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

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



8/05/2020 12:01 pm  #31


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

zuckyd1 wrote:

Loki wrote:

I don't have any doubt though, as I can cheat; I have access to something those sites don't, the script for the issue

It never occurred to me that that would be one of the resources handbook writers might consult. Makes sense though, and probably very useful!

It's not something we always have - Marvel doesn't just automatically share scripts with us. However, we do have a selection provided when they were relevant to imminent handbook entries, which is why I happened to have the one for Secret Avengers I#22.

 

8/06/2020 1:16 pm  #32


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

I'm updating the listing at https://cmro.travis-starnes.com. Is this Captain Scotland's first and only appearance?

 

8/06/2020 1:23 pm  #33


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

zuckyd1 wrote:

I'm updating the listing at https://cmro.travis-starnes.com. Is this Captain Scotland's first and only appearance?

I believe so. I'm working on a Corps entry for the Appendix, so it's conceivable I might stumble across another one, but I suspect not.

 

8/07/2020 4:30 pm  #34


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

I think this points to one thing to remember about comics storytelling: especially if they have dialogue or perform some significant action, identify the characters by dialogue or captions. I'm not singling out any one writer here, but there's been times when I've been reading a comic and felt that to understand what was going on I should know who someone is for the story to work but didn't. I get in this case Captain Scotland probably wasn't a big player in that story, but the resulting confusion some people had there reminded me of a larger problem in comics storytelling (at least in my mind).


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

8/16/2020 2:53 pm  #35


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

zuckyd1 wrote:

I'm updating the listing at https://cmro.travis-starnes.com. Is this Captain Scotland's first and only appearance?

Oh yeah, and btw, though I'm not sure it's widespread enough to include as a "keep getting wrong", that's not Kaptain Briton in Secret Avengers (2010)#22 either. Guy with a somewhat similar mask, sure, but (a) I've already noted that many of the Corps have similar costumes, for obvious reasons; (b) Kaptain Briton is dead (and yes, I know the Corps could reverse that, but); (c) he's a sadistic and murderous alternate of Brian who tried to rape Betsy - given Brian was running the Corps, do you really he think he'd let that guy be a member? 

Plus, Kaptain Briton was a blond like Brian, and has a blue neck, below which is a white V then a red chest
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/square_medium/0/229/135899-153805-kaptain-briton.jpg

while this guy has brown hair, and his costume has a blue neck (match), red V (not a match) and white torso (not a match). 
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7522769-notkaptainbriton.jpg


Also seeing Britanicus Rex stated to be in the issue. The only obviously non-human Corpsman present is this guy:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7522785-notbr.jpg

who is green skinned, square headed, has a scrawny build and has no chin guard on his mask, unlike Britannicus Rex
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/square_medium/0/77/260187-149845-britanicus-rex.jpg

who is pink skinned, has a more pointy jaw (not so obvious from the shot above), muscular build and has a chin guard. Unless the artist was having a seriously off day, he wasn't trying to portray Britanicus Rex. Though I believe it's simply a new character the artist drew (the script specifies no other Corps members other than Captain Scotland), there'd be a better case to make for the reptilian guy in SA#22 being Centurianous Britanicosarus:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7522812-cb.jpg

though given how skinny the guy in SA#22 is compared to Centurianous Britanicosarus, if it is intended to be him, he's apparently starving himself to death.

Last edited by Loki (8/16/2020 2:54 pm)

 

9/07/2020 8:46 am  #36


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

I've just watched The New Mutants movie (don't worry, I was socially distanced - there were only three people in the cinema including me). The following bit isn't spoilery imo - I've deliberately avoided saying anything that I think amounts to being an actual spoiler, but for the sake of those who want to avoid anything even vaguely spoilery, I'll put things into spoiler tags until I get to the "thing that people keep getting wrong."

