Happy anniversary everyone!
1 of 1- Andy E. Nystrom
- One Above All (Adminstrator)
Offline 
- From: Victoria, BC
- Registered: 1/03/2020
- Posts: 6,837
Official OHOTMU FAQ
Historical text from Comixfan:
Eric J. Moreels
Apr 14, 2005, 08:31 pm
It's live, and it's official!
The Official FAQ of The Marvel Universe Handbooks (21st Century Editions) is now online at Marvel.com and can be read by clicking here ().
The Official Errata page is now also live at Marvel.com here ().
If you have any questions, suggestions, or just simply want to discuss something on the FAQ and/or Errata, please feel free to do so below...
RVcousin
Oct 7, 2005, 07:30 am
Hello,
I've send some corrections via mail on two occasions and there's no answers from this FAQ page and it wasn't updated since july, so I'll give you the corrections right here :
Avengers 2005 - Count Nefaria : The X-Man who died in the crash plane is Thunderbird but it's John Proudstar, not James.
Teams 2005 - New Mutants : Copycat (posing as Domino) was apart of the final team, which became X-Force. Was she a teacher or a member ?
Teams 2005 - X-Statix : In X-Statix #10 we can see on a TV screen three former unnamed members. I thought the authors can name this kind of characters (just like the X-Men Forearm & Longneck). (See ).
Age of Apocalypse 2005 - Dark Beast : According to the the Teams Handbook, he must be listed as a former X-Men member.
Marvel Knights 2005 - Madrox : According to the the Handbook FAQ, he must be listed as a former X-Men member.
Book of the Dead 2004 - Cypher : According to the the Teams Handbook, he must be listed as a former X-Men member.
Book of the Dead 2004 - Magik (Rasputin) : According to the the Teams Handbook, he must be listed as a former X-Men member.
Wolverine 2004 - Sabretooth : According to the the Teams Handbook, he must be listed as a former X-Men member.
That's all. Thank you for your attention
Au revoir
Hervé COUSIN
Rayeye
Nov 27, 2005, 06:24 pm
I wonder when The Official FAQ of The Marvel Universe Handbooks (21st Century Editions) will be updated again. It hasn't been updated since the Fantastic Four handbook in July.
Rayeye
Stuart V
Nov 27, 2005, 09:24 pm
Rayeye wrote:
I wonder when The Official FAQ of The Marvel Universe Handbooks (21st Century Editions) will be updated again. It hasn't been updated since the Fantastic Four handbook in July.
Rayeye
Mea culpa. I tend to be the updater, and I've been busy in a new job since late June, which has left me with little time to update the FAQ. Hopefully I'll be able to catch up soon.
clawsofwolverine
Dec 30, 2005, 12:08 am
Looking at the FAQ , all I can think to say is Eric J. Moreels is the TRUE father of Erista! :lol:
Eric J. Moreels
Jul 30, 2006, 01:16 am
We've recently moved the Official Handbook FAQ and Errata pages to Marvel.com! The new links are available in the first post of this thread.
Andy E. Nystrom
Aug 17, 2008, 11:11 am
I was just looking through the FAQ and wanted to suggest places that could be updated:
1. Your list of 2007 Handbooks only goes to Update 2.
2. Under "Why haven't you covered...", second paragraph you mention having done 15 Handbooks. You've now done a lot more than that.
3. Under "Are there any characters you cannot profile?" you have now covered three of the four characters you state you could conceivably cover some day. That is, no Starshine yet, but you have covered Hybrid, Bug, and Dr Demonicus.
DragynWulf
Aug 23, 2008, 04:59 pm
I was just looking through the FAQ and wanted to suggest places that could be updated:
1. Your list of 2007 Handbooks only goes to Update 2.
2. Under "Why haven't you covered...", second paragraph you mention having done 15 Handbooks. You've now done a lot more than that.
3. Under "Are there any characters you cannot profile?" you have now covered three of the four characters you state you could conceivably cover some day. That is, no Starshine yet, but you have covered Hybrid, Bug, and Dr Demonicus.
