a portion of the entry for Starfox in the current Avengers 2005 Handbook. It states that Thanos killed and dissected his mother to find out why he was born different. Originally it was stated that Sui-san was a victim of Thanos' first bombardment. Years later, in Silver Surfer vol 3, issues # 37 & 67 (written by Jim Starlin no less), Mentor told the Silver Surfer that Thanos killed and gutted Sui-San at the age of 10. This revision didn't last long without being challenged.

In vol 3, # 40 of the Silver Surfer, a continuity-minded letter-writer brought up the conflict between the original story of Sui-San's death, and Mentor's version. The editors at the time, Craig Anderson and Renee' Witterstaetter, replied, saying that the original story was indeed correct and that Mentor was deluded over the nature of his wife's death. Years later, Starlin also seems to have disregarded that little aside and ignored it. In Thanos #1, the Titan goes on to tell Warlock that Sui-San was the one member of his family he might actually have spared if given the choice.

Now, I'm not fully-versed in all of Starfox's appearances, far from it in fact. So, if Starfox also made this claim in one of his appearances, then I missed it. Otherwise, the tale is something of an anomaly.

All that being said, the Handbooks are incredibly accurate most of the time, and are indeed the best source of character info aside from the issues themselves


clawsofwolverine

Jan 8, 2006, 11:01 pm

The Handbooks are also the best because they are approved and produced by Marvel themselves. People can just get online and just make stuff up online, if they want to. The official handbooks may have errors as well, but at least they are official errors!


^o^CORVUS^o^

Jan 9, 2006, 08:02 pm

Official Errors. HAH!


Gaara of the Sand

Jan 9, 2006, 08:56 pm

clawsofwolverine wrote:

The Handbooks are also the best because they are approved and produced by Marvel themselves. People can just get online and just make stuff up online, if they want to. The official handbooks may have errors as well, but at least they are official errors!

Yeah, but to be fair, the Clone Saga was an official erorror too


Eric J. Moreels

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

Official Errors. HAH!

LOL

We also do our best to officially correct any such official errors at our Official FAQ of the Official Handbooks Website.

Doesn't get more official than that!


clawsofwolverine

Jan 11, 2006, 09:29 pm

Just got the essential repirint of the first series, Rom is included!


Michael Regan
Date missing

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Just got the essential repirint of the first series, Rom is included!

Of course he is. A reprint does not require the acquisition of the rights again (or am I wrong).


Stuart V
Jan 21, 2006, 04:39 pm

Madison Carter wrote:

Of course he is. A reprint does not require the acquisition of the rights again (or am I wrong).

If that were the case, then Marvel would be reprinting the Marvel-originated Conan and Star Wars, not Dark Horse, and the Godzilla reprints wouldn't be more expensive than other Essentials and be a one-off (no reprinting the Essential after the one print run).


Michael Regan

Jan 21, 2006, 10:00 pm

Stuart V wrote:

If that were the case, then Marvel would be reprinting the Marvel-originated Conan and Star Wars, not Dark Horse, and the Godzilla reprints wouldn't be more expensive than other Essentials and be a one-off (no reprinting the Essential after the one print run).

Then, how is it Rom is included? Oversight?


Stuart V
Jan 21, 2006, 11:36 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

Then, how is it Rom is included? Oversight?

Not sure, as I'm not privy to Marvel's negotiations with other companies. Marvel arranged a deal to reprint Godzilla, so perhaps they did the same for Rom. I can't imagine Parker Bros would ask for much, since it's only a single page about a no-longer available toy, and the book isn't being sold on the presence of Rom in it.


Michael Regan
Jan 22, 2006, 10:16 am

Stuart V wrote:

Not sure, as I'm not privy to Marvel's negotiations with other companies. Marvel arranged a deal to reprint Godzilla, so perhaps they did the same for Rom. I can't imagine Parker Bros would ask for much, since it's only a single page about a no-longer available toy, and the book isn't being sold on the presence of Rom in it.

My guess would be that no one currently holds ROM rights (unless Parker Brother does), and was only ever published by Marvel, so it was easy. Conan, for instance, has been everywhere and will always be somewhere, so that index will be lost to history.
Does this make sense?


Stuart V
Jan 22, 2006, 11:25 am

Michael Regan wrote:

My guess would be that no one currently holds ROM rights (unless Parker Brother does), and was only ever published by Marvel, so it was easy. Conan, for instance, has been everywhere and will always be somewhere, so that index will be lost to history.
Does this make sense?

Parker Bros would still own the rights, unless they'd sold them on to someone or gone out of business; I still think its most likely they simply aren't too bothered about a single page of reprint about a deleted toy line character, and so asked for at most a nominal fee to let it stay in.

Whatever the reason, lets just be glad Rom managed to be included.


clawsofwolverine

Jan 23, 2006, 02:22 pm

Which brings me to another question, was there an entry for Conan in the original run of handbooks?


Rayeye

Jan 23, 2006, 03:01 pm

clawsofwolverine wrote:

Which brings me to another question, was there an entry for Conan in the original run of handbooks?

Nope. For Conan characters, there was a special Handbook of Conan Universe.


Michael Regan

Jan 23, 2006, 03:17 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Nope. For Conan characters, there was a special Handbook of Conan Universe.

As with the Transformers characters. Was there one for the GI Joe characters?


Playmobil

Jan 23, 2006, 04:55 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Nope. For Conan characters, there was a special Handbook of Conan Universe.

So I can safely guess Red Sonja, Kull and Groo were included, right?


Rayeye

Jan 23, 2006, 03:01 pm

Playmobil wrote:

So I can safely guess Red Sonja, Kull and Groo were included, right?

Haven't got the issue, so I can't tell you. Anybody else knows?


Stuart V
OHOTMU Writer

Jan 23, 2006, 05:27 pm

Playmobil wrote:

So I can safely guess Red Sonja, Kull and Groo were included, right?

Conan, Sonja, Kull and Valeria all had entries. Groo's another property altogether.


Michael Regan

Jan 27, 2006, 01:51 pm

Stuart V wrote:

Conan, Sonja, Kull and Valeria all had entries. Groo's another property altogether.

And Groo was published by more than just Epic/Marvel.


clawsofwolverine

Jan 30, 2006, 09:38 pm

Do any of you have a method for reading the handbooks? I mean as oppossed to just reading about the characters you're interested in? Me, I read an entry a day in the order the themed books came out but this is very slow so right now I am on "Electro" and there are more than 500 characters in "Themed" Edition" I feel like I'm never going to reach the more recent entries.

I tried to make an aplhabetical list of all the characters there had been so far but I found when I did this I would be reading bios out of a chronologial happenning of events for the characters.

Then I thought I would read just as many bios as I could from one handbook in one day but found I become bogged down with too much information and couldnt pay attention to the bio's I was reading.

Since I paid for these books I want to read every word but I wish I could get through them faster. Any advice?


Ann Nichols
Feb 4, 2006, 09:55 am

I'm writing my unofficial spoiled summary for "X-Factor" #3. I noticed that Madrox's eyes are blue in two panels and brown (if close up enough to see the color) in the rest of the issue. This is what I've written in the summary. Can you please settle the question?

(This is one of two panels in which his visible eye is blue instead of brown. Comixfan's bio for Jamie says they're blue. Uncannyxmen.net's bio says they're brown. The Marvel Directory entry doesn't say. Marvel.com does not appear to have an entry for Multiple Man yet. "X-Men: the 198 Files" lists heights and weights, but not eye & hair color. I haven't unpacked enough boxes to have reached my first series "X-Factor" issues. I've looked through issues 1 & 2. They seem to be colored brown or blue or grey. Does the Multiple Man have multiple eye colors or what? Sorry.)
__________________
Some of my spoiled summaries: Astonishing X-Men v.3, #27 , Captain Britain & MI 13 #9, pp1-8 only , CB & MI #9, pp. 9-14 , CB & MI #9, pp. 15-19 Runaways v.3, #1, Uncanny X-Men #503 , Wolverine and Power Pack #2 , Wolverine: First Class #6 , Wolverine: Origins #29, only , X-Factor v.3, #28 , X-Force v.3, #7 , X-Men: First Class, v.2, #16 , X-Men: Legacy #217 , X-Men: Manifest Destiny #3 of 5 (brief) , X-Men: Original Sin one-shot , Young X-Men #7


Michael Regan
Feb 4, 2006, 02:25 pm

Ann Nichols wrote:

I'm writing my unofficial spoiled summary for "X-Factor" #3. I noticed that Madrox's eyes are blue in two panels and brown (if close up enough to see the color) in the rest of the issue. This is what I've written in the summary. Can you please settle the question?

(This is one of two panels in which his visible eye is blue instead of brown. Comixfan's bio for Jamie says they're blue. Uncannyxmen.net's bio says they're brown. The Marvel Directory entry doesn't say. Marvel.com does not appear to have an entry for Multiple Man yet. "X-Men: the 198 Files" lists heights and weights, but not eye & hair color. I haven't unpacked enough boxes to have reached my first series "X-Factor" issues. I've looked through issues 1 & 2. They seem to be colored brown or blue or grey. Does the Multiple Man have multiple eye colors or what? Sorry.)

I don't yet have X-Factor #3, but is this possibly due to lighting influences in particular panels (conflicting entries ignored)?

... Hey, perhaps Jamie has a latent mutation which changes his eye colour (just kidding)

My collecteion is in complete chaos at the moment, but if I can find anything specific I'll post my findings.

For the record, the Official Index to the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition lists Multiple Man's eyes to be blue.


Ann Nichols

Feb 4, 2006, 03:49 pm

Thank you.


Eric J. Moreels

Feb 4, 2006, 07:50 pm
For the record, the Official Index to the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition lists Multiple Man's eyes to be blue.
As does the OHOTMU: Marvel Knights 2005.


Stuart V

Feb 5, 2006, 02:29 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

 

Ann Nichols wrote:

I'm writing my unofficial spoiled summary for "X-Factor" #3. I noticed that Madrox's eyes are blue in two panels and brown (if close up enough to see the color) in the rest of the issue. This is what I've written in the summary. Can you please settle the question?

... Hey, perhaps Jamie has a latent mutation which changes his eye colour (just kidding).

The miscolouring of the eyes is likely just a mistake; however, with Peter David writing, I wouldn't rule it out as a bit of subtle foreshadowing. And joking aside, RedKnight's point might be more valid than he thinks. We already know Jamie's mutation has evolved over time so that now his dupes display different facets of his personality to greater and lesser degrees; who's to say that occasionally this might not also manifest in small physical differences, such as differing eye colours? Even though the duplicates are effectively clones with identical DNA, eye colour isn't exclusively decided by DNA, and can change with age or due to disease.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=30


Michael Regan

Feb 5, 2006, 06:57 pm

Stuart V wrote:

The miscolouring of the eyes is likely just a mistake; however, with Peter David writing, I wouldn't rule it out as a bit of subtle foreshadowing. And joking aside, RedKnight's point might be more valid than he thinks. We already know Jamie's mutation has evolved over time so that now his dupes display different facets of his personality to greater and lesser degrees; who's to say that occasionally this might not also manifest in small physical differences, such as differing eye colours? Even though the duplicates are effectively clones with identical DNA, eye colour isn't exclusively decided by DNA, and can change with age or due to disease.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=30

... and to further the point, I believe that all babies are born with blue eyes and they change soon afterwards.


Lia Brown

Feb 6, 2006, 03:06 am

My eyes were blue as a child, green as a teenager, and now they're green-brown...some days they look more green, some days more brown. I'm a freak

Blob and Avalanche have colour-changing eyes all the time in the comics, though they're both supposed to have brown.


Michael Regan

Feb 6, 2006, 10:50 am
Among human phenotypes, blue eyes are a relatively rare eye color. They are found mainly in people of northern European and eastern European descent, and to a lesser extent, in people of southern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. South Asians may also have blue eyes, but this is uncommon, except amongst Pathans and in Kashmir and Punjab. Finland has the highest percentage of blue-eyed people. Many caucasian babies are born with blue eyes, though their eyes will darken, or change color. Most infants' eye color is set within a couple of days to a couple of weeks, though some people's eye color will continue to change for a number of years.
It appears my post was nly partially correct about changin eye colour. See the full post at wikipedia.org/eye color.


Foenix

Feb 10, 2006, 11:18 am

I always save my Handbooks for when I don't have anything else to read. This caused me to fall QUITE behind a little while ago.

I just this morning finished reading the Secrets of the House of M special. Of course, I saved the 'special' Handbook type tomes for after I was caught up on the normal 'canon' guides, so that slipped those even further behind than the rest.

I've recently taken to reading a few entries a day, just to try and keep up/get caught up, ploughing straight through the books as they've been released. No real information overload and no complicated method to juggle all the issues sitting around to try and read the bios, no complicated lists... Just going straight through, as the whim strikes me.

J


Ann Nichols

Feb 10, 2006, 05:03 pmThank you all. (My eyes, BTW, are dark brown with greyish blue rings around them, like Grandpa Deschler's.)

Regarding Wolfsbane: We know that the Rotten Reverend Craig was her biological father. So who was the "Montgomery Sinclair" who was supposedly Rahne Sinclair's father? Did Craig just pick that name out of a hat, so to speak, or was her late, unknown, "lady of the night" mother's last name "Sinclair"? Perhaps "Montgomery" was a family name amongst the Craigs and the sanctimonious rotter used the name as a private joke?


Rayeye

Feb 11, 2006, 09:49 am

While I was visiting Alan Davis' own site (I love his work by the way!), I discovered he added a page with his comments about the Albion picture in the lastest Handbook: www.alandavis-comicart.com/Creditdue.html
While I didn't notice the 'editing' of the picture till Davis' comments, I did notice some other 'changed' character pictures in the Handbooks before. E.g. some of the characters were - originally in the comic - missing a leg (I mean it wasn't shown), but the Handbook gave us a picture of the whole body including the leg of the character.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate it you guys try to give us fans a complete picture of the characters. But I was wondering which artist is doing the adding/editing work, since (in the case of Albion) it seems it isn't the work of the original artist.
By the way Marvel was very creative to have combined the body of AoA-Abyss with Abyss' 616-head to create a whole picture of the guy. I liked it

Rayeye

(I hope I did write in correctly English, since it isn't my native tongue)


S. Andrivet

Feb 11, 2006, 02:58 pm

In the 1960s handbook, am I correct in assuming that El Toro's Height is supposed to be 6'8" ?

He *was* damn big, and you guys describe him as being massive and weighing 297 lbs.


Gaara of the Sand

S. Andrivet wrote:

In the 1960s handbook, am I correct in assuming that El Toro's Height is supposed to be 6'8" ?

He *was* damn big, and you guys describe him as being massive and weighing 297 lbs.

Don't pay much attention to heights and weights. Remember back when everyone was a head taller than Wolverine?

Or how about how Juggy is 6'7" (or 6'9", forget which) and weighs 900 lbs? He'd look like a muscular Blob. And considering Juggy and Hulk tend to be comparable physically in appearance, their physical stats tend not to match one bit. Hell I remember in an old Deadpool mini where Juggy looks like he's at least 12 feet tall.


Michael Regan

Feb 13, 2006, 10:50 am

Loving every issue more than the next. Fantastic work.

The scalled down entries for the X-Men 198 Files fit the SHIELD file theme and offered just enough information without making it another full-blown Handbook. The 1960s handook was exceptional in it's inclusion of so many minor characters which have long been forgotten. Too much information is never enough.

Would it be wrong of me to request consideration of an Amalgam Handook? Personally I think it could have fit in well with the Alternate Earths handbook, but with all the false history that was created during the run, perhaps a book of it own would be well received. Just don't forget to included everyone's first and "first" apperances (that is actual and fictional first apearances). Perhaps covers from some of the fictional comics could be included (now, I'm stretching... but everyone can wish.)


Binaryan

Feb 23, 2006, 07:42 pm

I am also really loving the new Handbooks and it has certainly taken me back to 1987 and picking up those new handbooks from my local comic shop! I love learning all the nuanced details of obscure characters and favorites alike and it's clear that it's a labor of love from the writing team.

The one major detraction to my overall enjoyment has been the artwork in the books. Some are great but others are REALLY bad...distractingly so. Springing to mind immediately are the pictures for Sunset Bain and Captain UK in the first two issues. There are some pics that I just think are poor choices given all the images of a character that are out there but with others (like these two) it's clearly a case where the "art reconstruction" was not done very well. And then there are things like having a headshot of Erg from X-Men: the 198 next to Callisto that just make me shake my head.

Where can I apply to work on the art reconstruction for these books... while I only have amateur experience with image editing, I'd really like to see the quality of the visuals match the quality of the research and writing that goes into it!

Ryan


Rayeye

Mar 4, 2006, 08:07 am

Here are some suggestions for entries in the A-Z Handbooks or the Marvel Legacy handbooks:
Siena Blaze, Adam Crown, Cuckoo, Adam Destine, the Director, Exodus, Feral, Freakshow 2099, Genetix, High Evolutionary, Khaos, Killpower, King Bedlam, Livewires, Luna, Mannites, Marrow, Master of the World, Micromax, Moonboy, Morlocks, Motormouth, Ismael Ortega, Paladin, Donald Pierce, Spat & Grovel, Starjammers, Sublime, Thornn, Tigerstryke, Troll Associates, Typeface, the Uncreated, Warheads, Warwolves, Windshear, X-Cutioner, Xi'an (2099), X-Nation (2099) and Zero

And my personal wishes/requests:
- Fatale, Halloween Jack, Kymri, Landau Luckman & Lake, Phantazia, Technet and the Warpies!