Personally, I don't think it's the disaster some thought it would be; there's some good stuff in there (the visualizations of the main threat, and the depiction of the characters' powers, for example), the acting is fine, there are a few nice nods to the other X-Men movies (some more subtle than others), and the script is...okay. No outright terrible bits like the stuff that plagued the first two Wolverine movies, both Dark Phoenix movies, and Apocalypse, but nothing that makes you go "Woah!" either. But why am I mentioning this here, in the "Things People Keep Getting Wrong" thread, rather than as a movie review? Because it also showcased one of the common errors I've previously overlooked. 

There are some continuity issues - I know that it's not the comics, so they can change things, but I still wince every time a movie changes continuity for no good reason. If it serves the story, fair enough, but if it's just change for change's sake, or because the movie maker apparently doesn't understand the source material, that annoys. There's some stuff I won't mention, because it amounts to potential spoilers, but there are some I feel safe to mention. I think anyone who has seen the cast listing knows they didn't cast black actors to play two characters that are black in the comics. Not fond of that, though I suspect one of those was perhaps because they were trying to match the established continuity of the previous movies, which had already changed the appearance - I'll explain why in another post properly reviewing the movie, with spoiler tags. But that's not the one I want to mention here, which is:

Common error: Rahne Sinclair is a devout Catholic.
Truth: Rahne Sinclair is a devout Protestant, specifically a Scots Presbytarian. 

Rahne's specific denomination was revealed in New Mutants I#12. And it's noteworthy that depicting her as Catholic is a big error, given how far from Catholic her actual denomination makes her, as evidenced by what Reverend Craig told her about Catholicism:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/8/85763/7556306-presby.jpg

So to see websites and even comics and films depict her as Catholic is irksome. 

Just to be fair, a lot of the story depicts a good understanding of the characters and their comics' continuity, which only makes the times they veer from those more noticable.

 

9/07/2020 5:28 pm  #37


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

I only glossed over the last post because I'm waiting for now to watch New Mutants (due to the virus not keen on going to a theatre), but on the topic of movies,  to follow up on a previous question, are you also tracking in your summaries at the start of the thread things people get wrong about Marvel movies and shows, or just things people get wrong about Marvel comic stories? Because most people don't pause movies and shows while they watch, people sometimes miss details or fill in incorrect details.


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

9/08/2020 2:54 am  #38


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

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

I only glossed over the last post because I'm waiting for now to watch New Mutants (due to the virus not keen on going to a theatre), but on the topic of movies,  to follow up on a previous question, are you also tracking in your summaries at the start of the thread things people get wrong about Marvel movies and shows, or just things people get wrong about Marvel comic stories? Because most people don't pause movies and shows while they watch, people sometimes miss details or fill in incorrect details.

I am happy to track things people get wrong in the movies and shows, though obviously because the movies and shows are outside 616 continuity, some things are not so much wrong as just the different continuity of the movies or shows. That said, some of those things that differ are unintentional, and caused by the common errors I've listed. I doubt the makers of the Captain America: First Avenger movie actively chose to give Steve Rogers a different real name from the comics version, or spell the Red Skull's real name differently from the correct comics spelling. Instead they assumed what was an error in comics (Steven Grant Rogers rather than the correct Steven Rogers, Johann Schmidt rather than the correct Johann Shmidt) was correct, and made it the correct version for the movies.

That said, now that you mention it, there is one "things people keep getting wrong" regarding the movies that springs to mind, and which appears to be perpetuated across the various wikis.

False: The not yet-gamma powered "Doc" Leonard Samson appeared in The Incredible Hulk movie.
Truth: We've yet to meet the MCU's Leonard Samson. 

This is a very understandable one. In The Incredible Hulk we met Leonard, psychotherapist boyfriend of Betty Ross. A psychotherapist called Leonard associated with the Hulk has to be the future Doc Samson, right? But when it came to the Guidebook of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that covered that movie, we were told he wasn't Doc Samson. Note that the movie only refers to him by his first name. Presumably the plan had to been that if the first MCU Hulk movie had been more successful and spawned sequels, then Leonard might have been revealed as Doc Samson down the line, but when that plan was dropped, a decision had been made to keep the options open for how to use/introduce Doc Samson down the line by no longer tying him to Betty's boyfriend of similar name and profession. 