Due to too many glitches at Marvel.com, updates have not been made for at least 6-8 months. Once Marvel can fix the updates, then the pages (including data corrections) can be updated. Reason why we are waiting is because when a page has been updated or new page added, days later the glitches remove it, thus making it a waste of time to put on Marvel.com.
Michael Regan
Oct 15, 2009, 10:44 am
I'm slowly going through the listing of alternate Earths and will have some questions here and there.
Here are my first questions:
Earth-701306 is the reality for the Daredevil (2003) theatrical release, yet Earth-701949 is the reality for the Elektra (2005) threatrical release. Shouldn' these share one reality?
Similarly, I do not have the comic adaptations of these films, but the also have their own realities designated. Are the adaptations so different that they warrent their own designations?
Michael Regan
Oct 15, 2009, 12:52 pm
FYI,
I may be in error with those Earth designations as I'm formatting a third party list and realized that I did not confirm those numbers. If I am in error, let me know.
Madison Carter
Oct 16, 2009, 04:50 am
Similarly, I do not have the comic adaptations of these films, but the also have their own realities designated. Are the adaptations so different that they warrent their own designations?
Sometimes, yes. The Howard the Duck movie adaptation had a completely different version of the Dark Overlord than the movie version, for instance. At least one of the more recent examples (I forget which one, maybe an X-Men film) had a slightly different ending than the film because it was written as per the original screenplay, which had changed by the time the film was released.
Rayeye
Oct 16, 2009, 08:06 am
As far as I know are these the Earth numbers:
Earth-701306: Daredevil movie
Earth-701363: Daredevil movie comic adaptation
Earth-701949: Elektra movie
Earth-701950: Elektra movie comic adaptation
Michael Regan
Oct 16, 2009, 09:04 am
Sometimes, yes. The Howard the Duck movie adaptation had a completely different version of the Dark Overlord than the movie version, for instance. At least one of the more recent examples (I forget which one, maybe an X-Men film) had a slightly different ending than the film because it was written as per the original screenplay, which had changed by the time the film was released.
Completely understandable, which does create some confusion with relation to prequel issues and such, attempting to determin if they are canon to the film or not.
As far as I know are these the Earth numbers:
Earth-701306: Daredevil movie
Earth-701363: Daredevil movie comic adaptation
Earth-701949: Elektra movie
Earth-701950: Elektra movie comic adaptation
Any idea where these figures are from? Perhaps marvunapp?
Rayeye
Oct 16, 2009, 09:07 am
If they were not listed in the Handbooks, then it was marvunapp.
Since marvunapp is to me the most reliable Marvel site (since it is owned by one of the Handbook writers) and all those realities confirmed at marvunapp turn up later in the Handbooks as well. (If marvunapp lists a reality between " ", then it is not official yet.)
Michael Regan
Oct 16, 2009, 09:50 am
If they were not listed in the Handbooks, then it was marvunapp.
Since marvunapp is to me the most reliable Marvel site (since it is owned by one of the Handbook writers) and all those realities confirmed at marvunapp turn up later in the Handbooks as well. (If marvunapp lists a reality between " ", then it is not official yet.)
I guess we will need a ruling on if they designation is official or not.
Stuart V
Oct 16, 2009, 10:20 am
The Elektra one is not. Elektra's movie is the same reality as Daredevil's. Neither the Appendix's Master List, not the Handbooks, list that number for Elektra. The third party list's erroneous number has one of two possible origins:
1) The Master List may have initially and unofficially listed that number, before the Handbook team put together the list for publication, looking out for discrepancies like shared realities. The Master List is not official, and as such the unofficial numbers can be considered at best rough guides. Another site may have copied (rude of them, but many do) the numbers, and when the Master List got corrected, the plagiarised list didn't.
2) It's an out and out wrong number some site put in, either an error or perhaps even a deliberate attempt to disseminate misinformation (I've seen sites where, in the forums, they've actively discussed as a "good idea" that they should put in their own info, in the hope that writers researching stories will use it and unwittingly "make it canon"). Someone tried that on Wikipedia a while back, putting in fake names for many Golden Age characters as yet unnamed.