William Keogh

Mar 5, 2006, 03:20 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Here are some suggestions for entries in the A-Z Handbooks or the Marvel Legacy handbooks:
Siena Blaze, Adam Crown, Cuckoo, Adam Destine, the Director, Exodus, Feral, Freakshow 2099, Genetix, High Evolutionary, Khaos, Killpower, King Bedlam, Livewires, Luna, Mannites, Marrow, Master of the World, Micromax, Moonboy, Morlocks, Motormouth, Ismael Ortega, Paladin, Donald Pierce, Spat & Grovel, Starjammers, Sublime, Thornn, Tigerstryke, Troll Associates, Typeface, the Uncreated, Warheads, Warwolves, Windshear, X-Cutioner, Xi'an (2099), X-Nation (2099) and Zero

And my personal wishes/requests:
- Fatale, Halloween Jack, Kymri, Landau Luckman & Lake, Phantazia, Technet and the Warpies!

I certainly agree with you on Exodus and the High Evolutionary. Among the others, I don't know if you're aware that Moonboy (if there's just the one) has been covered in the Marvel Monsters handbook from last fall.


Playmobil

Mar 6, 2006, 03:19 pm

And, in addition to the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s handbooks, how about a Timely Comics Handbook?


Michael Regan

Mar 6, 2006, 04:33 pm

Playmobil wrote:

And, in addition to the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s handbooks, how about a Timely Comics Handbook?

That's a great idea! Don't forget one for Atlas as well, but it may be hard to have enough to make a complete book. Perhaps if necessary a Timely / Atlas Handbook (with indications as to where each character fits)

(I guess technically this book already exists in the Golden Age release of a couple of years ago)


Playmobil

Mar 15, 2006, 06:02 pm

In the X-Men 2005 Handbook shouldn't X-23 former occupations have include prostitute?


Playmobil

Mar 15, 2006, 06:05 pm

People have been asking a TPB version of the themed Handbooks, but Marvel seems a bit reluctant, so why don't they start with an Ultimate Universe TPB? There are just two issues to collect and they could do some update.


Michael Regan

Mar 15, 2006, 06:37 pm

Playmobil wrote:

People have been asking a TPB version of the themed Handbooks, but Marvel seems a bit reluctant, so why don't they start with an Ultimate Universe TPB? There are just two issues to collect and they could do some update.

Why not just buy the originals?

Eric J. Moreels

Mar 16, 2006, 05:02 am

Playmobil wrote:

In the X-Men 2005 Handbook shouldn't X-23 former occupations have include prostitute?

Yes, especially since the history text refers to her working as such.

Playmobil

Mar 17, 2006, 12:56 pm

I've read there's an Eternals Sketchbook coming out. Will this include characters bios?


Mar 17, 2006, 10:08 pm

Eric J. Moreels

Playmobil wrote:

I've read there's an Eternals Sketchbook coming out. Will this include characters bios?

Not that I've heard, but anything's possible.


Gaara of the Sand

Mar 19, 2006, 10:12 pm

What video games are canon? I know Marvel Super Heroes or whichever had the Infinity Gems is canon, as is the Avengers Assemble game, but are there any others?

What intercompany crossovers are canon? I know JLA/Avengers is canon, and have heard Marvel vs. DC from a few years back is, but is anything else?

Thanks


Playmobil

Mar 20, 2006, 12:14 pm
Why not just buy the originals?
And what are TPB's for? I didn't mean to have it released right now, but some time from now, with the necessary updates.


Michael Regan

Mar 20, 2006, 02:05 pm

Playmobil wrote:

And what are TPB's for? I didn't mean to have it released right now, but some time from now, with the necessary updates.

I was just thinking that since they just recently came out and there are only two...


keelatay

Apr 3, 2006, 01:59 pm

Quick question from someone who's new to the site. Are there any plans to release power charts for the characters who appeared in books without them (i.e. New Avengers Most Wanted, X-Men 198)?


Michael Regan

Apr 3, 2006, 04:44 pm

keelatay wrote:

Quick question from someone who's new to the site. Are there any plans to release power charts for the characters who appeared in books without them (i.e. New Avengers Most Wanted, X-Men 198)?

This releases are OH style but are less handbooks and more reference. I trust that the related entries with appear in the individual A-Z releases.


keelatay

Apr 3, 2006, 05:48 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

This releases are OH style but are less handbooks and more reference. I trust that the related entries with appear in the individual A-Z releases.

The individual A-Z releases state that readers should reference the previous guides (i.e. the ones mentioned above) for information on these charactres.


Michael Regan

Apr 3, 2006, 08:13 pm

keelatay wrote:

The individual A-Z releases state that readers should reference the previous guides (i.e. the ones mentioned above) for information on these charactres.

My mistake I guess, but your question was not character specific only book specific. I had not seen that statement in the A-Z guide.


bgilmore

Apr 3, 2006, 09:23 pm

I am not sure if this is possible or if it is even wanted. Could you PLEASE include Scourge in the new Handbook. Either Scourge himself/herself or the group. This was only covered in the set of 12 handbooks and nothing since and a lot has happened since. Thanks
Billy


Eric J. Moreels

Apr 5, 2006, 06:02 am

Michael Regan wrote:

My mistake I guess, but your question was not character specific only book specific. I had not seen that statement in the A-Z guide.

Check the inside front covers of the A-Z issues for an alphabetical listing of characters recently-featured in the themed one-shots and other related handbook-style titles.


eh_ver

Apr 11, 2006, 02:36 pm

Cripes. This question has probably been asked a million times already, but I simply can't go through 9 pages of this thread. Is there a plan to trade up the A-Z Handbook? I missed the first issue and when that happened I just decided to do what I never WANT to do and 'wait for the trade'.

Also, just how cool are you guys for putting out handbooks that actually rival the originals from back in the day?


Sean McQuaid

Apr 12, 2006, 12:55 am

eh_ver wrote:

Is there a plan to trade up the A-Z Handbook? I missed the first issue and when that happened I just decided to do what I never WANT to do and 'wait for the trade'.

Trade collections of recent handbooks have been discussed, but no firm plans yet. Sales of the non-trade editions will help determine whether trades appear later on, of course.

eh_ver wrote:

Also, just how cool are you guys for putting out handbooks that actually rival the originals from back in the day?

Glad you're liking the book, and thanks for the flattering comparison.

As for how cool we are, some of the Handbook crew are indeed frigidly frosty-cool, info-rich phenoms. Myself, I tend to be room temperature. Science is baffled.

-Sean


Michael Regan

Apr 12, 2006, 09:33 am

eh_ver wrote:

Cripes. This question has probably been asked a million times already, but I simply can't go through 9 pages of this thread. Is there a plan to trade up the A-Z Handbook? I missed the first issue and when that happened I just decided to do what I never WANT to do and 'wait for the trade'.

Also, just how cool are you guys for putting out handbooks that actually rival the originals from back in the day?

The first issue did not come out that long ago. Have you asked your local comic shop to place a back-order?


Matt_DiCarlo

Apr 12, 2006, 11:16 am

So if you were to sneak in, let's say, a Turner D. Century bio and say that the events of Disassembled caused him to come back to life and fleece the good citizens of Anaconda, Montana for all they had, would it then become canon?

I don't know if I could handle that sort of power.

Edit: To sneak this in after it was replied, but not to clog up the boards more, and since I should have rightfully said it in the first place, I used to love hunting down the old OHMU issues when I was a kid. and I'm really digging the new series, especially the idea that after all these years there are still characters that I don't know. Keep up the good work.


Eric J. Moreels

Apr 12, 2006, 11:30 am

Matt_DiCarlo wrote:

So if you were to sneak in, let's say, a Turner D. Century bio and say that the events of Disassembled caused him to come back to life and fleece the good citizens of Anaconda, Montana for all they had, would it then become canon?

Technically, yes, we could, but it would require editorial approval first.

Matt_DiCarlo wrote:

I don't know if I could handle that sort of power.

Unless its necessary for a continuity patch, we tend to shy away from making such additions ourselves. There are rare occasions when we've been able to give character(s) real name(s) or places of birth, and even rarer times when we've been able to flesh out a character's backstory (such as Anole, Bling, Jazz and Onyxx in the 198 Files), but typically those are only done with the assist of the character's creators and editorial.


keelatay

Apr 15, 2006, 11:58 am

I noticed that Marvel plans on releasing a Cosmic Handbook later this year. Will this just be a collection of the Nova Corp. files that have been in the back of the Annihilation books so far, or will these be entries similar to those found in the Official Handbooks? More importantly will they have power grids?


shaomi

Apr 15, 2006, 10:48 pm

Hi y'all from a newcomer & first i wanna thank you Marvel people for answering fans questions around here. I'd like to discuss something that apparently hasn't been discussed here before:

For years i've been thinking that an online OHOTMU would be the best solution. The old editions are completely unaccurate now for most of the characters & so will be the new ones in 20 years.

My idea was an online handbook, with regular updates, which of course wouldn't be free (i understand that making an OHTMU needs to have lotsa people on the payroll & therefore cannot be free.), but access to the database could be bought once a year, for exemple. Of course another option would be a CD/DVD-ROM reissued every one or 2 year.

Besides the dating problem, this would also be nice for people who have a limited comics budget & therefore will never buy all these OHOTMU books since they prefer to buy regular comics. Whatever the cost of producing it, a website or CD-R would be cheaper to make (terefore to sell) than paper.

It would also allow ALL the entries to be featured in ONE source (because now we have to jump from one book to one another & it begins to make LOTS of book.)

What do you at Marvel (& you fans) think of such a concept? Is is totally irrelevant or could it be considered?

Thanx for your opinion.


Eric J. Moreels

Apr 16, 2006, 01:16 am

Actually, Marvel have recently launched an online wikipedia-style "handbook" at http://www.marvel.com/universe/ where anyone can add information (subject to moderation by myself and my fellow Handbook writers, of course!).


shaomi


Apr 18, 2006, 04:40 am

Wow! Great idea. Thanx 4 the info ;-)


eh_ver


Apr 18, 2006, 07:55 pm

This may sound a bit out there, but have you guys ever tried for a Thunderbolts Handbook? The FF, Avengers and X-Men have all had at least one and I personally think that the T-Bolts have now proven themselves enough to warrant one. If editorial will green light handbooks for one-off (yet cool) events like Marvel Monsters and Marvel Westerns, than I think that a T-Bolts handbook could be worthwhile in terms of content and good marketing for the core book. The members alone would fill most the pages and they all have rich enough histories that their bios would be pretty comprehensive. It would also help bring in apprehensive new readers in since its safe to say that T-Bolts is one of the most status quo changing book out right now. A milestone in which a book like this would make the most sense (100th issue), but there's got to be a good time to do this. Consider it, please.


Madison Carter

Apr 19, 2006, 02:07 am

It's a nice idea, but outside the specials (the decades, western, etc.), we're not doing any themed books at the moment. What the future brings...who knows.

(attribution missing)
Apr 19, 2006, 08:21 am

eh_ver wrote:

This may sound a bit out there, but have you guys ever tried for a Thunderbolts Handbook? The FF, Avengers and X-Men have all had at least one and I personally think that the T-Bolts have now proven themselves enough to warrant one. If editorial will green light handbooks for one-off (yet cool) events like Marvel Monsters and Marvel Westerns, than I think that a T-Bolts handbook could be worthwhile in terms of content and good marketing for the core book. The members alone would fill most the pages and they all have rich enough histories that their bios would be pretty comprehensive. It would also help bring in apprehensive new readers in since its safe to say that T-Bolts is one of the most status quo changing book out right now. A milestone in which a book like this would make the most sense (100th issue), but there's got to be a good time to do this. Consider it, please.

Great idea... Perhaps two entries per individual (where warented) would be a good idea... a false history for the Good Guy and a true history for the Bad Guy.


WhitePhalkon

May 2, 2006, 12:59 pm

Hi. I was just wondering if i could ask a few questions about the Phoenix Forces entry and all references to it in other bios.

Basically im still confused as to what exactly it is. Initially Chris Claremont said it was the first spark that ignited creation (so presumably the Big Bang), then i read in the handbooks that it was a nexus point for all psionic energy in existence, then Excalibur in the 90's showed it was the energies of the Big Bang again and that if it manifested sentience (and therefore became a life form unto itself) within the closed system of the universe it absorbed energy reserved for future generations as life feeds on life and this seems to be the interpretation you stuck with in the latest Phoenix bio. (Whew lol)

So if thats the case if the Phoenix Force is the energies of creation (as Reed said in F4 522 and as your bio definition seems to say as well then surely theres a connection between the Phoenix Force and the Power Primordial? Wouldnt it stem from the Phoenix or maybe even be the same thing?

Lastly your recent Eternity entry said that the only being known to have authority over Eternity was The Living Tribunal, but surely thats not true if the Phoenix Force is the life force of reality, which Eternity embodies. On top of that as we've seen from Uncanny X-men 108 (M'kraan crystal incident) and New X-men 154 (manifesting 616 in the palm of her hand and altering its timeline) theres been multiple occassions where the fate of the multiverse and the 616 reality respectively have rested in her hands. To be able to shape 616s future like that certainly contradicts with that statement.


Gaara of the Sand

May 3, 2006, 08:37 am
Thanks Gaara. Well im really into the Phoenix Force as imo its the most interesting of the fundamental forces. Its just a shame you never get to see it outside of X-titles
What do you think its role is in th emultiverse and what do you think the White Hot Room is?
My own opinion? I think the Phoenix Force is a joke. It was all well and good when it was the guardian of the M'Karn Crystal, but once they started trying to tag on abstracthood and universal importance to it, I just thought it was crap.

There is no real reason for it, and it makes little sense for an abstract being to not know what it itself actually is and for the most part to protect a single item. Every time the PF has had some kind of meeting with a cosmic being, I always just see it as silly.

As to the White Hot Room, that was blatantly stolen from Mark Grunewald's work on Quasar, where all previous Protectors of the Universe exist in the White Room instead of any other realm of the dead.

As to multiversal...only two beings have been definitively shown to have any importance (or even exist) on a multiversal level. Those are the Multi-Eternity and the Living Tribunal.

The reason you don't see the PF outside of X-Books is because of its nature. It is always within a mutant and it always makes others job out to it. No fun there.


WhitePhalkon


May 4, 2006, 08:28 am

But wasnt the Phoenix being a guardian of the M'kraan crystal just something stated in the animated series? I dont recall that notion ever being put forward in the comics as its role. Cosmic importance was applied to the Force during the original Phoenix Saga and therefore preceded the cosmology as depicted by writers like Starlin in the early 90's. Therefore the Phoenix having universal importance isnt something that was just tagged on in the face of an established cosmology. It was the energies of creation, the Big Bang whilst Eternity embodied all life along the timeline. However Phoenix being an X-character and somewhat protected (just like all the others ) it seems meant that it wasnt involved in any of said sagas of the 90's, which was a shame.

Well i wouldnt go as far as to say theres no reason for it, because according to Roma in Excalibur and as supported in the latest bio entry it is the life force of the universe and without it the universe would be left a void "wherein exists not the smallest potential for life". I do agree however that Alan Davis' interpretation where he had the Phoenix not knowing its role in creation was dumb however wasnt that due to it taking on a human consciousness? Because that would explain it and fits in with the idea of the Phoenix Consciousness in New X-men who directed the Corps in multiversal affairs (as seen in New 154) and therefore very much knew and had an established role in creation. As for it only protecting one item for the most part, given that the item is a nexus of realities and therefore holds multiversal importance i dont really see that role as non sensical or insignificant lol.

Yeah i read Quasar so i caught the reference. Morrisson tried to Kaballahize it i thought though with all his talk of "White Phoenix Of Crown" and your existence in the White Hot Room predating your physical birth into reality and so on. I love all that mysticism and symbology stuff so i thought it was a cool concept. I loved how the M'kraan Crystal was shown as an access point to the Crown/White Hot Room which Claremont later dubbed the "core of creation" and the "Heart of the Phoenix". I just thought that description fitted in really well with the current interpretation of the Phoenix as the Big Bang and it explained Phoenixes connection with the crystal. Among other things its an access point to the home dimension of the Phoenix Consciousness (as the latest bio stated) which presumably manifests through it as the Big Bang in which it is reborn into reality.

That matches up with what was originally said about the crystal in Uncanny X-men 108:

and as both Phoenixes and Galactus latest bios reference the end of X-men Adventures #12 (Phoenix saving existence from eternal damnation before the crystal wiped out the multiverse) as being canon it seem thats what actually happened. The crystal reset reality and 616 was reborn from the subsequent Big Bang.

Sorry i waffled on a bit there lol


Gaara of the Sand

May 5, 2006, 12:31 am

This is getting annoying, this is the third time I've had to try and post this!