 

9/08/2020 7:21 am  #39


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

I definitely get the different reality bit. I meant strictly internal continuity. Two examples I previously mentioned:
Incorrect: Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was a cloud.
Truth: You briefly see the shadow of Galactus's helmet within the cloud, suggesting that the cloud isn't him but rather obscuring his actual features. So he was actually within the cloud.

My suspicion is the filmmakers were trying to make Galactus seem more godlike by not showing him directly. Unfortunately instead this resulted in people assuming what they could most easily see was in fact him.
 
[Regarding Agents of SHIELD season 1]: Even though it's quite a few years old I know at least one person who's watching it for the first time and others who plan to get to the show at some point, so I'll include spoiler tags. This error even made it into the book Agents of SHIELD: Season One Declassified (rewriting below to match the usual format).

Incorrect: Right before before Grant Ward murders Victoria Hand and other agents, Hand gives Ward her gun, which he uses to commit the murders.
Truth: In actuality he uses his own gun.

 
And a new one:
Incorrect: The X-Men appeared in the Marvel Superheroes cartoon series from the 1960s
Truth: In the strictest sense, the X-Men don’t appear in the cartoon. However, the Alliance for Peace, whose membership is identical to that of the original X-Men appear in a Sub-Mariner episode that was part of that series.
 


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

9/08/2020 8:12 am  #40


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

One more, though this one may be a case of who do you believe.

[Probably] Incorrect: Bruce Banner's name was changed to David because CBS thought Bruce sounded too gay.
[Probably] Correct: The name change was done to avoid the comics trope of alliteration.

Now both Stan Lee and Lou Ferrigno have claimed the former while showrunner Kenneth Johnson has claimed the latter. Lee had a notoriously bad memory and Ferrigno may not have been privy to things going on in the executive level. However, Johnson as the showrunner would definitely have known if there was any validity to the "too gay" claimed and he's denied that claim, so I'm more inclined to believe the latter. He also wanted to make the Hulk red so he was certainly not shy about moving things away from the comics without any push from CBS.


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

11/18/2020 8:47 am  #41


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

Not sure if this is a "things people KEEP getting wrong" question, but it is a question about the accuracy of fan site claims. So, in X-Men #71 and #73 in 1998 (Joe Kelly's run), Sebastian Shaw is shown plotting something with a mysterious person he addresses as the "wraith," and like many '90s plots about enigmatic characters, this ended up going nowhere. Now both the Marvel Appendix and Marvel Wikia state that, according to comics historian Paul O'Brien, this was probably intended to be Shadow King (who does in fact show up a few issues later in the same run)... but neither provides a link to the primary source.

So, is this attribution accurate?

Last edited by Pinball_Lizard (11/18/2020 8:52 am)

 

11/18/2020 11:10 am  #42


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

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Not sure if this is a "things people KEEP getting wrong" question, but it is a question about the accuracy of fan site claims. So, in X-Men #71 and #73 in 1998 (Joe Kelly's run), Sebastian Shaw is shown plotting something with a mysterious person he addresses as the "wraith," and like many '90s plots about enigmatic characters, this ended up going nowhere. Now both the Marvel Appendix and Marvel Wikia state that, according to comics historian Paul O'Brien, this was probably intended to be Shadow King (who does in fact show up a few issues later in the same run)... but neither provides a link to the primary source.

So, is this attribution accurate?

The Official Uncanny X-Men Index confirms that Shadow King appears bts in X-Men #71.

 

11/18/2020 11:23 am  #43


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

zuckyd1 wrote:

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Not sure if this is a "things people KEEP getting wrong" question, but it is a question about the accuracy of fan site claims. So, in X-Men #71 and #73 in 1998 (Joe Kelly's run), Sebastian Shaw is shown plotting something with a mysterious person he addresses as the "wraith," and like many '90s plots about enigmatic characters, this ended up going nowhere. Now both the Marvel Appendix and Marvel Wikia state that, according to comics historian Paul O'Brien, this was probably intended to be Shadow King (who does in fact show up a few issues later in the same run)... but neither provides a link to the primary source.

