• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Marvel Cosmology Rework Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, in Hickman's cosmology, it is sufficient to collide a finite number of universes (2-B) in order to destroy the entire Marvel multiverse, whereas the early 1990s Doctor Strange cosmology described the multiverse as a High 1-B or Low 1-A structure, and Jim Starlin had the Infinity Gauntlet and Heart of the Universe cap at Low 2-C, but still defeat entities such as Eternity and the Living Tribunal, and the Above All Others was likely the only entity he portrayed with the ability to affect many universes at once, for example. J.M. DeMatteis on the other hand likely used a considerably greater scale than any of that, and Al Ewing greatly increased the scale again with several higher realms after Hickman's Secret War event.
 
You can even look to as basic a proofing as Beyonder, which is what every single forum considers as different dependent on cosmology, leading to the famous "Pre-Retcon Beyonder" listings.

It should be fairly obvious to most people :v
 
Zark got me. Anyhow, I agree with the proposal, since the past, I've been arguing over this subject and how Marvel and DC Comics should be separated by cosmology and decrease most of its inconsistencies. @Antvasima I think this here has to be finished soon so we can follow with a new standard for Marvel, and then the blog approval thread, in case this one is approved be forbidden arguments outside this proposals as contradictory scans either for wank or downplaying the indexed cosmologies.
 
Well, it has taken us A LOT of time to perform the necessary research for DC Comics in this regard (although mainly because the contributors in the project have mostly been active very sporadically), so I think that it will take quite a while for Marvel Comics as well.
 
The_Impress said:
I expect you to read comics.

You don't read them with the level of shit you're claiming.

I like that you focus on that, in that entire argument.

Meh... I guess I'll be open to that, once all the blogs are done though.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. Is that the quote you're talking about?
And what claim did I make that proves I don't read comics?
 
And TOAA does depend on the writer, but it's honestly silly to assume that means that each interpretation is a different continuity. TOAA is the most powerful being in the marvel universe, so of course he can take any form. Him looking like writers is nothing but a reference to them. Not in any way them saying: "hey kid, different community btw"
 
Firstly, Oblivion is a character created by Dematteis, Divine Creator as well. The Divine Creator is Dematteis point of view of the One Above All, and Dematteis himself claims that Oblivion is a part of God (The Divine Creator).
 
Alonik said:
Firstly, Oblivion is a character created by Dematteis, Divine Creator as well. The Divine Creator is Dematteis point of view of the One Above All, and Dematteis himself claims that Oblivion is a part of God (The Divine Creator).
Click to expand...
I see thank you.
 
Westcoast5005 said:
Divine creator is an aspect of toaa. House of ideas scales above everything.
Click to expand...
It was never said the Divine Creator is an aspect, that just personal interpretation. Besides of course Dematteis also works with the gestalt meta-fictional thing in his stories, just remember how Oblivion talks with the reader in Mighty Thor Annual. Anyway, that's just Dematteis point of view towards the character, there is not only Waid-Ewing-Starlin pov "gestalt entity of the Writer, Editor, and likely the reader".
 
Teezar said:
Saying something about his true form being a threat to the reader or killing the reader right?
Click to expand...
The criticism he had in indirect to readers/editors who thought Oblivion was a joke because in the Handbook Tom Brevoort took his own interpretation in spite of the character profile.
 
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
I'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. Is that the quote you're talking about?
Click to expand...
Your question is irrelevant triviality meant to assert some tough guy cred against the staff, otherwise I genuinely see no point to pursue it. I choose not to answer it, it's got nothing to do with the thread. It's derailment.
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
And what claim did I make that proves I don't read comics?
Click to expand...
Claims that Marvel has never once acknowledged inconsistencies in-canon when there are multiple runs where they very blatantly reference it if you think for more than 5 seconds. Claims that somehow this downplays the verse when we got High 1-B stuff off of shit as basic as Lee-Kirby era, for universes alone.
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
And TOAA does depend on the writer, but it's honestly silly to assume that means that each interpretation is a different continuity. TOAA is the most powerful being in the marvel universe, so of course he can take any form. Him looking like writers is nothing but a reference to them.
Click to expand...
...what the absolute hell are you even talking about? You debunk your own claim that TOAA is variable by asserting he can take lower forms, and any form of his own choosing, implying he can shape cosmology to his whim. The "writer connection" is an assumption for indexing convenience, not something present in-verse, I acknowledged that already, if you can muster better ideas I'm up for hearing them, and Marvel Universe being a narrative is affirmed across multiple stories like No Road Home and the like, ehich is what becomes relevant towards TOAA's needs for shifting definitions. Them being the writers isn't a fraction as relevant to my revision as it is them being writer-like to begin with that matters, which is what you YOURSELF state.