WhitePhalkon wrote:

But wasnt the Phoenix being a guardian of the M'kraan crystal just something stated in the animated series? I dont recall that notion ever being put forward in the comics as its role.

Yeah, I could very well be confusing the two, it's been years since I read the arc and the show was so much more memorable

WhitePhalkon wrote:

Cosmic importance was applied to the Force during the original Phoenix Saga and therefore preceded the cosmology as depicted by writers like Starlin in the early 90's.

What cosmic importance was it given?

As to Starlin, he didn't create the cosmic hierarchy or contribute to it. The closest thing he made as a contribution was Chronos.
Therefore the Phoenix having universal importance isnt something that was just tagged on in the face of an established cosmology. It was the energies of creation, the Big Bang whilst Eternity embodied all life along the timeline. However Phoenix being an X-character and somewhat protected (just like all the others) it seems meant that it wasnt involved in any of said sagas of the 90's, which was a shame.
Well, actually, Tom B has said that the Handbook folks were wrong in their citing of X-Men Adventures. It is non-cannonical as it takes place in the universe of the cartoon. So officially the Phoenix has had nothing to do with the creation of the universe

WhitePhalkon wrote:

Well i wouldnt go as far as to say theres no reason for it, because according to Roma in Excalibur and as supported in the latest bio entry it is the life force of the universe and without it the universe would be left a void "wherein exists not the smallest potential for life".

As to it embodying all life...neh, that's Eternity. We've seen the Phoenix Force die in other universes, and we've seen that force of reality that are supposed to "end all upon their deaths" never do.

WhitePhalkon wrote:

I do agree however that Alan Davis' interpretation where he had the Phoenix not knowing its role in creation was dumb however wasnt that due to it taking on a human consciousness? Because that would explain it and fits in with the idea of the Phoenix Consciousness in New X-men who directed the Corps in multiversal affairs (as seen in New 154) and therefore very much knew and had an established role in creation. As for it only protecting one item for the most part, given that the item is a nexus of realities and therefore holds multiversal importance i dont really see that role as non sensical or insignificant lol.

I just can't buy it being multiversal in nature, we've seen PF's die in other universes, and nothing has been shown to support it being multiversal outside of that ludicrous story.

WhitePhalkon wrote:

Yeah i read Quasar so i caught the reference. Morrisson tried to Kaballahize it i thought though with all his talk of "White Phoenix Of Crown" and your existence in the White Hot Room predating your physical birth into reality and so on. I love all that mysticism and symbology stuff so i thought it was a cool concept. I loved how the M'kraan Crystal was shown as an access point to the Crown/White Hot Room which Claremont later dubbed the "core of creation" and the "Heart of the Phoenix". I just thought that description fitted in really well with the current interpretation of the Phoenix as the Big Bang and it explained Phoenixes connection with the crystal. Among other things its an access point to the home dimension of the Phoenix Consciousness (as the latest bio stated) which presumably manifests through it as the Big Bang in which it is reborn into reality.

Ah, but we have seen the M'Kraan Crystal destroyed in other universes with no ill effects (nothing big anyways).

WhitePhalkon wrote:

That matches up with what was originally said about the crystal in Uncanny X-men 108:

That's just silly, at the center of each galaxy is a mega black hole, you can't move one with another

WhitePhalkon wrote:

and as both Phoenixes and Galactus latest bios reference the end of X-men Adventures #12 (Phoenix saving existence from eternal damnation before the crystal wiped out the multiverse) as being canon it seem thats what actually happened. The crystal reset reality and 616 was reborn from the subsequent Big Bang.

As I said above, Tom B has said that the Handbook staff was wrong in their citing of X-Men Adventures (and also in the case of video games).

And the damnation thing...gross misinterpretation of events. Dweller was going to feed on fear, that's all. And still, it was a stolen plot from Dweller's previous big arc...with worse art.


 

More historical text from Comixfan
eh_ver


Jun 2, 2006, 11:42 am

I was looking at the Golden Age handbook recently and saw in the Angel bio that he has ancestor named Duke Harmon. Besides the obvious answer of 'he's Duke Harmon', can you tell me who this is? I can't find him on the marvunapp page.


Michael Regan

Jun 3, 2006, 10:39 am

eh_ver wrote:

I was looking at the Golden Age handbook recently and saw in the Angel bio that he has ancestor named Duke Harmon. Besides the obvious answer of 'he's Duke Harmon', can you tell me who this is? I can't find him on the marvunapp page

The ghost of Duke Harmon appeared in a story called 'The Killer-Ghost of Harmon Castle' in Marvel Mystery Comics #75 (August 1946) where it is revealed that the ghost is his ancester.


Pyrobon

Jun 4, 2006, 08:05 pm

Thank you guys
Oh i do consider myself a real X-fan hehe or Marvel fan really. So i'm going for all of them
Slowly, but thats the objective.

Anyway, i like decimation. I wasn't exactly thrilled when Beast discovered that at some point everyone was going to be a mutant (It was Beast, right?). It doesn't matter if he said it or not anyway, the fact that there were mutants anywhere and so mutant characters where popping up was starting to annoy me.
I'm glad with the special or privilige position that being a few small group give to them. That's just me




Michael Regan

Jun 4, 2006, 08:11 pm

Pyrobon wrote:

Anyway, i like decimation. I wasn't exactly thrilled when Beast discovered that at some point everyone was going to be a mutant (It was Beast, right?). It doesn't matter if he said it or not anyway, the fact that there were mutants anywhere and so mutant characters where popping up was starting to annoy me.
I'm glad with the special or privilige position that being a few small group give to them. That's just me

Agreed... too many mutants (though I think you posted this in the wrong thread) Can you confirm where the statement may have been said? I would like to verify it if I can.


Pyrobon

Jun 5, 2006, 12:31 am

I think the statement is made in the New X-Men "E for Extinction" storyline.


Michael Regan

Jun 5, 2006, 10:33 am

Pyrobon wrote:

I think the statement is made in the New X-Men "E for Extinction" storyline

Bah, again with the ony X-title I have not been collecting. I may have to revise my subscription.

Thanks


diablo

Jun 5, 2006, 05:15 pm

Pyrobon wrote:

Thank you guys
Oh i do consider myself a real X-fan hehe or Marvel fan really. So i'm going for all of them
Slowly, but thats the objective.

Anyway, i like decimation. I wasn't exactly thrilled when Beast discovered that at some point everyone was going to be a mutant (It was Beast, right?). It doesn't matter if he said it or not anyway, the fact that there were mutants anywhere and so mutant characters where popping up was starting to annoy me.
I'm glad with the special or privilige position that being a few small group give to them. That's just me

He didn't say that. He said that humanity was going to disappear in 5 generations but he cured the extinction gene.
And I do not like DeciMation. Reducing the mutant population that way is a bit dumb. Hardly a few of the X-Men have been depowered (while they were the ones Wanda knew), the other depowered ones were only unseen characters or had disappeared before anyway. And with Sentinels, the cure and so on, there were other ways to destroy some mutants anyway. No need for Wanda.
Plus having so many mutants was kind of cool, so much potential. And less than 16 millions weren't that much.


Rayeye

Jun 10, 2006, 03:39 pm

I hope the future handbooks will also have include more human supporting characters, like Stevie Hunter, Tom Corsi, Raymond Sikorsky, Dai Thomas, etc. Many of them have made a lot of comic appearances and I think they don't deserve to be always 'labeled' as "I'm just a supporting character and a baseline human, so who cares about me"




William Keogh

Jun 10, 2006, 05:24 pm

Rayeye wrote:

I hope the future handbooks will also have include more human supporting characters, like Stevie Hunter, Tom Corsi, Raymond Sikorsky, Dai Thomas, etc. Many of them have made a lot of comic appearances and I think they don't deserve to be always 'labeled' as "I'm just a supporting character and a baseline human, so who cares about me"

I agree. We haven't seen profiles on SHIELD personnel like Director Hill, Dum Dum Dugan, or Valentina either.


Gaara of the Sand

Jun 12, 2006, 03:06 pm

Sorry about this late question, but I was re-reading Eternity's bio.

In it, he is listed as being only the embodiment of time.

He has been labeled as the embodiment of life itself on numerous times, including Quasar 37, which was written by Gru. And IIRC, I was told, on this very board, that Gru's word is law as far as the Handbooks are concerned.

So, is this an official retcon of Eternity's status in the universe?

Thanks


Rayeye

Jun 10, 2006, 03:39 pm

I hope the future handbooks will also have include more human supporting characters, like Stevie Hunter, Tom Corsi, Raymond Sikorsky, Dai Thomas, etc. Many of them have made a lot of comic appearances and I think they don't deserve to be always 'labeled' as "I'm just a supporting character and a baseline human, so who cares about me"


William Keogh

Jun 10, 2006, 05:24 pm

Rayeye wrote:

I hope the future handbooks will also have include more human supporting characters, like Stevie Hunter, Tom Corsi, Raymond Sikorsky, Dai Thomas, etc. Many of them have made a lot of comic appearances and I think they don't deserve to be always 'labeled' as "I'm just a supporting character and a baseline human, so who cares about me"

I agree. We haven't seen profiles on SHIELD personnel like Director Hill, Dum Dum Dugan, or Valentina either.


Gaara of the Sand

Jun 12, 2006, 03:06 pm

Sorry about this late question, but I was re-reading Eternity's bio.

In it, he is listed as being only the embodiment of time.

He has been labeled as the embodiment of life itself on numerous times, including Quasar 37, which was written by Gru. And IIRC, I was told, on this very board, that Gru's word is law as far as the Handbooks are concerned.

So, is this an official retcon of Eternity's status in the universe?

Thanks


Andy’s note: formatting stops again at this point

WhitePhalkon

Jun 13, 2006, 07:06 am
Sorry about the slow response, between being sick and busy (and X-Fan crapping out on me on two occasions) it just hasn't reached the top of my to-do list, but here we are, thrid times the charm!
First of all, I was under the impression that X-Men Adventures was non-canonical.
Stars help facilitate life, and as the PF power stars, it basically facilitates life, but it doesn't create it. Hell all life doesn't even require sunlight
Youre being superficial in your analysis. Stars provide the energy which makes life in the universe possible. Without stars there would be no life. Its all about degrees of seperation. On top of that Phoenix isnt just responsible for powering the stars. That is one of the things it is stated to be the power behind. It is stated on panel many a time to be the Big Bang and you have Phoenix reborn into creation in the Big Bang event as depicted in those Excalibur scans i posted. This is in line with the oft repeated line stated in many comics that Phoenix is the first spark that ignites creation and the final fire that consumes it. Theres no getting away from that fact. Its stated on panel that Phoenix is the Big Bang and that point has been depicted on panel. Any opinion to the contrary holds no weight in a discussion in light of that.
First of all, I don't see it as the life force of creation, so that point is moot. Secondly, abstracts rarely take active roles in the going ons of the universe
The fact that you choose not to see it that way in light of the point being stated and depicted on panel is your problem and doesnt change the fact that its canon, which is why the handbook writers interpretation was the same. Even as recently as last month you have the point being made on panel. Its stated that Phoenix is the power behind the creation cycle, which is in line with Phoenixes depiction in X-men Forever which stated that it was the assurance of life from death, the ressurection force that sparks off a new beginning.
Some whack job in a suit hardly qualifies as an expert of the cosmos.

Again, it's just a weird guy saying all this
Making fun of the evidence as opposed to presenting alternative on panel evidence will get you nowhere. The point is stated on panel many a time and across multiple titles even up till a few weeks ago. Unless you can provide similarly recent and expansive counter-evidence then all you have is opinion.

Said whack job was Prosh the Celestial ship and he had just recived his information from one of the Celestials brains. On top of that, all that he said was supported on panel by both the Stranger and Eternity.
No, I took it for the abstract art that it is
In your opinion, which in the face of the wealth of on panel evidence stating and depicting the point, just isn’t good enough. The art is presented alongside commentary from the Stranger and various comments throughout the mini which state that the Phoenix is the driving force behind the evolution of humanity into abstracts, a process Eternity later states is a natural part of a universes life cycle. All of this being in line with the many comments in other titles pertaining to Phoenix being the power behind the creation cycle.
Tons of folks have tried to access some power to avert a fate or take a seat at the cosmic table to no avail, and they are often misguided in their efforts, and for the Stranger to act so grosslyo ut of character brings this all into question.
Youre missing the point. The process would have happened anyway as Eternity stated, the Stranger merely wanted to tap into the power to exclude himself from it, leaving himself supreme in a new reality. Your opinion that Stranger was acting out of character doesn’t change the fact that Phoenix was again linked to evolution and like many a previous time and many a time since was portrayed as the power that sparks off reality and the power that unravels it. Moot point
No, Tom has said that the events of X-Men Adventures are non-cannonical in regards to the 616-universe
Regardless of whether that comic is canon or not Phoenix being the Big Bang IS canon and therefore just as F4 522 depicted it was still the power that transformed Galactus, still the power that spawned the reality that the abstracts later came to embody.
First of all, cosmic continuity was paid no heed in this story and the writer demonstrated a severe lacking in the understanding of cosmic things.
Secondly, just because Reed says it doesn't make it fact, he's far from an expert on cosmic beings
Cosmic continuity was paid no heed in your opinion you mean lol. Doesn’t change that what was stated about Phoenix i.e that it is the energies of creation is a point that has been relayed to readers in dozens of titles over the years, even as recently as last month. Despite your opinion there’s just no getting around it.
All I see there is the PF being born with the rest of the universe
Nope it depicts Phoenix being the energies of the Big Bang. Which is in line with the oft repeated line that it is “the sum and substance of all that lives” or that it is first spark that ignites creation. Phoenix has said herself that she is born and consumed in fire, that she dies only to be reborn. Eternity and Strangers comments verify this saying that she is the resurrection force and that her death is itself a new beginning.
To be quite honest, I've never put much stock into Roma. She herself doesn't even understand what the omniverse is. She's hardly an expert.

This was also greatly out of character for most parties present. I'll address Uatu below
All in your opinion. Regardless as ive shown through the various scans theres a precedence for this. Many characters across multiple titles, cosmic characters with a great understanding of the universe have said the same thing. Plus the re-birth of Phoenix as the the energies of the Big Bang was depicted and she herself and Eternity have said she ushers in the creation cycle. She is the final fire which in itself is a new beginning, the Big Bang.
It was in the realm of the dead with Jean in Paradise X
A depiction at odds with all other Phoenix appearances. As stated on panel and in the bio the Phoenix Force cannot truly die.
And we know for a fact that Watchers have no real knowledge of the previous universe or any events that took place in it, this is moot
How do you know that? Watchers have a degree of omniscience that we do know. Who are you to define the extent of their knowledge? The Watchers comments are supported by Eternity, Death, Roma, Galactus and Phoenix herself and have been depicted on panel and supported in handbooks. That’s good enough.
Part of the Big Bang still exists, and it has no connection to PF. And PF has no role in universal creation nor does it empower the universe
The Phoenix is the energies of the Big Bang as stated on panel many a time and as depicted, theres no on panel depiction that says that’s not the case but many that say it is. If something taps into or derives from the Big Bang then it stands to reason that it is connected to the Phoenix, regardless if theres no on panel depiction to spell it out for us. Phoenix is stated by Eternity and Death to be the force that brings about new life upon the Death of reality, the “resurrection force”. That role was given to Phoenix back in the 70’s and the point has been stated time and time again over the years up until last month. Its canon, it “dies” and then is reborn as the Big Bang.
The piece broke off, the crystal was broken, that much is not up for debate
It broke indeed and yet that has no relevance to the the power contained within. As stated on panel it is the magnetic fields, the energy lattice that holds the power in place. Moot point.
What I'm curious about is, do you really believe a magnetic feild holds the universe in balance?
What either of us would like to believe is irrelevant in light of whats actually stated on panel. It is stated plain as day that it is the fields that holds the power in place. End of discussion.
We've seen the megaversal nexus, and the Crystal played no role in it
The megaversal nexus? What pray tell would that be? Where have we seen that? News to me?
A half-dead universe worth of fear would not amount to universal power beyond the abstracts
Who said it would? Why would it need to, to present a threat the cosmics would take notice of. Is Thanos a massively powerful cosmic? The crux of the matter is that Phoenix felt that the Dweller would have had access to enough power for him to present a significant threat, therefore she denied him access




WhitePhalkon

Jun 13, 2006, 07:15 am
Sorry about this late question, but I was re-reading Eternity's bio.

In it, he is listed as being only the embodiment of time.

He has been labeled as the embodiment of life itself on numerous times, including Quasar 37, which was written by Gru. And IIRC, I was told, on this very board, that Gru's word is law as far as the Handbooks are concerned.

So, is this an official retcon of Eternity's status in the universe?

Thanks
Thats what i was trying to say. In recent years Eternity in his appearances has been defined as the embodiment of the timeline. With Infinity as the embodiment of space and together embodying the space/time continuum. The Phoenix Force is the life force, the spark that spawns the creation which the abstracts embody aspects of.


Madison Carter

Jun 13, 2006, 09:45 am
Sorry about this late question, but I was re-reading Eternity's bio.

In it, he is listed as being only the embodiment of time.

He has been labeled as the embodiment of life itself on numerous times, including Quasar 37, which was written by Gru. And IIRC, I was told, on this very board, that Gru's word is law as far as the Handbooks are concerned.

So, is this an official retcon of Eternity's status in the universe?

Thanks
Mr. Gruenwald's concepts and ideas evolved much like any other artists would. Not everything is set in stone. Check out some of the first 3 versions of the Handbook (original, Deluxe, Master) to see where Gru himself changed his stance on this.

We have to look at the whole, and can't simply draw one remark from one source and let it override all others. At one point, Eternity and Death were the two major abstract beings in the MU, and pretty much everything was placed on one or the other to be the embodiment of. However, that changes constantly as new abstract beings (Oblivion, Infinity, etc.) are introduced.

Point 1: in the original early 80s Handbook (and reprinted verbatim in the Deluxe), it is stated that Eternity "is the name for the sentient life-force of the universe." Now, keep in mind that this was stated before the introductions of Infinity, Oblvion, etc. and also before much of the Phoenix mythology came into play (remember, when it was written, Phoenix was still pretty much believed to just be Jean Grey).

Point 2: Years later, the Master Edition revises this after the expansion of the abstract "family." Here, Eternity is stated as the "sum total of all that exists along the temporal axis." Temporal. Time. He is given the abilities to "manipulate time, space, matter, energy, magic..." - Notice Time is listed first and most prominently. Thirdly, and most importantly: "Eternity is the supreme Time Being of the universe. Infinity is the supreme Space Being of the universe. Together they comprise the space-time continuum with which the universe and all things exist."

Read that last part again. Now read it about 80 more times. He does not, by Gruenwald's own retcon, comprise simply "life", he is the embodiment of the timeline on which they exist.

formatting resumes again below

WhitePhalkon

Jun 14, 2006, 02:18 am

Thanks for your contribution MC



Sean McQuaid


Jun 17, 2006, 01:57 am

Rayeye wrote:

I hope the future handbooks will also have include more human supporting characters, like Stevie Hunter, Tom Corsi, Raymond Sikorsky, Dai Thomas, etc. Many of them have made a lot of comic appearances and I think they don't deserve to be always 'labeled' as "I'm just a supporting character and a baseline human, so who cares about me"

Various normal human characters have been considered for upcoming coverage, including at least one of the folks you mention above.

-Sean


Sean McQuaid


Jun 17, 2006, 01:59 am

William Keogh wrote:

I agree. We haven't seen profiles on SHIELD personnel like Director Hill, Dum Dum Dugan, or Valentina either.

Funny you should mention that -- we've just been discussing possibly covering more SHIELD agents in upcoming projects, though agents who already got covered in UPDATE '89 are a bit less likely to get near-future coverage than other significant agents who haven't been profiled before at all.

-Sean


Zach Kinkead

Jun 17, 2006, 02:23 am

Are there any plans to collect the ’89 updates?


diablo

Jun 18, 2006, 07:03 pm

Hello.

I have made an article on Wiki about the name of Xavier students and I have got a question. Are those true names or made up ones ? Was it only said off-panel ?

Parvati Gavaskar (sister to Indra)
Jorge Lukas aka Forearm
Tia Thula aka Blindfold
Nicolas Gorostiaga aka E-Shock
Javier Morales aka Jetstorm
Inc Lain Forbs (X-Men street team)
Valerie Surhoff aka Time Master
Eddie aka Wing
Jonah Von Helsking aka Longneck
Vladimir Preobrazhenski aka Nezhno
and Rogue's squad being Lepperchaun (leader), Puck, Goblin, Elve, Imp and Sylph


Rayeye

Jun 19, 2006, 03:14 am

diablo wrote:

Hello.

I have made an article on Wiki about the name of Xavier students and I have got a question. Are those true names or made up ones ? Was it only said off-panel ?

Parvati Gavaskar (sister to Indra)
Jorge Lukas aka Forearm
Tia Thula aka Blindfold
Nicolas Gorostiaga aka E-Shock
Javier Morales aka Jetstorm
Inc Lain Forbs (X-Men street team)
Valerie Surhoff aka Time Master
Eddie aka Wing
Jonah Von Helsking aka Longneck
Vladimir Preobrazhenski aka Nezhno
and Rogue's squad being Lepperchaun (leader), Puck, Goblin, Elve, Imp and Sylph

Those are all made up ones. Only Eddie aka Wing is right (and was confirmed in Astonishing X-Men). The real names of Blindfold, Longneck, Nezhno, Forearm haven't been revealed (yet). And Indra does have a sister, but she was never named.


oenglish

Jun 19, 2006, 03:27 am

Zach Kinkead wrote:

Are there any plans to collect the ’89 updates?

Someone else asked us this a couple months back, and at the time we were told (and given permission to pass on) that the Update '89 series would get an Essential after the three volumes of the current series. So, assuming nothing has changed in the meanwhile, yes, we should see this sometime after the others finish...


diablo

Jun 20, 2006, 04:29 pm

Rayeye wrote:

And Indra does have a sister, but she was never named.

Not even in NXM Yearbook ?

Thanks for the other things, though did we see graves in NXM #24 with names on it


Rayeye

Jun 20, 2006, 08:15 pm

diablo wrote:

Not even in NXM Yearbook ?

Thanks for the other things, though did we see graves in NXM #24 with names on it ?

Only Tag's name (Brian Cruz) was seen on a grave.


mmazique

Jun 21, 2006, 07:28 pm

Does anyone have any leads on places to obtain several of the new Official Handbooks that seem to be out-of-stock in most of my local stores? I'm primarily looking for Women of Marvel, Spider-Man 2004, Alternate Universes, and the Book of the Dead (2004?).


Eric J. Moreels

Jun 22, 2006, 05:55 am

mmazique wrote:

Does anyone have any leads on places to obtain several of the new Official Handbooks that seem to be out-of-stock in most of my local stores? I'm primarily looking for Women of Marvel, Spider-Man 2004, Alternate Universes, and the Book of the Dead (2004?).

Have you tried Comixfan's major sponsor, X-World?


ToddCam

Jun 23, 2006, 10:15 pm

Hi. I have a question. I know that you do not have the rights to do entries on non-Marvel characters, like the Justice League, etc., but I wonder if this is the reason why you don't actually mention these characters/teams by name. I noticed in the Bug entry (though, admittedly I might have missed it) no clever ways of getting around to referring to the Micronauts, but I believe that in Boom-Boom and Grandmaster's intries there are references to Youngblood and the Justice League, though not by name.

Also, I noticed that the JLAvengers crossover was mentioned in Grandmaster's entry. I only read #s 1 and 3 of that series, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it ignore the Marvel vs. DC crossover of several years earlier? Is that not canon? What about other Marvel/DC crossovers?

And would you be able to do a profile on an Amalgam character? (Not that any really deserve one). And what about Access? Is he Marvel or DC?


Madison Carter

Jun 24, 2006, 01:10 am

ToddCam wrote:

Hi. I have a question. I know that you do not have the rights to do entries on non-Marvel characters, like the Justice League, etc., but I wonder if this is the reason why you don't actually mention these characters/teams by name. I noticed in the Bug entry (though, admittedly I might have missed it) no clever ways of getting around to referring to the Micronauts, but I believe that in Boom-Boom and Grandmaster's intries there are references to Youngblood and the Justice League, though not by name.

Also, I noticed that the JLAvengers crossover was mentioned in Grandmaster's entry. I only read #s 1 and 3 of that series, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it ignore the Marvel vs. DC crossover of several years earlier? Is that not canon? What about other Marvel/DC crossovers?

And would you be able to do a profile on an Amalgam character? (Not that any really deserve one). And what about Access? Is he Marvel or DC?

When it comes to licensed characters and crossovers, several factors play in. For the most part, dealing historically with licensed characters (Micronauts, Godzilla, etc.) has long been fair game, so long as they are not depicted. With crossovers, in which Marvel deals with another company's characters (as opposed to licensing them), it's a little murkier, and thus, the vagueness.

JLA/Avengers and DC Vs. Marvel can both be considered canon, though neither are likely to be recalled in the regular books anytime soon. JLA/Avengers does not neccessarily ignore DC Vs. Marvel, it just makes no reference to it. As such, we can attribute this to the common theme seen when two merged worlds separate in these books: The participants lose most, if not all, of their memories of the events.

We cannot, at the moment, deal with the Amalgam characters due to the red tape involved in their ownership, and I feel safe to say that the same holds true for Access (who is co-owned by Marvel and DC) as well most likely.

On a side note, you and others who are interested in the various Marvel crossovers may be interested in this: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/e...ossoverall.htm - It's a profile I did for the Appendix detailing various Marvel-related crossovers. While this is not canon in any way, shape or form (especially since it only deals with the crossovers that don't include dimensional travel between the companies' characters), it should make for an interesting read for some.


Michael Regan

Jun 24, 2006, 09:21 am

Fantastically done, Madison Carter, I trust you ar no longer bat#&@* insane. Understandably, the profile handles Marvel oriented crossovers, but it would be interresting to fit in the additional cross-company cross-overs as you suggest.


diablo

Jun 24, 2006, 09:06 pm

Has it been revealed as of yet which Earth the Exiles (and Weapon X) members come from? Will it be part of a new Handbook?


Madison Carter

Jun 25, 2006, 01:05 am

diablo wrote:

Has it been revealed as of yet which Earth the Exiles (and Weapon X) members come from? Will it be part of a new Handbook?

Well, most of the members of the Exiles come from different worlds. Some are very familiar (Beak from Earth-616, Sabretooth, Blink and Holocaust from AoA, Power Princess from the Squadron's Earth). Several members had their Earths designated various places, whether in the actual Exiles book or in the Handbooks (such as the Age of Apocalypse Handbook, which had a bit on the Exiles as well). As they're covered, more of them will be dealt with as needed.


Michael Regan

Jun 25, 2006, 08:06 am

diablo wrote:

Has it been revealed as of yet which Earth the Exiles (and Weapon X) members come from? Will it be part of a new Handbook?

Now that Heather is in control the individual Earth designations have been cropping up.

You can check-ou the Exiles Alternate Realities thread for some details, although it could use updating.


Rayeye

Jun 25, 2006, 08:27 am

Madison Carter wrote:

Well, most of the members of the Exiles come from different worlds. Some are very familiar (Beak from Earth-616, Sabretooth, Blink and Holocaust from AoA, Power Princess from the Squadron's Earth). Several members had their Earths designated various places, whether in the actual Exiles book or in the Handbooks (such as the Age of Apocalypse Handbook, which had a bit on the Exiles as well). As they're covered, more of them will be dealt with as needed.

Spider-Man 2099 comes from Earth-928 (2099 A.D. timeline)
Weapon X's Hyperion comes from Earth-4023 (was revealed in the Handbooks)

And there are some new revelations in Exiles #83:
SPOILER! Magnus comes from Earth-27. And the Weapon X members: Daredevil comes from Earth-181, Maverick comes from Earth-1287, Mesmero from Earth-653 and Wolverine from Earth-172.


Michael Regan

Jun 25, 2006, 09:09 am

Rayeye wrote:

Spider-Man 2099 comes from Earth-928 (2099 A.D. timeline)
Weapon X's Hyperion comes from Earth-4023 (was revealed in the Handbooks)

And there are some new revelations in Exiles #83:
SPOILER! Magnus comes from Earth-27. And the Weapon X members: Daredevil comes from Earth-181, Maverick comes from Earth-1287, Mesmero from Earth-653 and Wolverine from Earth-172.

Would you be so kind as to post these items/revelations in the Exiles Alternate Realities thread as well? I trust someone will get around to updating the main list at some point


diablo

Jun 26, 2006, 05:00 pm

 

Rayeye wrote:

Spider-Man 2099 comes from Earth-928 (2099 A.D. timeline)

Just a question, wasn't it an alternate version from the main 2099 ?


Michael Regan

Jun 26, 2006, 06:27 pm

diablo wrote:

Just a question, wasn't it an alternate version from the main 2099 ?

According to Heather's read-out, the 2099 Earth designation was Earth-928, but since the Exiles altered that reality it is likely that a fractured reality was created and it was a different designation when they left, using the 'Back to the Future II' law of temporal/dimensional travel.

Madison Carter
Jun 26, 2006, 07:55 pm
Right, it was the main 2099 reality until Proteus and the Exiles arrived, and their tampering caused a divergence. The Spider-Man they ended up taking was from the new divergent reality.


diablo
Jun 26, 2006, 08:36 pm
Do we know the number ?

And I read that when Hulk was sent home she apeared on one of the panels as a member of the FF, was there a number for that Earth too ?


Michael Regan
Jun 26, 2006, 08:42 pm

diablo wrote:

Do we know the number ?

And I read that when Hulk was sent home she apeared on one of the panels as a member of the FF, was there a number for that Earth too ?
I may be wrong, but I do not believe they have been revealed (or assigned) yet. If they have, I would love to know


diablo
Jun 27, 2006, 08:33 am
I saw that at UXN. By panel I meant the Panoptichron's panels not the issue's panels.


Playmobil
Jun 27, 2006, 10:41 am
Right, it was the main 2099 reality until Proteus and the Exiles arrived, and their tampering caused a divergence. The Spider-Man they ended up taking was from the new divergent reality.
Does this apply to all realities the Exiles visited? Does it mean the original realities remain intact?


Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2006, 10:50 am

Playmobil wrote:

Does this apply to all realities the Exiles visited? Does it mean the original realities remain intact?

I believe the fractured realities that are repaired are fine, but during the World Tour since they were fracturing the realities themselves, then a divergeant reality should result.


diablo
Jun 27, 2006, 02:37 pm
House of M reality is listed as Earth #58163 at Wiki. Is it true or made up ?


Rayeye
Jun 27, 2006, 03:17 pm

diablo wrote:

House of M reality is listed as Earth #58163 at Wiki. Is it true or made up ?

www.marvunapp.com has also listed House of M as Earth-58163, but it is not officially until it is stated in a Marvel comic book, for example in the Official Handbooks.


Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2006, 03:29 pm

Rayeye wrote:

diablo wrote:

House of M reality is listed as Earth #58163 at Wiki. Is it true or made up ?

www.marvunapp.com has also listed House of M as Earth-58163, but it is not officially until it is stated in a Marvel comic book, for example in the Official Handbooks.

They are all 'made up' as someone stated to me a few months ago, it simply matters who made it up. The rub here is that the majority of the elements that make up the Official Handbooks come from www.marvunapp.com.


Rayeye
Jun 27, 2006, 03:57 pm
I think it's a little weird calling the House of M reality a different Earth, since it was just Earth-616 transformed into a "mutopia" world by the Scarlet Witch, thus not an alternative Earth/reality.


Madison Carter
Jun 27, 2006, 04:24 pm

Rayeye wrote:

I think it's a little weird calling the House of M reality a different Earth, since it was just Earth-616 transformed into a "mutopia" world by the Scarlet Witch, thus not an alternative Earth/reality.

Not quite true. As evidenced by virtually every other time Earth-616 has been transformed into another reality (see: Age of Apocalypse), it actually creates a new reality.


Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2006, 04:50 pm

Madison Carter wrote:

Rayeye wrote:

I think it's a little weird calling the House of M reality a different Earth, since it was just Earth-616 transformed into a "mutopia" world by the Scarlet Witch, thus not an alternative Earth/reality.

Not quite true. As evidenced by virtually every other time Earth-616 has been transformed into another reality (see: Age of Apocalypse), it actually creates a new reality.

It is a divergeant/deviant/anomalous reality while it is occuring and remains Earth-616, but upon reversion to original type it would become an alternate reality whether it continued or not. House of M qualifies 100% because it also had false/altered history to it.


Rayeye
Jun 27, 2006, 04:59 pm
So that does mean that the House of M reality still exist somewhere in the Multiverse?


Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2006, 06:42 pm

Rayeye wrote:

So that does mean that the House of M reality still exist somewhere in the Multiverse?

The possibility exists. The crux of this came out with the latest issue of Ms Marvel. During the House of M she was known as Captain Marvel had had a full history of battling an arch-villain named Sir Warren Traveller, but in reality the entire history did not exist and we witnessed their first encounter, releatively speaking. When the Earth-616 reality was reinstated, Ms Marvel realized this but Traveller was in some sort of limbo during the reset and reappeared in the Earth-616 reality retaining his knowledge of the false history (which could be a true history from his perspective).

The best thing to keep in mind is that when the Age of Apocalypse was in full swing it was considered the Earth-616 reality, although it had been changed. When 'reality' was restored, the Age of Apocalypse reality should have been erased, but it was shown to exist as an alternate reality (Earth-295). Technically the samething is likely to be true for the House of M.

The fundimental rule for tampering with reality or time (so far in the Marvel Universe at least) is that you can never truely change your own reality, you can only create a divergeant one. Although it is not generally accepted yet, I believe that House of M will become a designated alternate reality, probably Earth-58163 as previously stated.


Rayeye
Jun 27, 2006, 06:57 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

The fundimental rule for tampering with reality or time (so far in the Marvel Universe at least) is that you can never truely change your own reality, you can only create a divergeant one. Although it is not generally accepted yet, I believe that House of M will become a designated alternate reality, probably Earth-58163 as previously stated.

So, would that mean that everytime Cable went back in time (and he did that a lot), he caused divergeant realities?
Also if Rachel Summers knew about the impossibility of changing her own reality years ago, then she probably wouldn't try to go back in time (from her own timeline, Days of Future Past / Earth-811, to Earth-616) to save her own timeline.

However, I can't come up with an example right now and I may be wrong, but I think there are still a few comic stories when a character went back in time and could successfully change his own timeline...

Wow, this whole time and reality thing is making me


Michael Regan
Jun 27, 2006, 07:05 pm
The majority of time-travel-to-change-history stories only resulted in divergent realities. Most recently in Fantastic Four: Death in the Family.


William Keogh
Jun 27, 2006, 07:27 pm

Rayeye wrote:

So that does mean that the House of M reality still exist somewhere in the Multiverse?

Just wait for 2015 and the 10th anniversary of House Of M special: 350 different issues and each has to be bought or you'll never be able to make sense of the Marvel Universe again. aranoid:


diablo
Jun 27, 2006, 08:19 pm

Rayeye wrote:

So, would that mean that everytime Cable went back in time (and he did that a lot), he caused divergeant realities?
Also if Rachel Summers knew about the impossibility of changing her own reality years ago, then she probably wouldn't try to go back in time (from her own timeline, Days of Future Past / Earth-811, to Earth-616) to save her own timeline.

However, I can't come up with an example right now and I may be wrong, but I think there are still a few comic stories when a character went back in time and could successfully change his own timeline...

Wow, this whole time and reality thing is making me

It depends on one thing : was it destroyed or not. What I mean is a reality can continue to exist or be kinda crushed if it goes too wrong according to Exiles.
By the way could anyone report the Earths from Exiles #83 ASAP because by now I am in France and won't get that ish.


jannepie
Jun 28, 2006, 01:01 pm

Rayeye wrote:

However, I can't come up with an example right now and I may be wrong, but I think there are still a few comic stories when a character went back in time and could successfully change his own timeline...

Sometimes time travel works that way but I guess this would also create alternate timelines where the character didn't change his own timeline but created an alternate one.

I mean that when a character travels back in time he creates endless amount of alternate timelines, just like with every choice the character makes otherwise. When this happens, the timeline kind of divides. One of those timelines gets to keep the 616 numbering and others get a new one. Sometimes there's a small probability that the 616 is part of those timelines where the effects of the time travel are seen.

I don't know if that made sense or if it's true, but that's how I see it.


Michael Regan
Jun 28, 2006, 01:18 pm

jannepie wrote:

Sometimes time travel works that way but I guess this would also create alternate timelines where the character didn't change his own timeline but created an alternate one.

I mean that when a character travels back in time he creates endless amount of alternate timelines, just like with every choice the character makes otherwise. When this happens, the timeline kind of divides. One of those timelines gets to keep the 616 numbering and others get a new one. Sometimes there's a small probability that the 616 is part of those timelines where the effects of the time travel are seen.

I don't know if that made sense or if it's true, but that's how I see it.

I concur. With Fantastic Four: A Death in the Family the Invisible Woman is killed and the Human Torch time travels to prevent her death. We are led to believe that the occurances we watch are Earth-616 and he creates an alternate line, but the alternate line gains the Earth-616 designation so that we retain the reality where Sue did not die. It is actually stated in the story by one member (Reed I think) that his actions will not change their reality, but another (Ben I think) says that Torch probably does not care, as long as she survives in some reality.


gtrmp
Jun 28, 2006, 08:31 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

It is a divergeant/deviant/anomalous reality while it is occuring and remains Earth-616, but upon reversion to original type it would become an alternate reality whether it continued or not. House of M qualifies 100% because it also had false/altered history to it.

Except that that's not true at all. The Scarlet Witch altered the current state of reality, including everyone's memories of the past and various records of what had previouisly occurred, but she didn't alter time, so a divergent timeline wasn't necessarily created. The HoM issue of The Pulse confirms the nature of the world circa HoM: Hawkeye, who has had his knowledge of the 'real' reality restored, reads a newspaper and sees it as it really is, whereas another 'unawakened' character sees it as Wanda made it appear. If the House of M were an alternate timeline in the first place, that scene couldn't work, because the newspaper would not really be, and would never have been, different.

The only false or altered history was in the minds and memories of the character involved, and in false documentation of events that never occurred - in other words, HoM is no more of an alternate reality than Wolverine's memory implants were. If the past had been altered in HoM, Wolverine wouldn't have (partially) remembered his real past, because that wouldn't have ever been his past.

If HoM continues to exist as a divergent timeline, it exists in the sense of a "What If the House of M never ended?" type of divergent reality; it wasn't a divergent reality to begin with, like the Age of Apocalypse was. This isn't the first time that the Appendix/Handbook writers have erroneously conflated 'altered reality' with 'alternate reality'; off the top of my head, they gave alternate Earth numberings to the 'Forever Yesterday' world from New Warriors and to the 'Morgan Conquest' medievalized world from Busiek's Avengers, both of which also featured characters who clearly remembered the world as it actually was.

-Sean


gtrmp
Jun 28, 2006, 08:42 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

The crux of this came out with the latest issue of Ms Marvel. During the House of M she was known as Captain Marvel had had a full history of battling an arch-villain named Sir Warren Traveller, but in reality the entire history did not exist and we witnessed their first encounter, releatively speaking. When the Earth-616 reality was reinstated, Ms Marvel realized this but Traveller was in some sort of limbo during the reset and reappeared in the Earth-616 reality retaining his knowledge of the false history (which could be a true history from his perspective).

All this means is that Traveller wasn't hit by the Scarlet Witch's second reality-alteration wave. He's in the same situation that Deadpool was in during the HoM issues of Cable & Deadpool.

Michael Regan wrote:

The best thing to keep in mind is that when the Age of Apocalypse was in full swing it was considered the Earth-616 reality, although it had been changed. When 'reality' was restored, the Age of Apocalypse reality should have been erased, but it was shown to exist as an alternate reality (Earth-295). Technically the samething is likely to be true for the House of M.

Except that the House of M reality wasn't 'replaced' with the Earth-616 timeline like the AoA timeline was. HoM was a manipulation of the contents of the Earth-616 timeline, not a manipulation of the timeline itself. If the HoM still exists, its point of divergence would be the fact that it wasn't returned to normal by Wanda's second reality wave.

Michael Regan wrote:

The fundimental rule for tampering with reality or time (so far in the Marvel Universe at least) is that you can never truely change your own reality, you can only create a divergeant one. Although it is not generally accepted yet, I believe that House of M will become a designated alternate reality, probably Earth-58163 as previously stated.

Tampering with reality is not the same as tampering with time; AFAIK, there are no known instances of someone creating an alternate timeline by altering the present, only instances of creating a divergent timeline via time travel or other forms of specifically controlling time. Thanos altered reality, but several characters remebered what had happened after Nebula re-altered reality back to normal. (If "Let everything be as it was twenty-four hours ago" isn't reality alteration, what is? And yet, numerous characters - maybe even all of them - remember what occurred during the Infinity Gauntlet crossover.)

-Sean


Madison Carter
Jun 28, 2006, 10:52 pm

gtrmp wrote:

Tampering with reality is not the same as tampering with time; AFAIK, there are no known instances of someone creating an alternate timeline by altering the present, only instances of creating a divergent timeline via time travel or other forms of specifically controlling time. -Sean

Not quite sure what you're referring to here, but if it's a question of someone altering the present reality, it's happened numerous times. Kulan Gath, Morgan le Fey and the second Sphinx all did so. Furthermore, even after the Sphinx's altered reality was returned to normal 616, it persisted in at least one reality, as witnessed in Avengers Forever.


gtrmp
Jun 29, 2006, 01:57 am

Madison Carter wrote:

Not quite sure what you're referring to here, but if it's a question of someone altering the present reality, it's happened numerous times. Kulan Gath, Morgan le Fey and the second Sphinx all did so.

Yeah, but none of them actually altered the past to do so, which was my point: an altered present doesn't necessarily equate to an alternate timeline.

Madison Carter wrote:

Furthermore, even after the Sphinx's altered reality was returned to normal 616, it persisted in at least one reality, as witnessed in Avengers Forever.

I don't recall if the annotations stated that the Sphinx's Avengers seen in AF were from one such timeline, or if it was left vague as to whether or not they were drawn directly from the time of the original 'Forever Yesterday' story.

-Sean


Madison Carter
Jun 29, 2006, 02:30 am

gtrmp wrote:

Yeah, but none of them actually altered the past to do so, which was my point: an altered present doesn't necessarily equate to an alternate timeline.

I don't recall if the annotations stated that the Sphinx's Avengers seen in AF were from one such timeline, or if it was left vague as to whether or not they were drawn directly from the time of the original 'Forever Yesterday' story.

-Sean

Altering present-day realities leaves the issues of the past vague. Are there actually changes, or is it just what the characters involved remember? The characters affected by the Sphinx and Morgan believed their re-created pasts existed. So did the characters on the world created briefly in JLA/Avengers by the merger. Either way, given the way Marvel has set up a near-infinite number of alternate/divergent realities, the premise is generally that there are near-infinite divergences. I can almost guarantee that, as we saw with Age of Apocalypse, the reality created by Wanda will show up again sooner or later. It may be five or ten years from now, but sooner or later, some writer will delve back into that world and see what happened to it after the point we last saw it.


Madison Carter
Jun 29, 2006, 02:46 am

gtrmp wrote:

I don't recall if the annotations stated that the Sphinx's Avengers seen in AF were from one such timeline, or if it was left vague as to whether or not they were drawn directly from the time of the original 'Forever Yesterday' story.

-Sean

They might not have been drawn from the exact reality, but they were drawn from a reality that continued to exist in that form at some point. And not just the ones seen near the climax of the series either. The ones at the beginning of the mini also derive their nature from this reality. It exists out there, in some form, in some way.


Rayeye
Jun 29, 2006, 12:26 pm
Update: The newest All-New Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z (issue #6) listed the House of M reality as Earth-58163. But I don't know if being numbered is a condition (and prove) to be actually an alternate Earth/reality.
Anyway, it is mentioned in Justice's entry, but what I don't understand is that they talk about Proteus of Earth-58163, so that would mean the House of M was right from it's begin Earth-58613 and thus an alternate reality?




Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 02:23 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Update: The newest All-New Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z (issue #6) listed the House of M reality as Earth-58163. But I don't know if being numbered is a condition (and prove) to be actually an alternate Earth/reality.
Anyway, it is mentioned in Justice's entry, but what I don't understand is that they talk about Proteus of Earth-58163, so that would mean the House of M was right from it's begin Earth-58613 and thus an alternate reality?

If it has a designation listed, then it has a designation. As for Proteus, he jumped into the Exiles during the House of M event. In the Earth-616, he is dead, isn't he?


diablo
Jun 29, 2006, 02:33 pm
A question: Lacuna, Blaquesmith, Bella Donna and Blindspot haven't been confirmed as powered or depowered in their entries, are they supposed to be powered ?


Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 03:21 pm

diablo wrote:

A question: Lacuna, Blaquesmith, Bella Donna and Blindspot haven't been confirmed as powered or depowered in their entries, are they supposed to be powered ?

I hate to say this, since it is not a definitive listing, but are they listed in the 198 Files? That is where I would start at least.


Rayeye
Jun 29, 2006, 03:33 pm

diablo wrote:

A question: Lacuna, Blaquesmith, Bella Donna and Blindspot haven't been confirmed as powered or depowered in their entries, are they supposed to be powered ?

I would say that if they haven't been either confirmed as being powered or depowered in the Handbooks, X-Men: the 198 Files or any other Marvel comic after M-Day, then it remains to see what they will be. I don't think you should assume they will automatically be powered, since the majority of the mutant population was de-powered.


Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 03:40 pm

Rayeye wrote:

I would say that if they haven't been either confirmed as being powered or depowered in the Handbooks, X-Men: the 198 Files or any other Marvel comic after M-Day, then it remains to see what they will be. I don't think you should assume they will automatically be powered, since the majority of the mutant population was de-powered.

I'll second that statement. Am I the only one disappointed that the base 198 mutants has not been adheared to? I worried that before long 1 out of 4 humans will be mutants again before long.


diablo
Jun 29, 2006, 05:27 pm
Again ?
The most they were was around one out of 200 and it was before the attack on Genosha and the cure. Before DeciMation they were between 1 out of 400 and 1 out of 6000.


Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 06:56 pm

diablo wrote:

Again ?
The most they were was around one out of 200 and it was before the attack on Genosha and the cure. Before DeciMation they were between 1 out of 400 and 1 out of 6000.

I was making a releatively sarcastic comment, but it did appear that every time you picked up a new book for a few years there were a few more new mutants in the stories.

Here's a question... I'm looking over OHTTMU: Fantastic Four 2005. How are the characters pictured in the Inhumans bio drawn by Adi Granov?


William Keogh
Jun 29, 2006, 07:10 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

I was making a releatively sarcastic comment, but it did appear that every time you picked up a new book for a few years there were a few more new mutants in the stories.

Here's a question... I'm looking over OHTTMU: Fantastic Four 2005. How are the characters pictured in the Inhumans bio drawn by Adi Granov?

It's been awhile since I've read my issue, but wasn't their entry accompanied by art by Jae Lee?


Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 07:15 pm

William Keogh wrote:

It's been awhile since I've read my issue, but wasn't their entry accompanied by art by Jae Lee?

Two pieces of art actually.
The Jae Lee art pictured the royal family (from left to right):
Tritan, Gorgon, Karnak, Black Bolt / Blackantor Boltagon, Medusa / Medusalith Amaquelin Boltagon, Crystal / Crystal Amaquelin Maximoff

The third page of the entry has a drawing by Adi Granov, but I do not recognize the five individuals.

Update: Looking through the same index, Ramades is from the future, but is it considered an Earth-616 future?


William Keogh
Jun 29, 2006, 07:32 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

The third page of the entry has a drawing by Adi Granov, but I do not recognize the five individuals.

Oh, okay. That would likely be the students/ambassadors from the 12 issue miniseries that came out three years back, part of the Tsunami line.


Michael Regan
Jun 29, 2006, 07:34 pm

William Keogh wrote:

Oh, okay. That would likely be the students/ambassadors from the 12 issue miniseries that came out three years back, part of the Tsunami line.

Crap, I don't have that set. Do you know their names?
(and... um, do you have any idea who the Skrulls are pictured with the Super Skrull? Can you tell I'm updating an index? Can you believe the Red Skrull is actually mentioned in the Skrull write-up? Am I out of questions for now? (Yes)


diablo
Jun 30, 2006, 08:42 am
Back to Exiles, I updated Wiki.
The last Earths we don't know the numbers are Nocturne's, Hulk's (the She-version), T-Bird's, Heather's, Sunfire's, Morph's, Deadpool's and Firestar's.


Rayeye
Jun 30, 2006, 06:10 pm

diablo wrote:

Back to Exiles, I updated Wiki.
The last Earths we don't know the numbers are Nocturne's, Hulk's (the She-version), T-Bird's, Heather's, Sunfire's, Morph's, Deadpool's and Firestar's.

And what about Namora's, Magik's (and from Weapon X): Colossus's, Iron Man's, Angel's, Gambit's, Kane's, Spider's, Storm's, Vision's and Ms. Marvel's? Were they revealed in the latest issue then?


Inferno
Jun 30, 2006, 06:18 pm

Rayeye wrote:

And what about Namora's, Magik's (and from Weapon X): Colossus's, Iron Man's, Angel's, Gambit's, Kane's, Spider's, Storm's, Vision's and Ms. Marvel's? Were they revealed in the latest issue then?

Yes they were.


William Keogh
Jun 30, 2006, 06:37 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

Crap, I don't have that set. Do you know their names?
(and... um, do you have any idea who the Skrulls are pictured with the Super Skrull? Can you tell I'm updating an index? Can you believe the Red Skrull is actually mentioned in the Skrull write-up? Am I out of questions for now? (Yes)

I think the only one of those young Inhumans I can recall by name is Tonaja. No idea on the Skrulls (only one I can name aside from the Super Skrull is Lyja... where is she?) And yes I can tell. The Red Skrull or Skull? And I'm outta answers.


Michael Regan
Jun 30, 2006, 07:33 pm

William Keogh wrote:

I think the only one of those young Inhumans I can recall by name is Tonaja. No idea on the Skrulls (only one I can name aside from the Super Skrull is Lyja... where is she?) And yes I can tell. The Red Skrull or Skull? And I'm outta answers.

The Red Skull made his one-and-only appearance in Fantastic Four Roast which was non-cannon which makes his inclusion quite funny. He was an obvious joke entry as you pointed out.

Sorry to innundate qith questions, but I've decided wo index my handbooks (index the indexes?) and am listing the character pictured, which is bocomming a harder task than I anticipated.

diablo
Jun 30, 2006, 08:11 pm

Rayeye wrote:

And what about Namora's, Magik's (and from Weapon X): Colossus's, Iron Man's, Angel's, Gambit's, Kane's, Spider's, Storm's, Vision's and Ms. Marvel's? Were they revealed in the latest issue then?

Yes
here's a link to the numbers (http://www.comicboards.com/exiles/vi...l=060629205343)

Funny that Colossus's is 1917 the bolchevick (sp?) révolution and Vision is written as a binayrian (sp?) number.
I wonder if the other numbers mean something as well.


Rayeye
Jun 30, 2006, 09:37 pm

diablo wrote:

Funny that Colossus's is 1917 the bolchevick (sp?) révolution and Vision is written as a binayrian (sp?) number.
I wonder if the other numbers mean something as well.

Iron Man from Earth-2020: There was Arno Stark aka Iron Man 2020 from Earth-8410 (2020 A.D.), who have shown up many times in Marvel comics in the past, so I think that's the 'funny numbering' for the home reality of Weapon X's Iron Man.

But I think this conversation is off-topic now, so let's get back to talk about the Handbooks


Zach Kinkead
Jun 30, 2006, 10:59 pm
Just from at quick look at the numbers, I’d say at least some of the numbers have some significance.

The importance of “15” to Spidey is obvious to any comics fan and Daredevil #181 was a pretty significant turning point in Matt’s life (maybe Bullseye killing Elektra [or vice versa, this is an alternate reality after all] was what caused his life to go in a different direction). Then we have an Iron Man with a reality “named after” the year when another significant Iron Man is(/was/will be) active.

Plus there’s the stuff already mentioned. I’ll admit that, while I caught onto the “binary universe”, the Russian history reference went over my head.

It’d be neat to figure out what the other numbers mean (if they mean anything at all).


gtrmp
Jul 1, 2006, 03:05 am

Rayeye wrote:

Update: The newest All-New Handbook of the Marvel Universe A-Z (issue #6) listed the House of M reality as Earth-58163. But I don't know if being numbered is a condition (and prove) to be actually an alternate Earth/reality.
Anyway, it is mentioned in Justice's entry, but what I don't understand is that they talk about Proteus of Earth-58163, so that would mean the House of M was right from it's begin Earth-58613 and thus an alternate reality?

Argh, this is really starting to make my head hurt. If reality is altered, the altered reality become a differently numbered Earth, but if reality is altered again to change things back to the way that they were before (except for the things that don't change back, like Layla Miller, Sir Traveller, and possibly Hawkeye sticking around after HoM ended), then it returns to its original numbering instead of obtaining a new number? How does that make sense? It's one thing to say "a divergent version of the House of M reality still exists in the multiverse as Earth-58163"; it's another thing to say "everything that happened during the House of M didn't happen on Earth-616, it happened on Earth-58163".

-Sean


gtrmp
Jul 1, 2006, 03:50 am
Altering present-day realities leaves the issues of the past vague. Are there actually changes, or is it just what the characters involved remember? The characters affected by the Sphinx and Morgan believed their re-created pasts existed. So did the characters on the world created briefly in JLA/Avengers by the merger. Either way, given the way Marvel has set up a near-infinite number of alternate/divergent realities, the premise is generally that there are near-infinite divergences. I can almost guarantee that, as we saw with Age of Apocalypse, the reality created by Wanda will show up again sooner or later. It may be five or ten years from now, but sooner or later, some writer will delve back into that world and see what happened to it after the point we last saw it.
My main points of contention with that line of thought:

First, just because a character altered the past doesn't necessarily create an alternate timeline. It rarely happens, but sometimes time is actually altered (with or without time travel) without creating an alternate timeline in the process - see, for instance, the Kulan Gath storyline in X-Men, the opening storyline in Peter David's first Captain Marvel series, or, depending on how liberal an interpretation you want to take, the conclusion of The Infinity Gauntlet. If Wanda did alter the past (which is a supposition that runs counter to all evidence presented in every published House of M story), that doesn't mean that the House of M occurred in another timeline. I can't recall a single storyline in which someone had memories of an altered reality that actually revealed those memories to be retroactively true - usually it's just the opposite, in which characters' lives and memories being revealed as false is the setup for the return to normalcy.

Second: the suggestion that the altered reality, at the point of alteration, becomes an alternate Earth instead of (or, worse, in addition to) the original timeline, but somehow reverts to the original timeline when the changes are undone. If (when) Marvel does a "return to the House of M" story that visits a world where HoM never ended, would the first appearance of that world be that "what if" story, or would it be House of M #2? Because from what I've seen of the Encyclopedias and Handbooks, the answer would, somehow, be the latter, even though the events of HoM happened to the Earth-616 versions of the characters in question. (By that logic: did the events of New Warriors #11-13 happen to Earth-616 Monica Rambeau, or Earth-Eleventyteen Monica Rambeau? As far as I can tell, the answer is 'both'.)

Third, AoA isn't a good point of comparison in regards to the discussion of alternate timelines and altered reality. AoA was created via time travel, and the established rules of time travel allow (or, if strictly followed, require) the AoA to exist as a timeline separate of Earth-616. Prior to the Encyclopedias and Handbooks, there was nothing that suggested that the use of reality manipulation created alternate timelines aside from the de facto 'everything can and probably will cause a divergent timeline' rule of thumb, but so far we've seen more 'what if'-style divergent timelines that were created by the use of bullets and blunt force trauma than were created by reality manipulation.

-Sean


 

More historical text from Comixfan
Rayeye
Oct 27, 2007, 08:09 am
Just a topic for those who are especially interested in X-Men profiles in the current Handbooks.

Here's a list of X-Men characters/teams/items/places that have been covered in the current Handbooks (2004-2007) so far. I have included Alpha Flight characters as well, since they are X-Men related and most of them are mutants. I only included the handbooks who were made in OHOTMU format (thus not event handbooks like X-Men: the 198 Files or Civil War: Battle Damage Report):

Abyss, Abyss (AoA), Academy of Tomorrow, Acolytes, Adamantium, Age of Apocalypse, Agent X, Agent Zero/Maverick, Ahab, Albert & Elsie Dee, Alpha the Ultimate Mutant, Alpha Flight (2x), Anarchist, Angel (Salvadore), Angel (Ultimate), Apocalypse, Apocalypse (AoA), Arcade, Archangel, Ashake, Aurora, Avalanche, Azazel, Banshee, Barbarus, Bastion, Beak, Beak (AoA), Beast, Beast (Ultimate), Bedlam (Jesse Aaronson), Belasco, Big Hero 6, Bishop, Black Blade, Black Box, Blaquesmith, Blindspot, Blink, Blob, Bloodscream, Boom-Boom, Bella Donna Boudreaux, Betsy Braddock (Ultimate) Jamie Braddock, Brood, Brotherhood of Mutants, Brotherhood of Mutants (Ultimate), Cable, Cable/Askani World, Caliban, Callisto, Cannonball, Captain Britain, Captain Britain (Ultimate), Captain Britain (Lionheart), Captain U.K., Black Tom Cassidy, Centennial, Cerebro/Cerebra, Cerise, Chamber, Changeling, O.Z. Chase, Lila Cheney, China Force, Chronomancer's World, the Collective, Collective Man, Colossus, Colossus (AoA), Colossus (Ultimate), Copycat, the Corps, Fabian Cortez, Graydon Creed, Crimson Commando, Crooked World, Cyber, Cyclops, Cyclops (Ultimate), Cypher, Danger, Dark Beast, Dark Riders, Darkstar, Days of Future Past, Dazzler (Alison Blaire), Dazzler (Burt Worthington), Dazzler (AoA), Dazzler (Ultimate), Dead Girl, Deadly Ernest, Deadpool, Deathbird, Deluge, Desert Sword, Destiny, Diamond Lil, District X, Domino, Doop, Dust, Earthmover, Elixir, Emplate, Eric the Red, Euro-Trash, Excalibur, Exiles (2x), Exodus, Factor Three, Fantomex, Feron, Firestar, Flex, Forge, Emma Frost, Fury, Gambit, Gambit (AoA), Gambit (Ultimate), Gamesmaster, Gazer, Geist, Generation X, Genesis, Genosha, Geshem, GLA, Gladiators, Gorgon (Tomi Shishido), Jean Grey (AoA), Guardian, Hammer, Havok, Hellfire Club, Hellfire Club (Ultimate), Hellion, Hellions, Hepzibah, Here Comes Tomorrow, Holocaust, Hunter in Darkness, Husk, Icarus, Iceman, Iceman (Ultimate), Imperial Guard, Shola Inkosi, J2, Jack O'Diamonds, Mad Jim Jaspers, Madison Jeffries, Jubilee, Juggernaut (2x), Kane, Karma, Senator Robert Kelly, Khaos, Kid Omega, Kirika, Kitty's Fairy Tale, Kylun, Lacuna, Lady Deathstrike, Charles Lensherr (AoA), Llan, Lockheed, Lois London, Longshot, Longshot (Ultimate), Lynx, M, Moira MacTaggert, Moira MacTaggert (Ultimate), Madripoor, Madrox, Maggott, Magik (Illyana Rapsutin), Magik (Amanda Sefton), Magik (Exiles), Magma, Magneto, Magneto (AoA), Magneto (Ultimate), Magnus (Exiles), Major Mapleleaf, Margali of the Winding Way, Marrow, Marvel Girl (Rachel Summers), Marvel Girl (Ultimate), Masque, Master of the World, Mastermind (robot), Mastermind (Martinique Wyngarde), Mauvais, Maverick/Bolt, Meggan, Mercury, Merlyn, Micromax, Layla Miller, Mimic, Mimic (Exiles), Mirage, Mister Sensitive, Mister Sinister, Mister X, M'Kraan Crystal, Mojo, Mondo, Morlocks, Morph, Ms. Marvel/Warbird (3x), Mutant Liberation Front, Mutant X-verse, Mystique (2x), Namora (Exiles), Nasty Boys, Native, Necrom, Nemesis (Amelia Weatherly), New Mutants (2x), New Son, N'Garai, Nightcrawler, Nightcrawler (AoA), Nightcrawler (Ultimate), Nocturne, Northstar, Ogun, Omega Flight, Omega Red, Onslaught, Ord, Pandemonia, Pazuzu, Penance, Pestilence (F.R. Crozier), Phalanx, Phantazia, Phat, Phoenix (Jean Grey), Phoenix Force, Pink Lady, Pitiful One, Plodex, Polaris, Post, Power Princess, Prester John, Prodigy, Professor X, Professor X (Ultimate), Promise, Prosh, Proteus, Proteus (Ultimate), Kitty Pryde, Psylocke, Puck (Judd), Puck (Yu), Pyro, Quicksilver (2x), Quicksilver (AoA), Quicksilver (Ultimate), Radius, Random, Mikhail Rasputin (AoA), Reavers, Red Queen, Revanche, Cecilia Reyes, Franklin Richards, Rictor, Risque, Rockslide, Rogue (2x), Rogue (AoA), Rogue (Ultimate), Roma, Roughouse, Sabra, Sabreclaw, Sabretooth, Sabretooth (Exiles), Sabretooth (Ultimate), Sage, Sasquatch, Sasquatch (Exiles), Saturnyne, Sat-Yr9, Sauron, Savage Land, Scarlet Witch (2x), Scarlet Witch (Ultimate), Sentinels, Sentinels (Ultimate), Juston Seyfert, Shadow King, Shadowcat (AoA), Shadowcat (Ultimate), Shagreen, Shaman, Karima Shapandar, Shard, Shatterstar, Shi'ar Death Commandos, Siege Perilous, Silver Fox, Silver Samurai (2x), Silver Samurai (AoA), Sinister (AoA), Sinister (Ultimate), Siryn, Six Pack, Skids, Skin, Slayback, Slaymaster, Snowbird, Soulsword, Spider-Man 2099 (included Exiles version), Spider-Woman (Julia Carpenter), Spiral, Squid-Boy, Squirrel Girl, Stacy X, Steel Raven, Stepford Cuckoos, Olivier Stoker, Storm (2x), Storm (AoA), Storm (Ultimate), Strong Guy, Stryfe, William Stryker, Sublime, Sunfire, Sunfire (AoA), Sunfire (Exiles), Sunspot, Surge, Synch, Tag, Talisman, T-Bird, Threnody, Thunderbird (John Proudstar), Thunderbird (Neal Shaara), Timebroker, Toad, T-Ray, Tribe of the Moon, Matsu'o Tsurayaba, U-Go Girl, Uncreated, Undying, Unus, Vargas, Venus Dee Milo, Vindicator, Viper (2x), Vivisector, Von Struckers (Ultimate), Vulcan, Wallflower, Warhawk, Warlock, Warpath, Washout, Weapon X (AoA), Weapon X (Exiles), Weapon X (program), Weapon X (Ultimate), Wendigo, Wild Child, Wild Child (AoA), Wild Thing (MC2), Wind Dancer, Windshear, Pete Wisdom, Witchfire, Wither, Wolfsbane, Wolfsbane (AoA), Wolverine (3x), Wolverine (Ultimate), Wyre, X-23, Xavier's Underground Enforcers, X-Babies, X-Factor, X-Force, X-Mansion, X-Man, X-Men (2x + roster), X-Men (AoA), X-Men (Ultimate), X-Men 2099, Xorn (Kuan-Tin & Shen), Xorn (AoA), X-Statix, X-Treme, Mariko Yashida, Yukio, Yukon Jack

- Angel, Beast, Cyclops, Iceman, Marvel Girl (Jean Grey) and Professor X all got profiles in X-Men: First Class Special, but these were short versions of their Handbook profiles.
- New X-Men: Yearbook Special got team rosters of Alpha Squadron, Corsairs, Hellions, New Mutants and Paragons.
- the following ones have been revealed to be covered in upcoming handbooks: Anole, Amor, Bishop (Ultimate), Cable (Ultimate), Daken, Darwin, Excalibur, Exiles, Kimura, Korvus, Madripoor, Magik (Illyana Rasputin), Mammomax, Marauders, Muir Island, New X-Men, Cassandra Nova, Phoenix (Jean Grey), Predator X, Savage Land Mutates, Selene, Shi'ar, Six Pack (Ultimate), Starjammers, Trish Tilby, X-Factor Investigations, X-Men (Ultimate).

Characters/Teams who haven't got an entry yet (and whom I think should have one in the future):
Alchemy, Arcadia, Archer, Auric, Beta Flight, Big Bertha, Siena Blaze, Blind Faith, Bloodhawk (2099), Cadre K, Candra, Cerebra (2099), Tom Corsi, Crimson Dawn, Zoe Culloden, Derangers, D'ken, Doorman, Driver, Externals, Fatale, Feedback, Feral, Trevor Fitzroy, Fixx, Flatman, Freakshow, Sharon Friedlander, Adrienne Frost, Gaia, Gamma Flight, Annie & Carter Ghazikhanian, Gideon, Greystone, Grizzly (Theodore Winchester), Halloween Jack, Harriers, Haven, Hecate (XSE), Hell's Belles, Hope (Esperanza Ling), Stevie Hunter, Charlotte Jones, Junkpile, Khan, King Bedlam, Krystalin, Lady Mastermind, Lifeguard, La Lunática, Malice, Manbot, Mannites, Mary Zero, Meanstreak, Irene Merryweather, Metalhead (2099), Mister Immortal, Mountjoy, Murmur (Arlette Truffaut), Neo, Nostromo, O-Force, Outlaw, Paulie Provenzano, Prudence/Quiet Man, Psimon, Red Lotus, Reignfire, Rhapsody, Scramble, Serpentina, Shadow Dancer, Sham, Shinobi Shaw, Shortpack, Skullfire, Slipstream, Stonewall, Alistaire & Alysande Stuart, Sunpyre, Opal Tanaka, Theatre of Pain, Thieves Guild, Thornn, Troll Associates, Upstarts, Vixen, Tullamore Voge, Amelia Voght, Warpies, Weapon P.R.I.M.E., Weasel (Jack Hammer), W.H.O., Wicked, Wraith (Hector Rendoza), John Wraith, Xavier's Security Enforcers, X-Corporation, X-Corps, X-Cutioner, Xi'an/Desert Ghost, X-Nation 2099

Characters/Teams who haven't got an entry in the 2004-2007 handbooks (yet), but did have one in the 80's handbooks:
Acanti, Adversary, Alliance of Evil, Ani-Mator, Apocalypse's Horsemen, Arclight, Ariel (Fallen Angels), Bird-Brain, Black King, Box, Chance (mutant), Ch'od, Rusty Collins, Valerie Cooper, Corsair, Crazy Gang, Laura Dean/Pathway, Dreamqueen, Fallen Angels, Freedom Force, Frenzy, Garokk, Gateway, Gladiator, Goblyn, Gomi, Gosamyr, Great Beasts, Harpoon, Cameron Hodge, Infectia, Jade Dragon, Leech, Legion, Lilandra, Living Monolith, Lucifer (alien), Artie Maddicks, Magus, Manikin, Marrina, Master Mold, Mastermind (Jason Wyngarde), Mesmero, Mutant Force, Nanny, N'astirh, Orphan-Maker, Persuasion, Plasma, Madelyne Pryor, Raza, the Right, Scalphunter, Scrambler, Silver, Spyder, Sunder, Super Sabre, S'ym, Technarchy, Technet, Tower, Tyger Tiger, Ursa Major, Vanguard, Vanisher, Vertigo, Warwolves, Whiteout, Widget, Wiz Kid, Worm, X-Men jet Blackbird, X-Terminators, Zaladane


Sidney Osinga
Oct 27, 2007, 04:59 pm
I see you missed a few from the 80's handbooks: the original Omega Flight and, since you seem to be covering all mutants and not just the ones who are X-related, Illusion, Glamour (both from the 2nd Vision and Scarlet Witch mini,Which is kind of X-related), and Whirlwind.