Michael Regan
Oct 16, 2009, 10:28 am
The Elektra one is not. Elektra's movie is the same reality as Daredevil's. Neither the Appendix's Master List, not the Handbooks, list that number for Elektra. The third party list's erroneous number has one of two possible origins:
Which was what I suspected after I posted the question, but the example does serve as example of a false assumption.
1) The Master List may have initially and unofficially listed that number, before the Handbook team put together the list for publication, looking out for discrepancies like shared realities. The Master List is not official, and as such the unofficial numbers can be considered at best rough guides. Another site may have copied (rude of them, but many do) the numbers, and when the Master List got corrected, the plagiarised list didn't.
Not official until actually published. That will make things easier overall.
2) It's an out and out wrong number some site put in, either an error or perhaps even a deliberate attempt to disseminate misinformation (I've seen sites where, in the forums, they've actively discussed as a "good idea" that they should put in their own info, in the hope that writers researching stories will use it and unwittingly "make it canon"). Someone tried that on Wikipedia a while back, putting in fake names for many Golden Age characters as yet unnamed.
I did notice that in Wikipedia, and it is a constant problem. The even have Chris Claremont's Earth-161 for X-Men Forever listed, which is not a confirmed designation as far as I know.
Sticking with celluloid works, there may be some adaptations that have not been given designations. Will they be addressed at some point? Is it worthwhile indicating them here for possible future consideration?
Rayeye
Oct 16, 2009, 11:01 am
The Elektra one is not. Elektra's movie is the same reality as Daredevil's. Neither the Appendix's Master List, not the Handbooks, list that number for Elektra.
You're right. The only confirmed reality is 701306. I don't know where I found these numbers then, I thought I did at marvunapp at that time, but it listed indeed only 701306.
It's an out and out wrong number some site put in, either an error or perhaps even a deliberate attempt to disseminate misinformation (I've seen sites where, in the forums, they've actively discussed as a "good idea" that they should put in their own info, in the hope that writers researching stories will use it and unwittingly "make it canon"). Someone tried that on Wikipedia a while back, putting in fake names for many Golden Age characters as yet unnamed.
That's why I don't like Wikipedia sites for that part. Last time I checked a Wikpedia site I saw someone had made up and given Wicked and Freakshow real names, which it's very annoying.
Andy E. Nystrom
Oct 16, 2009, 12:40 pm
That's why I don't like Wikipedia sites for that part. Last time I checked a Wikpedia site I saw someone had made up and given Wicked and Freakshow real names, which it's very annoying.
One good thing with wikipedia in the long haul, is that this sort of thing seems to get monitored pretty closely and misinformation does tend to get removed due to compaints. Though it looks like it's hit and miss (Wicked is now back to Unrevealed but Frakshow's "alter ego" is still present). I suspect that the easier to cross-check information is (and number of likely visitors), the more accurate it is. For my blog I recently used it for a list of Canadian Prime Ministers and US Presidents, as errors in that sort of thing are going to be quickly spotted, whereas the general public is far less likely to look up Freakshow or cross-check the info.
Michael Regan
May 19, 2010, 11:57 am
Can I have a quick clarification on Earth-8107 please?
I don't have it handy, but I believe the handbook indicatest this as the Earth for the Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends comic book. Is this the designation only for the comic or is the cartoon included here?
With the differences in the adaptation I would guess not, so is there a designation for the cartoon?
Michael Regan
May 26, 2010, 09:56 am
Can I have a quick clarification on Earth-8107 please?
Moving on, I will assume that there is no Earth designation for the actual cartoon series.
100
New question
Earth-9411 Home of Spdm & Captain Britain summoned by Merlyn to oppose the Fury on Earth-616. Spectacular Spider-Man (UK) #133
The text describes events that occur in Spectacular Spider-Man (UK) #133, but should not the first appearance of this reality be Spectacular Spider-Man (UK) #1 ?
Stuart V
May 27, 2010, 06:00 am
Trying to catch up on backlog of queries on this forum in various threads, after some very hectic deadlines.
I did notice that in Wikipedia, and it is a constant problem. The even have Chris Claremont's Earth-161 for X-Men Forever listed, which is not a confirmed designation as far as I know.