Do I just let you debate yourself to a conclusion here, mate? Because the route you're going with the stuff you say, ends up just being things written in the OP.
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
Not in any way them saying: "hey kid, different community btw"
Click to expand...
Prove shit before claiming it. Your current argument is genuinely just, "No its not", with nothing added to it except taking even more points, and slapping "no its not" with little to no, or trivial elaboration, recognise my proposal is hinged on it being demonstratively true, which you haven’t given a single, properly worded argument against.

Actually a time waste to continue this discussion, there isn't a semblance of a point you've made, except "other sites think you're bad" and "this downplays marvel".
 
Last edited:
The_Impress said:
Your question is irrelevant triviality meant to assert some tough guy cred against the staff, otherwise I genuinely see no point to pursue it. I choose not to answer it, it's got nothing to do with the thread. It's derailment.

Claims that Marvel has never once acknowledged inconsistencies in-canon when there are multiple runs where they very blatantly reference it if you think for more than 5 seconds. Claims that somehow this downplays the verse when we got High 1-B stuff off of shit as basic as Lee-Kirby era, for universes alone.

...what the absolute hell are you even talking about? You debunk your own claim that TOAA is variable by asserting he can take lower forms, and any form of his own choosing, implying he can shape cosmology to his whim. The "writer connection" is an assumption for indexing convenience, not something present in-verse, I acknowledged that already, if you can muster better ideas I'm up for hearing them, and Marvel Universe being a narrative is affirmed across multiple stories like No Road Home and the like, ehich is what becomes relevant towards TOAA's needs for shifting definitions. Them being the writers isn't a fraction as relevant to my revision as it is them being writer-like to begin with that matters, which is what you YOURSELF state.

Do I just let you debate yourself to a conclusion here, mate? Because the route you're going with the stuff you say, ends up just being things written in the OP.

Prove shit before claiming it. Your current argument is genuinely just, "No its not", with nothing added to it except taking even more points, and slapping "no its not" with little to no, or trivial elaboration, recognise my proposal is hinged on it being demonstratively true, which you haven’t given a single, properly worded argument against.

Actually a time waste to continue this discussion, there isn't a semblance of a point you've made, except "other sites think you're bad" and "this downplays marvel".
Click to expand...
Can you please just give me the quote I asked for? It's a huge red flag when the OP responds to complaining about staff instead of a legitimate question
 
Da_Lunge_Fish said:
Can you please just give me the quote I asked for? It's a huge red flag when the OP responds to complaining about staff instead of a legitimate question
Click to expand...
I repeat, it's derailment. Bother someone who has time.

Bigger red flag is a user who thinks asking for a trivial quote is worth halting the thread over, and straight up ignoring other points made against his argument.
 
Last edited:
The proposalis fine and gets rid if issues like Odin going from 5-B to 2-C to 4-B within 30 years, but I feel like it gets messy fast without some blog about a writer's consistent cosmology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eseseso
1-A Upgrade for the Astral Plane and the Abstracts (Marvel Comics)
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Eseseso
Some Minor Marvel Comics Revisions
Replies
7
Views
561
Planck69
Planck69
VeryGoofyToddler2
J.M. DeMatteis (Marvel Cosmology Split)
7 8 9
Replies
336
Views
36K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
Eseseso
  • Locked
Another General CRT for Marvel Comics
Replies
34
Views
2K
Eseseso
Eseseso
MrKerf
Bringing daughter of Galactus back from oblivion
Replies
38
Views
2K
MrKerf
MrKerf
Back
Top