Rayeye
Oct 27, 2007, 08:18 pm

Rayeye wrote:

I see you missed a few from the 80's handbooks: the original Omega Flight and, since you seem to be covering all mutants and not just the ones who are X-related, Illusion, Glamour (both from the 2nd Vision and Scarlet Witch mini,Which is kind of X-related), and Whirlwind.

You're right, how could I forget the good old Omega Flight! It looks like I cover all mutants, but I only want those mutants included who have at least a little X-Men connection. For example, I didn't include Bruiser of the Runaways or Nekra, but I did include Vanguard and Ursa Major, because of their mutant underground story in X-Factor Annual #1 and their appearance in the X-Men vs. Avengers mini, although I admit their X-connection is minimal. But then you're right about Illusion and Glamour (I believe she's called Glamor) too.


Sidney Osinga
Oct 28, 2007, 04:26 pm
Found a few more that you missed: 60's villains Conquistador, Mekano (60's Legacy), Cobalt Man, (70's Legacy), and Orge (A-Z #8). There is also Hybrid (A-Z #5) who fought the X-men and New Mutants in the pages of Rom. And an arguement could be made for Ka-Zar, who first appeared in X-men #10 and who has had many team ups with them.

Actually, you could make arguements for the entire Marvel U using a six degrees of seperation type arguement.

And it'ssurprising that Whirlwind has never encountered the X-men since he was one of the first mutants in the Silver age and has fought just about every other hero in the Marvel U.


Rayeye
Oct 28, 2007, 07:48 pm

Sidney Osinga wrote:

And it'ssurprising that Whirlwind has never encountered the X-men since he was one of the first mutants in the Silver age and has fought just about every other hero in the Marvel U.

Yeah, just like Nekra. I like her and I'd love to see in her action against some X-Men.


ultrabasurero
Oct 30, 2007, 10:07 am
How do you keep the inner page from tearing off the staples. I have several OHOTMUs from 05-06 that I've only read a couple of times and they've torn off the top staple. Any advice?


DragynWulf
Oct 30, 2007, 01:25 pm

ultrabasurero wrote:

How do you keep the inner page from tearing off the staples. I have several OHOTMUs from 05-06 that I've only read a couple of times and they've torn off the top staple. Any advice?

No idea how you are storing them, but keeping them in comic bags with boards usually works best.

I've had no problem with any of the issues having the pages tear off the staples and even keep them in a stack next to my computer without being bagged so I can get to them faster when needed. Might be the printer they were printed on or how they were shipped to your area or both, that causes this problem for you.


ultrabasurero
Oct 30, 2007, 01:44 pm
They're all bagged and boarded. Just when I finish reading the inner page, and flip, it'll tear off.


Roger Ott
Oct 30, 2007, 06:52 pm

ultrabasurero wrote:

They're all bagged and boarded. Just when I finish reading the inner page, and flip, it'll tear off.

That sounds like just poor stapling from the printer. I've had a few books in the past few years do that to me, as well. The only real option to preserve the book is to not read it, but I would never ever ever recommend that.


Sidney Osinga
Oct 30, 2007, 07:51 pm
I've have this problem with a couple of my Handbooks too, although one of the book's center pages is loose due to scanning. There also seems to a problem with smearing and fingerprints. i guess it's due to me handling them so often. I place the blame on the OHotMU writers. If they didn't make such a good product, I won't look at it so often.


Roger Ott
Oct 30, 2007, 10:30 pm

Sidney Osinga wrote:

There also seems to a problem with smearing and fingerprints.

Yeah, I've noticed this on some of the A-Z handbooks. The names list on the back cover sometimes gets smeared or brandishes my fingerprint.
 
William Keogh
Oct 31, 2007, 11:06 am
I place the blame on the OHotMU writers. If they didn't make such a good product, I won't look at it so often.
I'm not sure if they should take that as a compliment or an insult. More like a back handed compliment. Uber.geek, have you considered a career in politics?


Madison Carter
Oct 31, 2007, 04:30 pm
Eh, you think a few fingerprints and a loose page or two are bad, you should see the condition my original set of Deluxe OHotMU's are in, the ones I got as a kid.


Michael Hoskin
Oct 31, 2007, 06:31 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Characters/Teams who haven't got an entry yet (and whom I think should have one in the future):
[i]Alchemy, Arcadia, Archer, Auric,

You know, I never understood why Auric was left out of Update '89 while Silver made it in.

MH


Dr. Noh
Nov 6, 2007, 01:29 pm
Since their powers are so closely related to their mother's abilities, are Cable and Rachel Summers considered "real" mutants? Also, Storm's ancestor, Ashake, is said in the Eric Jerome Dickey STORM miniseries to be a "Windrider" as well. How does such a thing relate to Storm being a "real mutant" or not? How can the same power show up in a family without the decendants being considered real mutants??

-- DN


Starleafgirl
Nov 12, 2007, 12:46 am

Rayeye wrote:

Yeah, just like Nekra. I like her and I'd love to see in her action against some X-Men.

Have you checked out The Loners miniseries? You should.


gtrmp
Nov 20, 2007, 02:58 am
They're all mutants in the sense that they have an active X-Factor gene, even though some or all of their particular mutations are inherited from their parents or ancestors.


Rob London
Nov 25, 2007, 02:47 pm
I was paging through the Civil War Battle Damage Report last night, and I noticed Ted McKeever's name in the acknowledgements. McKeever doesn't do a lot of work for Marvel...but he did create SpellCheck, who was included in the appendix at the back of the book. So, did the writers actually call up McKeever to ask him what SpellCheck's real name is? And if so, did they do that for the creators of all the nameless obscure-os in the appendix?


Michael Regan
Nov 25, 2007, 02:58 pm

Rob London wrote:

I was paging through the Civil War Battle Damage Report last night, and I noticed Ted McKeever's name in the acknowledgements. McKeever doesn't do a lot of work for Marvel...but he did create SpellCheck, who was included in the appendix at the back of the book. So, did the writers actually call up McKeever to ask him what SpellCheck's real name is? And if so, did they do that for the creators of all the nameless obscure-os in the appendix?

Fantastic question, considering SpellCheck only made one appearance as far as I remember (Tangled Web of Spider-Man #18 I think)


Madison Carter
Nov 25, 2007, 03:55 pm

Rob London wrote:

I was paging through the Civil War Battle Damage Report last night, and I noticed Ted McKeever's name in the acknowledgements. McKeever doesn't do a lot of work for Marvel...but he did create SpellCheck, who was included in the appendix at the back of the book. So, did the writers actually call up McKeever to ask him what SpellCheck's real name is? And if so, did they do that for the creators of all the nameless obscure-os in the appendix?

I can't speak for why McKeever's there, though that sounds like it's the reason. Yes, we always strive to contact original writers and artists regarding characters and questions we have about them. Sometimes they come up with the info we need (names, places of birth, etc.), sometimes they already had it and just hand it off to us, sometimes they allow us to do it.


RVcousin
Nov 26, 2007, 07:40 am
Hello,

I've got a question about the recently released Marvel Legacy TPB :
Is it something new inside ?

Thanks,


Madison Carter
Nov 26, 2007, 10:03 am

RVcousin wrote:

Hello,

I've got a question about the recently released Marvel Legacy TPB :
Is it something new inside ?

Thanks,

We fixed errors and updated the Where Are They Now section at the end, but otherwise, no.


Red
Nov 28, 2007, 04:10 am
Sorry if this was answered earlier, but this thread has over 20 pages to look through.

Although it's common for an entire handbook to be reprinted in a TPB (like the Nova Corp Files in the Annihilation HC, for example), recently some TPBs have included just a few pages of handbook material, like the Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways TPB and the Iron Man: Director of SHIELD TPB. In these cases, are the few pages reprinted from earlier handbooks or are they new entries? I suspect they are reprints or else you would probably include them when you list all of the handbooks, but I wanted to double check.


Stuart V
Nov 28, 2007, 06:30 am

Red wrote:

Sorry if this was answered earlier, but this thread has over 20 pages to look through.

Although it's common for an entire handbook to be reprinted in a TPB (like the Nova Corp Files in the Annihilation HC, for example), recently some TPBs have included just a few pages of handbook material, like the Civil War: Young Avengers/Runaways TPB and the Iron Man: Director of SHIELD TPB. In these cases, are the few pages reprinted from earlier handbooks or are they new entries? I suspect they are reprints or else you would probably include them when you list all of the handbooks, but I wanted to double check.

As far as I am aware they are all reprints. The only exceptions were the Ultimate Handbook entries which were reprinted in the UFF/UXM crossover TPB, which, while being reprints of the Ultimate Handbooks, did include some errata corrections and extra images.


Faded
Dec 29, 2007, 01:49 pm
The recent Mutant Files handbook got me thinking, will we ever get a comprehensive list of the 198?

Also, can we start getting real names for what are now veteran characters like Caliban, Marrow, etc. It was nice getting a real name for Mammomax.


Madison Carter
Dec 29, 2007, 06:04 pm

Faded wrote:

The recent Mutant Files handbook got me thinking, will we ever get a comprehensive list of the 198?

Probably not, no. Two reasons:

1. While "198" was the original base count on research by the government, it has turned out there's a few more mutants out there than they'd realized. At least somewhere in the 300 range, if not more.

2. If we pin down every single mutant still active, it automatically kills writer's chances of using a character they wanted to who wasn't on that list.


Faded
Dec 30, 2007, 04:40 am

Madison Carter wrote:

Probably not, no. Two reasons:

1. While "198" was the original base count on research by the government, it has turned out there's a few more mutants out there than they'd realized. At least somewhere in the 300 range, if not more.

2. If we pin down every single mutant still active, it automatically kills writer's chances of using a character they wanted to who wasn't on that list.

Awww, shucks. Thanks, that makes sense.

(Though *grumblegrumble* Decimation made #2 happen regardless).
[/is bitter]


ToddCam
Jan 3, 2008, 12:01 am
I do not envy you guys with this "Brand New Day" mess...


Eduardo M.
Jan 3, 2008, 01:34 am

ToddCam wrote:

I do not envy you guys with this "Brand New Day" mess...

Me neither. You guys must have the paitience of saints. I'd be going ballistic right now especially since thos nice 8 page bios that were in part 1 & 2 of OMD are now out of date so soon after being written.


Andy E. Nystrom
Jan 3, 2008, 11:52 am

Eduardo M. wrote:

Me neither. You guys must have the paitience of saints. I'd be going ballistic right now especially since thos nice 8 page bios that were in part 1 & 2 of OMD are now out of date so soon after being written.

Actually I think it might be an easy enough fix: keep the first part of the entries as originally written barring the odd tweaking, explain the events of OMD, and then end with what is known thus far with the new status quo.

In fact since OMD is fresh, it actually makes things less complicated thus far since only a few stories are definitely tossed out at this pont. If OMD proves permanent, the real mess will probably begin after the hardcovers have been printed and there's been time for writers to play with the new back story.


Rayeye
Jan 4, 2008, 10:48 pm
Now that X-Men: Messiah Complex Mutant Files is out, some people can off the wish list, because they were finally covered :
Lady Mastermind, Lifeguard & Slipstream and Irene Merryweather.
And other nice surprises were Ghoul, Johnny Dee, Pandemic, Petra, Sway, S.W.O.R.D. and X-Cell.
Also Cable's Providence was covered in Marvel Atlas #1.


gorby
Jan 5, 2008, 05:39 am
There's one X-Man who never have his own entry : Joseph.

For Auric, I think he appears too late (November 1989) to be in the Handbook Update 89 #1 (July 1989), but Silver could be covered in the #7 (December 1989).


WhitePhalkon
Jan 10, 2008, 11:56 am
I was just looking through some past Handbooks and there's one thing thats always bothered me, in Rachel Greys profile its written that the Beyonder gave Rachel the full power the previous Phoenix wielded. That point was never ever stated on panel. Beyonder increased her power to the point where she could break open the M'kraan crystal hoping she would thereby reverting him to his formless state, but nowhere was that statement made or even explicitly suggested on panel.

Given that the original Phoenix was the actual Phoenix Force, it doesnt even make sense. How can a cube being(or an Inhuman by latest publications) empower someone to the level of a being more powerful than themselves?


Madison Carter
Jan 11, 2008, 01:07 am

WhitePhalkon wrote:

I was just looking through some past Handbooks and there's one thing thats always bothered me, in Rachel Greys profile its written that the Beyonder gave Rachel the full power the previous Phoenix wielded. That point was never ever stated on panel. Beyonder increased her power to the point where she could break open the M'kraan crystal hoping she would thereby reverting him to his formless state, but nowhere was that statement made or even explicitly suggested on panel.

Given that the original Phoenix was the actual Phoenix Force, it doesnt even make sense. How can a cube being(or an Inhuman by latest publications) empower someone to the level of a being more powerful than themselves?

I'd have to go back and look at the X-Men issue to know what was said.

That said, you have to remember, when this book originally came out, it was before the Jean Grey resurrection and retcon. At the time, the Beyonder was written as if he WAS the most powerful being in this universe. He was slapping around Celestials and even Eternity feared him.


Mike Fichera
Jan 16, 2008, 12:28 pm

WhitePhalkon wrote:

Me neither. You guys must have the paitience of saints. I'd be going ballistic right now especially since thos nice 8 page bios that were in part 1 & 2 of OMD are now out of date so soon after being written.

I'm not going ballistic - Actually, I compiled the OMD expanded super deluxe profiles of Spidey, MJ, Aunt May, and Mephisto (well, Jeff C did Meph) knowing full well what was about to happen. They were written as kind of a bookend to that chapter of their lives before the Brand New Day began. For future Handbooks, that old info is still going in. That's the way I'm handling it on Marvel.com/universe's bios. I'm not removing the marriage and the old stuff - I'm adding in that the marriage was removed and note what things were changed as they're revealed.

And really, what profile ISN'T out of date as soon as it's published?


Michael Regan
Jan 16, 2008, 01:54 pm
My rule of thought is that if it was printed it happened, regardless of how the storyline has progressed, therefore should be included in a profile in one for another. Perhaps Peter and MJ are married and Aunt May is dead over on Earth-617?


WhitePhalkon
Jan 20, 2008, 10:40 am

Madison Carter wrote:

I'd have to go back and look at the X-Men issue to know what was said.

That said, you have to remember, when this book originally came out, it was before the Jean Grey resurrection and retcon. At the time, the Beyonder was written as if he WAS the most powerful being in this universe. He was slapping around Celestials and even Eternity feared him.

Thats true, but the latest official bios should surely have their content updated to coincide with the retcons?

Rachels last bio was written in 2004, about 15 years after the Beyonder was made a sentient Cosmic Cube and nearly 20 years after the Phoenix retcon.

Beyonder increased Rachels power in Uncanny x-men #202. He increased it so that she could break open the M'kraan crystal(a point that wasn't revealed until #203) Nowhere on panel was it stated or even suggested to any degree that he gave her power the equal of the Phoenix Force.

The Beyonder is a cube being who aren't on the same level as the Phoenix Force so it just doesn't add up.


Madison Carter
Jan 21, 2008, 05:55 am
Without getting into the logistics of the Phoenix Force, which is, quite frankly something I stay far, far away from myself, and on the chance I could be completely wrong here (this isn't gospel, no need to quote it in future references and defenses), it could very well still be both in a way. Perhaps the Beyonder didn't give her part of his power so much as perhaps he just channeled the Phoenix Force into her. Perhaps he didn't even realize the power he was drawing wasn't his own. He was, after all, still somewhat naive about his powers and what could be done and not done with them. Perhaps he just gave her so much power in the resemblance of the Phoenix Force, they both accepted it as being the real deal. I'll let one of the more expert X-folk clear it up,


Erik_Lensherr
Jan 31, 2008, 12:38 pm
I'd like to say hello to everybody since this is my first post on this board, and I'd also like to ask a few questions that have been running through my head.

The first one would be, how exactly is the 'One Above All' defined ? He has in an issue of the Fantastic Four appeared as being a 'writer' looking similar to Jack Kirby, although this might be how the Fantastic Four percieve him. In other comics he is implied to be the supreme cosmic force, but it is also implied that he is a character with which the higher cosmic beings apparently have some sort of connection , and they are not just a piece of drawing to him like some say the Fantastic Four story suggests.

And if so, what is the connection between him and the Heart of the Infinite/Universe which Thanos obtained in Marvel : The End ? Did the Heart actually represent the One Above All's power ? Using that power, what exactly did Thanos destroy and recreate ? The Prime Multiverse (containing Earth 616) ? All of Marvel ?

Thanks in advance.


Starlock
Jan 31, 2008, 01:54 pm

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

I'd like to say hello to everybody since this is my first post on this board, and I'd also like to ask a few questions that have been running through my head.

The first one would be, how exactly is the 'One Above All' defined ? He has in an issue of the Fantastic Four appeared as being a 'writer' looking similar to Jack Kirby, although this might be how the Fantastic Four percieve him. In other comics he is implied to be the supreme cosmic force, but it is also implied that he is a character with which the higher cosmic beings apparently have some sort of connection , and they are not just a piece of drawing to him like some say the Fantastic Four story suggests.

And if so, what is the connection between him and the Heart of the Infinite/Universe which Thanos obtained in Marvel : The End ? Did the Heart actually represent the One Above All's power ? Using that power, what exactly did Thanos destroy and recreate ? The Prime Multiverse (containing Earth 616) ? All of Marvel ?

Thanks in advance.

Hey there old friend from another site :clap:
I would hope more posters would see the benefit of a site such as this, and i am lucky enough to have been shown how much certain staff actually care and get involved.

That said i hope your questions get answered and i look forward to being a member of both sites for a long time


xavyre
Jan 31, 2008, 03:03 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Characters/Teams who haven't got an entry yet (and whom I think should have one in the future):

Don't forget Pulse AKA Augustus. Very cool character which had/has so much potential.


Stuart V
Jan 31, 2008, 03:15 pm

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

I'd like to say hello to everybody since this is my first post on this board, and I'd also like to ask a few questions that have been running through my head.

Okay, happy to try and help.

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

The first one would be, how exactly is the 'One Above All' defined ?

Assuming you don't mean the Celestial who shares that name, the answer is that he isn't all that well defined. We've got little by way of hard evidence on him. He appears to be the being the Living Tribunal answers to, and as such presumably has either more power over the same region (one or more multiverse) that the Tribunal does, or over a wider region. If his name is accurate and to be taken literally, then he is presumably the supreme being over any others - but remember that the Celestial "One Above All" has a name that presumably actually means "One Above All other Celestials." The "All" he is above isn't clearly defined, so it could be "Above All others in this multiverse" for example. There's the belief he may be the overall creator of the multiverse, the megaverse, maybe even the Omniverse - but this is a belief, not a confirmed fact. It's often said that when children are young, we believe our parents to be all powerful, and this kind of thing could apply here - eg the Living Tribunal, powerful being that he is, is dwarfed in power by the One Above All, and so believes that the One Above All created everything (see my post in the Omniverse thread for why "everything" might not equal the Omniverse), but even a being as powerful as the Tribunal could be wrong about that. Or he could be right, except that "everything" means "everything I know about" - even if the Tribunal said "Omniverse" instead of "everything" the same applies, because unless the Tribunal's powers cover the entire Omniverse he can't be certain that the One Above All's powers do either.

So, in summary - what do we know? Very little for certain, except OAA is very powerful and above the LT. But we have lots of theories.

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

He has in an issue of the Fantastic Four appeared as being a 'writer' looking similar to Jack Kirby, although this might be how the Fantastic Four percieve him.

Almost certainly. A being that powerful could presumably look however he wants to.

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

In other comics he is implied to be the supreme cosmic force, but it is also implied that he is a character with which the higher cosmic beings apparently have some sort of connection , and they are not just a piece of drawing to him like some say the Fantastic Four story suggests.

See above for the supreme cosmic force bit. He may well be, but we can't be sure. He may be supreme over a limited (albeit huge by our standards) region. As for the FF appearing to be just a drawing to him (if I understand what you are trying to say right) then remember he presumably occupies way more dimensions than them. We know there are 2-D realities out in the Omniverse, which to us would appear flat and if we (used to a 3-D world) were viewing them then we'd consider them like drawings.

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

And if so, what is the connection between him and the Heart of the Infinite/Universe which Thanos obtained in Marvel : The End ? Did the Heart actually represent the One Above All's power ? Using that power, what exactly did Thanos destroy and recreate ? The Prime Multiverse (containing Earth 616) ? All of Marvel ?

Thanks in advance.

Those are questions I need to leave to another Handbook writer, one better versed on Marvel: The End and the Heart of the Infinite.


Michael Regan
Jan 31, 2008, 04:24 pm
I can't remember: Do the Handbooks list when a character joined a team (which issue)?


Rayeye
Jan 31, 2008, 04:43 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

I can't remember: Do the Handbooks list when a character joined a team (which issue)?

Mostly it is listed in the bibliographies. The 2004/2005 handbooks had bibliograhpies on the last pages, but since 2006 the bibliographies can only be found online at marvel.com. But besides that, in most team profiles each member is pictured with his/her (real) name and the issue in which the person joined that team.


Erik_Lensherr
Jan 31, 2008, 04:45 pm

Stuart V wrote:

Okay, happy to try and help.


Assuming you don't mean the Celestial who shares that name, the answer is that he isn't all that well defined. We've got little by way of hard evidence on him. He appears to be the being the Living Tribunal answers to, and as such presumably has either more power over the same region (one or more multiverse) that the Tribunal does, or over a wider region. If his name is accurate and to be taken literally, then he is presumably the supreme being over any others - but remember that the Celestial "One Above All" has a name that presumably actually means "One Above All other Celestials." The "All" he is above isn't clearly defined, so it could be "Above All others in this multiverse" for example. There's the belief he may be the overall creator of the multiverse, the megaverse, maybe even the Omniverse - but this is a belief, not a confirmed fact. It's often said that when children are young, we believe our parents to be all powerful, and this kind of thing could apply here - eg the Living Tribunal, powerful being that he is, is dwarfed in power by the One Above All, and so believes that the One Above All created everything (see my post in the Omniverse thread for why "everything" might not equal the Omniverse), but even a being as powerful as the Tribunal could be wrong about that. Or he could be right, except that "everything" means "everything I know about" - even if the Tribunal said "Omniverse" instead of "everything" the same applies, because unless the Tribunal's powers cover the entire Omniverse he can't be certain that the One Above All's powers do either.

So, in summary - what do we know? Very little for certain, except OAA is very powerful and above the LT. But we have lots of theories.



Almost certainly. A being that powerful could presumably look however he wants to.


See above for the supreme cosmic force bit. He may well be, but we can't be sure. He may be supreme over a limited (albeit huge by our standards) region. As for the FF appearing to be just a drawing to him (if I understand what you are trying to say right) then remember he presumably occupies way more dimensions than them. We know there are 2-D realities out in the Omniverse, which to us would appear flat and if we (used to a 3-D world) were viewing them then we'd consider them like drawings.



Those are questions I need to leave to another Handbook writer, one better versed on Marvel: The End and the Heart of the Infinite.

Thank you for taking your time to answer
I was asking this because I'm not really sure how to interpret his position based on issues who take a different aproach on him. First the Fantastic Four see him as a guy looking like Jack Kirby who draws the stories taking place in Marvel. Then he is stated as Living Tribunal's 'boss' sort to speak, thus implying that Living Tribunal actually acknowledges him and he is not just a piece of paper for him.

Then there is an issue where Impossible Man supposdley argues with the writers (?) which is also acknowledged in his handbook. Some people actually take this seriously and interpret the One Above All as being the actual writers. Are this sort of scenes really to be taken seriously when discussing Marvel's cosmology ?


Stuart V
Jan 31, 2008, 05:05 pm

Erik_Lensherr wrote:

Thank you for taking your time to answer
I was asking this because I'm not really sure how to interpret his position based on issues who take a different aproach on him. First the Fantastic Four see him as a guy looking like Jack Kirby who draws the stories taking place in Marvel. Then he is stated as Living Tribunal's 'boss' sort to speak, thus implying that Living Tribunal actually acknowledges him and he is not just a piece of paper for him.

Then there is an issue where Impossible Man supposdley argues with the writers (?) which is also acknowledged in his handbook. Some people actually take this seriously and interpret the One Above All as being the actual writers. Are this sort of scenes really to be taken seriously when discussing Marvel's cosmology ?

Yes and no. There's a tongue in cheek element to some of it, but you've also got to remember that what is fiction in one reality is real in another. Or, to be more exact, what is real in one reality is subconsciously or consciously observed in dreams and the like in other realities, and then turned into fictional accounts. See Kitty's Fairy Tale in X-Men as an example, which later proved to be a genuine reality. So, if people are sometimes inadvertantly looking in on events in other realities during dreams (or through other means - see the Watcher), then presumably some beings are capable of noticing they are being watched, and actually addressing some of what they say to these observers. The Impossible Man is apparently one of them.

As for OAA and how he interacted with the FF, like I said, OAA is an immensely powerful cosmic being - he can make the FF see him pretty much any way he wants them to see him. Why take that appearance? Your guess is as good as mine.


Michael Regan
Jan 31, 2008, 07:03 pm

Rayeye wrote:

Mostly it is listed in the bibliographies. The 2004/2005 handbooks had bibliograhpies on the last pages, but since 2006 the bibliographies can only be found online at marvel.com. But besides that, in most team profiles each member is pictured with his/her (real) name and the issue in which the person joined that team.

:chin:
I may have a job for you Rayeye


WhitePhalkon
Feb 9, 2008, 06:08 pm
Anyone else got any views on the Beyonder being stated in the Handbooks to have given Rachel power equal to the previous Phoenix, despite that never being stated on panel or even suggested?

I've got another issue i spotted in the bio for the M'kraan crystal, in the All New Official Handbook Update#1.

It states ""In one future, Phoenix severed the alternate future of reality 15104"

But reality 15104 was a future itself, so that would mean she severed the future of a future.

On top of that, reality 15104 was a future of 616, yet that statement makes it sound like she severed this alternate future from another reality called 15104.

Surely it should read something like "Phoenix severed the alternate future reality 15104 from the rest of the multiverse"?


Michael Regan
Feb 9, 2008, 06:23 pm

WhitePhalkon wrote:

On top of that, reality 15104 was a future of 616, yet that statement makes it sound like she severed this alternate future from another reality called 15104.

Surely it should read something like "Phoenix severed the alternate future reality 15104 from the rest of the multiverse"?

My interpretation, though not necessarily the same as the publishers, is that future realities are always potential and are therefore given alternate designations.


WhitePhalkon
Feb 9, 2008, 09:55 pm

Madison Carter wrote:

My interpretation, though not necessarily the same as the publishers, is that future realities are always potential and are therefore given alternate designations.

I understand that, but that doesn't explain why it sounds like what Phoenix did was amputate the future of reality 15104, when reality 15104 WAS the future she amputated from 616.


Michael Regan
Feb 9, 2008, 10:01 pm
Keep in mind that from that poing of view it is the future of 616, but using the What if priciple Days of Future Past is also the future, Bishops world is the future, etc. They are all futures of 616.

Considering the circumstance in Here Comes Tomorrow I guess it is likely Jean targetted the specific reality to remove it from existance.


WhitePhalkon
Feb 10, 2008, 01:03 pm

Michael Regan wrote:

Keep in mind that from that poing of view it is the future of 616, but using the What if priciple Days of Future Past is also the future, Bishops world is the future, etc. They are all futures of 616.

Considering the circumstance in Here Comes Tomorrow I guess it is likely Jean targetted the specific reality to remove it from existance.

And yet all of those futures are still branches off of the main 616 trunk, so if Jean cut away the branch that was Here Comes Tomorrow(reality 15104) then surely it should read "Phoenix severed the alternate future reality 15104 from the rest of the multiverse"? instead of ""In one future, Phoenix severed the alternate future of reality 15104" which makes reality 15104 sound like it isn't a divergent future of 616 and that Phoenix severed the future off of a future.


Michael Regan
Feb 10, 2008, 02:58 pm

WhitePhalkon wrote:

And yet all of those futures are still branches off of the main 616 trunk, so if Jean cut away the branch that was Here Comes Tomorrow (reality 15104) then surely it should read "Phoenix severed the alternate future reality 15104 from the rest of the multiverse"? instead of ""In one future, Phoenix severed the alternate future of reality 15104" which makes reality 15104 sound like it isn't a divergent future of 616 and that Phoenix severed the future off of a future.
I see what you mean now. Tricky wording there.

Ovid
Feb 10, 2008, 04:01 pm

WhitePhalkon wrote:

I understand that, but that doesn't explain why it sounds like what Phoenix did was amputate the future of reality 15104, when reality 15104 WAS the future she amputated from 616.

It's awkward phrasing, but 'of' can be used in the sense of 'called', as in 'the fantasy world of Middle Earth'.


Madison Carter
Feb 15, 2008, 01:18 am

Michael Regan wrote:

I can't remember: Do the Handbooks list when a character joined a team (which issue)?

It depends. Most team entries that utilize headshots and are a team of the nature where of members joined over an extended period of time, we try our best to include this.

Tymmster
Mar 8, 2008, 10:56 pm
Hi there, first time poster.

I have to say I love the power grid, or at least the concept of it, but I have issues with a few things...

1) Just more clarification on what means what is all. Like for Energy Projection and they have range listed as "short" "Medium" or "Long" what do they actually mean? Like one Mile for "Long" range? Just a little clarification would be cool.

2) And my biggest deal, I just feel they should have listed just a few more attributes (kinda thinkng of the old MU Cards from the early 90's) I wished they would have listed the attributes Mental Powers (as was called on the old MU card, or it could simply be called Will Power), Agility and Stamina (Stamina and Durability or just too different for me to want them to lump together, IMHO)


Otherwise, I love them, always have. I get a big kick out of them.

Anyways, thanks for letting me share folks.


Roger Ott
Mar 9, 2008, 04:05 am
The OHOTMU Master Edition had Stamina, Agility, and Reflexes in addition to the ones now included in the power grid. While it's all cool to have more and more information, quantifying all of those various attributes would be very time-consuming for the OHOTMU staff. Time I personally think is better spent doing those nice lengthy histories I love so much.


Tymmster
Mar 9, 2008, 01:09 pm
I guess I figure since it was already done in that one edition you have most of the work there already done, except for the occasional tweaking. (except I cant remember if the had mental powers at all, I would have to dig it up)


Roger Ott
Mar 9, 2008, 07:54 pm
Mental powers weren't on a grid with different levels, but the text descriptions of powers were split up into Physical Powers and Mental Powers, which I thought was a good idea.


Andy E. Nystrom
Mar 9, 2008, 09:51 pm

Ttymnster wrote:

I guess I figure since it was already done in that one edition you have most of the work there already done, except for the occasional tweaking. (except I cant remember if the had mental powers at all, I would have to dig it up)

If memory serves (and I hope I'll be corrected if I'm misremembering), it's practice with the writers to do the main research and write the profile first, and only then look at old Handbooks. Which does make sense if you want the Handbooks to be as current with modern perspectives on the characters as possible. That being the case, for any new category, they'd still have to look at fresh.


DrGoodwrench
Mar 11, 2008, 10:47 am
I would have liked to have seen an agility stat as well (I'm not really bothered about Mental Powers or Stamina), but I agree that the power grids are secondary to the excellent histories, which have been improving since this wave of handbooks has begun.


Andy E. Nystrom
Mar 11, 2008, 10:37 pm

DrGoodwrench wrote:

I would have liked to have seen an agility stat as well (I'm not really bothered about Mental Powers or Stamina), but I agree that the power grids are secondary to the excellent histories, which have been improving since this wave of handbooks has begun.

Agreed. Some of the more recent listings (e.g. Avengers in the HC) can almost be seen as short stories in of themselves.


Enda80
Mar 13, 2008, 03:56 am
Will a list be kept of the expanded entries in the hardcovers?


ultrabasurero
Mar 14, 2008, 02:58 pm

Enda80 wrote:

Will a list be kept of the expanded entries in the hardcovers?

I actually made something in excel. The first number is new page count, and the second is how much is new. Many profiles that didn't change in page count still had significant additions.

1602 A.D. (2, +1)
2020 A.D. (3, +1)
Abomination (Blonsky) (3, +1)
Absorbing Man (3, +1)
Acrobat (Zante) (1, +0.5)
Adamantium (2, +1)
Age of Apocalypse (2, +1)
Alpha Flight (3, +1)
Americop (1, +0.5)
Angel (Halloway) (2, +1)
Angel (Worthington) (4, +2)
Annihilus (3, +1)
Ant-Man (Lang) (2, +1)
Apocalypse (En Sabah Nur) (3, +1)
Aqueduct (2, +1)
Arachne (Carpenter) (2, +1)
Arana (2, +1)
Armadillo (2, +1)
Atlantis (5, +3)
Atlas (Josten) (4, +1)
Avengers (12, +6)
Avengers Headquarters & Vehicles (3, +1)
Awesome Android (2, +1)
Baron Zemo (Heinrich) (2, +1)
Baron Zemo (Helmut) (3, +1)
Batwing (Santini) (1, +0.5)
Beast (McCoy) (3, +1)
Belova, Yelena (2, +1)
Bereet (2, +1)
Beyonder (3, +1) *used "Maker" basis for original profile
Bishop (3, +1)
Black Knight (Whitman) (4, +1)
Black Panther (T'Challa) (4, +2)
Black Widow (Romanova) (4, +1)


Eduardo M.
Mar 15, 2008, 01:51 am
Am I correct in assuming anyone not listed above just didn't have any additional pages to their entry?

And where's Blackwing (aka Beak)?


gorby
Mar 18, 2008, 05:34 am
Yeah, where are AIM, Ares, Banshee, Black Cat, Black Bolt, Aurora, Badoon,...


ultrabasurero
Mar 18, 2008, 10:05 am