So, is this attribution accurate?

The Official Uncanny X-Men Index confirms that Shadow King appears bts in X-Men #71.

Thank you!

 

11/18/2020 7:47 pm  #44


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

I'm glad you asked even though the info proved to be accurate. Misinformation spreads like wildfire on the Internet, so it's always good when people check before bad info spreads too far.


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

11/19/2020 11:47 am  #45


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

Well thanks! Now here's a question about an issue where the Appendix and Wikia directly contradict each other. In Weinberg's run on Cable, we meet a mutant hacker named Key, who assists the title character against the Undying. He is later mentioned in New Avengers as one of the mutants whose powers were absorbed by Weapon Omega. Later, in the Marvel Comics Presents story arc starring Omega, we see him "conversing" with the mutants in his head, among them being a guy called Key, who has the exact same codename and powers as the Cable character, but looks completely different.

The Wikia claims these two are the same guy, but the Appendix says they're different. I'd normally happily side with Appendix over the Wikia, considering it's staffed by people who have worked for Marvel, but that seems like an Occam's Razor violation.

Is there any info on who is correct?

Last edited by Pinball_Lizard (11/19/2020 11:58 am)

 

11/19/2020 11:57 am  #46


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

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Well thanks! Now here's a question about an issue where the Appendix and Wikia directly contradict each other. In Weinberg's run on Cable, we meet a mutant hacker named Key, who assists the title character against the Undying. He is later mentioned in New Avengers as one of the mutants whose powers were absorbed by Weapon Omega. Later, in the Marvel Comics Presents story arc starring Omega, we see him "conversing" with the mutants in his head, among them being a guy called Key, who has the exact dame codename and powers as the Cable character, but looks completely different.

The Wikia claims these two are the same guy, but the Appendix says they're different. I'd normally happily side with Appendix over the Wikia, considering it's staffed by people who have worked for Marvel, but that seems like an Occam's Razor violation.

Is there any info on who is correct?

The Chronology Project also considers them to be the same person.

 

11/19/2020 1:14 pm  #47


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

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Well thanks! Now here's a question about an issue where the Appendix and Wikia directly contradict each other. In Weinberg's run on Cable, we meet a mutant hacker named Key, who assists the title character against the Undying. He is later mentioned in New Avengers as one of the mutants whose powers were absorbed by Weapon Omega. Later, in the Marvel Comics Presents story arc starring Omega, we see him "conversing" with the mutants in his head, among them being a guy called Key, who has the exact same codename and powers as the Cable character, but looks completely different.

The Wikia claims these two are the same guy, but the Appendix says they're different. I'd normally happily side with Appendix over the Wikia, considering it's staffed by people who have worked for Marvel, but that seems like an Occam's Razor violation.

Is there any info on who is correct?

Can you clarify exactly where on the Appendix it says this? It'll help me figure out which Appendix writer said this, so I can check with them.

 

11/19/2020 3:00 pm  #48


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

Loki wrote:

Pinball_Lizard wrote:

Well thanks! Now here's a question about an issue where the Appendix and Wikia directly contradict each other. In Weinberg's run on Cable, we meet a mutant hacker named Key, who assists the title character against the Undying. He is later mentioned in New Avengers as one of the mutants whose powers were absorbed by Weapon Omega. Later, in the Marvel Comics Presents story arc starring Omega, we see him "conversing" with the mutants in his head, among them being a guy called Key, who has the exact same codename and powers as the Cable character, but looks completely different.

The Wikia claims these two are the same guy, but the Appendix says they're different. I'd normally happily side with Appendix over the Wikia, considering it's staffed by people who have worked for Marvel, but that seems like an Occam's Razor violation.

Is there any info on who is correct?