Yes and no - assuming we haven't now confirmed it in a handbook (I lose track), we will do when the time comes, because Chris Claremont, as the author of the series, has the right to give the designation. The only caveat is that if it hasn't been given in print yet in a Marvel title then it remains subject to change - CC may have said it is 161, but if he then identifies it in print as 171, his past comments will be overruled.
Sticking with celluloid works, there may be some adaptations that have not been given designations. Will they be addressed at some point?
I'd imagine they will be.
That's why I don't like Wikipedia sites for that part. Last time I checked a Wikpedia site I saw someone had made up and given Wicked and Freakshow real names, which it's very annoying.
It annoys me greatly. I've lost count of the number of mistakes and pieces of deliberate misinformation I've tried to remove from Wikipedia - and I say try, because half the time, when you remove false info that has sat unchallenged for a couple of years without any citations to confirm it as valid, within a day or two someone comes back in and reinstates it, demanding evidence to justify its removal. And you have some posters who insist the handbooks aren't valid sources to quote, yet seem quite happy to accept other sites that copied the info off Wikipedia in the first place as valid references. :insane:
One good thing with wikipedia in the long haul, is that this sort of thing seems to get monitored pretty closely and misinformation does tend to get removed due to compaints. Though it looks like it's hit and miss (Wicked is now back to Unrevealed but Frakshow's "alter ego" is still present). I suspect that the easier to cross-check information is (and number of likely visitors), the more accurate it is. For my blog I recently used it for a list of Canadian Prime Ministers and US Presidents, as errors in that sort of thing are going to be quickly spotted, whereas the general public is far less likely to look up Freakshow or cross-check the info.
Yes and no. Wikipedia suffers from "everyone knows" syndrome. In other words, when a bit of misinformation is common, trying to correct it becomes well-nigh impossible. You remove it, and someone inevitably comes in and reinstates the wrong info, because "everyone knows" that's right. Even when you explain why the info is wrong, and cite references, someone will put it back. And when a dodgy name has spread itself across multiple wiki sites, unless you eliminate it from all of them in one fell swoop (well nigh impossible), like a weed it will grow back. Bloodscream got a fake name on Wiki; it spread across other wiki sites. It got removed from Wikipedia. A while later a different poster from the original disinformer put it back, presumably because they'd seen it on another wiki where it hadn't been removed, and simply copy-pasted it back. If posters refrained from adding info unless they had learned it from a valid source, the problem would be reduced, but as it stands, too many people think research is checking other wiki sites.
Can I have a quick clarification on Earth-8107 please?
I don't have it handy, but I believe the handbook indicatest this as the Earth for the Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends comic book. Is this the designation only for the comic or is the cartoon included here?
With the differences in the adaptation I would guess not, so is there a designation for the cartoon?
Depends on the level of differences between comic and cartoon. If the differences are small, we sometimes assume that those discrepancies are just artistic license/inaccurate accounts of the same events (as we do when someone recounts as a flashback the events of, say, Avengers #1, but has minor details differing - both remain 616). So if the differences aren't great, then the comic and cartoon would remain the same reality.
The text describes events that occur in Spectacular Spider-Man (UK) #133, but should not the first appearance of this reality be Spectacular Spider-Man (UK) #1 ?
Not #1. The UK title initially started as straight reprints of US material, and began doing new material much later. We haven't pinpointed the exact starting point (back issues are not readily available, as most specialist shops don't stock the British titles), and it's not 100% certain if all the new stories are one reality (probably, but not certainly). So #133 probably isn't the first appearance of this reality, but we can't be more exact than that at the moment.
Michael Regan
May 27, 2010, 08:57 am
Not #1. The UK title initially started as straight reprints of US material, and began doing new material much later. We haven't pinpointed the exact starting point (back issues are not readily available, as most specialist shops don't stock the British titles), and it's not 100% certain if all the new stories are one reality (probably, but not certainly). So #133 probably isn't the first appearance of this reality, but we can't be more exact than that at the moment.
I began to suspect that it had reprints shortly after I posted. I know some people who collect UK titles so I'll see what they have.
*****HAPPY TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY EVERYBODY!!! 2004-2024*****