Can you clarify exactly where on the Appendix it says this? It'll help me figure out which Appendix writer said this, so I can check with them.

Here is the entry for the MCP Key, by Proto-Man. Note it says he is "not to be confused with" the Cable Key.
 

 

11/19/2020 3:07 pm  #49


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

The Key seen in Omega Flight is very unlikely to be the same one Cable encountered. The powers are similar, but not an exact match - OF Key is a technopath, able to control all machines; Cable Key has an affinity to computers, and no mention of the power extending to other machines. The costumes don't match either, as you note. And Cable's Key was an unwilling criminal under someone else's mind control until Cable freed him; he could have decided to stay in America (when he was Australian and had moved only while under mind-control) and become a costumed criminal, but it would be an out of character move on his part. But the real deal breaker is their relationships to Michael Pointer.  

Cable's Key is among the mutants identified by SHIELD as being part of the Collective's energy signature in New Avengers#18, at the point when the Collective is possessing Pointer.  Omega Flight's Key was "fed" to Pointer after the Collective was expunged from him. If OF Key was the same as Cable's Key, he would have been depowered on M-Day and there'd be no powers for Pointer to feed off.  

Could SHIELD have got it wrong about Key already being in the Collective? Certainly. We do know they were wrong to list Wiz Kid as depowered.

Could Cable's Key have been depowered and then got new powers in time for Pointer to feed off him again? Sure, we saw depowered mutants get repowered a few times. But both of these options are speculative, with no evidence to suggest they actually happened, and given the other aspects that don't match, Occam's Razor actually leans in the Appendix's favor here.

Additionally, the Appendix only states there is "no known connection" between them, so it's not wrong even if they are later confirmed to be one and the same. There's currently not a connection known. The wiki was wrong to treat them as being definitely the same person.

 

11/19/2020 3:23 pm  #50


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

Thank you very much, Stuart. It really does just sound like it was an uncanny (har har) coincidence after all, then!

 

11/21/2020 6:31 pm  #51


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

Let me know if the following statement is correct:

Just because there was an symbiote named Riot in the Venom movie, it does NOT mean that one of the five spawns of Venom in the mainstream comics is also called Riot.
 

 

Yesterday 3:22 am  #52


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

Sidney Osinga wrote:

Let me know if the following statement is correct:

Just because there was an symbiote named Riot in the Venom movie, it does NOT mean that one of the five spawns of Venom in the mainstream comics is also called Riot.
 

Several answers:  

In general, just because a movie names someone previously seen but unnamed in the comics, it doesn't mean the comics version automatically adopts that name. The Burglar who killed Uncle Ben has not been identified as Dennis Carradine just because the Raimi movies called him that (and nor his he even "someone Carradine" just because his estranged daughter had that surname - plenty of reasons why they might not, heck probably wouldn't, share a surname). 

That said, such movie-related revelations do sometimes transfer back to the comics, sometimes deliberately, often because a writer who has seen the movie doesn't realise the info depicted therein isn't canonical to the comics. Blade was identified as Eric Brooks because of the movies (that was a deliberate case - the handbooks checked if the info also applied to the comics, and were told by editorial that it did in this instance). 

Riot is called Riot in the comics, not because of the movie, but because he got named in Carnage USA#2 (2012). Annoyingly, that was a case of bad wiki information transferring back to the comics, neither the first nor sadly last time that has happened. Online sites had wrongly named the Life Foundation symbiotes for years, with a mixture of toy names (understandable, and one of those, Scream, had legitimately been adopted by the comic version), misapplied toy names (fans applied names or partial names of toys to symbiotes that didn't even resemble that toy), and outright fan-made names. Unfortunately, eventually a writer didn't realise the names were bunkum, and used them in comic.

 

Yesterday 3:40 pm  #53


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

What are some other cases of "bad Wiki canon" making its way into the comics? I take it you don't mean stuff like the Appendix's placeholder names for various bit characters (like the X-Statix tryouts) becoming canon when Marvel actually hired the Appendix writers, right?

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum