• 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.

TOAA and "The Infinity Ending"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
165,117
72,041
So, I just read Jim Starlin's "The Infinity Ending" comicbook via Comixology, which had him take farewell of Thanos, Adam Warlock, and Marvel Comics itself.

Within it, Thanos uses a regulator placed in his universe to absorb The Above All Others, become one with the Marvel multiverse, and almost destroy it and himself completely.

So, should any of this information be noted in The One Above All's or Thanos' profile pages?
 
Well, Above All Others is, comparatively speaking, but we have traditionally treated him as an avatar of TOAA, who is treated as an avatar of all Marvel writers by others.
 
I see no reason to list it on The One Above All's profile considering that The Above All Others already has the Regulators listed as a weakness of his. We can discuss possibly giving Thanos a key for having usurped the Regulators, but I don't know what power ups do/do not constitute a new key here.

However, while we're on the subject, I have seen a considerable number of posts lately that suggest some people are confused about the difference between The One Above All and The Above All Others. We should consider either adding a note in TOAA's profile that briefly explains the distinction or adding a link to a blog that goes into detail about it.
 
I do not mind if somebody writes an explanation note that the OAA is supposed to be an avatar for the writers, whereas the AAO is the monoteistic God that the Living Tribunal serves.

Al Ewing and Mark Waid recently treated them as interchangeable by calling them "The One Above All Others" instead.
 
It isn't out for free yet. I paid for it via Comixology.
 
I'd be happy to take care of that, but what do we make of Regulator Thanos? Does it constitute a new key? Or perhaps a weapon profile for the Regulator itself? Or maybe neither due to the many contradictions in the story? I don't really have an opinion on the matter.
 
I would also like to state for the record that Al Ewing and Mark Waid's contribution was not indicative of making the two interchangable. On the contrary, that comic in particular batantly and unabashedly treated The One Above All as a representatio of the writer. In fact, The One Above All seems to be consistently treated as a writer figure who sees all of Marvel as fiction by the following writers and editors: Al Ewing, Mark Waid, Tom Brevoort, Paul Scheer, Christopher Hastings, Nick Giovannetti, C.B. Cebulski, Jim Zub, Alanna Smith, Tom Peyer, Daniel Kibblesmith, Wil Moss, and Sarah Brunstad.

Jim Starlin is the only person who treats The One Above All more like an entity than a metanarrative god who encompasses and far surpasses the rest of creation, and he even went out of his way to shift the name around for his interpretation. I think it is vital that if we keep The Above All Others as a character on this wiki at all, we make that distinction. Jim Starlin's infinity series plays very fast and loose with the Marvel heirarchy and is pretty much completely ignored by all other writers and storylines. It can continue to be referenced here, but it should not override the much more common depictions that contradict it.
 
Well, Jim Starlin is not the only one who treats it more as a monoteistic God. Stan Lee did as well, and so did other writers at Marvel for a long time.

It was first with Mark Waid Fantastic Four story in which the characters went to "heaven" to meet Jack Kirby that this started to change.

In any case, I think that treating TAAO as an avatar for TOAA as we currently do seems fine.

Regulator Thanos absorbed TAAO and usurped his position, so he would be 1-A.
 
I am comfortable adding a note to The One Above All's page, but I do not think I am experienced enoigh to add a new key to Thanos yet. Somebody else should really take care of it unless there are no other options.
 
Okay. I will unlock both pages. Tell me here when you are done.
 
How is this as a note?

"The Above All Others is portrayed and treated objectively differently from The One Above All in ways that cannot be recconciled by simply downgrading the latter or upgrading the former. As such, we consider The Above All Others to be an in-universe depiction of Marvel's supreme being, while The One Above All is an author stand-in that is more consistently portrayed as existing above and beyond all planes and entities, seeing them only as fiction. They are two different characters. Please do not try to scale one from the other."
 
I made some minor adjustments:

"The Above All Others is portrayed and treated objectively differently from The One Above All in ways that cannot be recconciled by simply downgrading the latter or upgrading the former. As such, we consider The Above All Others to be an in-universe depiction of Marvel's supreme being, whereas The One Above All is an author stand-in that is more consistently portrayed as perceiving all other beings as fiction. Please do not try to scale one from the other."
 
Then it is probably better to let somebody more experienced handle it.
 
Is the comic out yet? I think we should wait to see what actually goes on

(When the DC revisions happen and I hopefully get Godhead Darkseid to 1-A, time for a battle)
 
The comicbook is out, yes, but only via Comixology as of yet.
 
I've not read the story, but I'm a bit confused based on what you said.

There's canon distinction of AAO and TOAA in canon, right? It's just our interpretation of things based on how this character is thought of by different writers? Wouldn't it then be better to say 1-A to 0 based on the writer? Because there's technically no avatars ever mentioned in the stories.

Also what feats does TOAA have that AAO don't? Both are the creator of the Marvel Multiverse, that's their big thing, right? The only real difference as far as I know is that some writers considers him a metafictional being. Does being metafictional bump characters up to Tier 0?
 
Well, perceiving 1-A characters as fiction has sometimes resulted in a tier 0 rating with our old tiering system, but it likely won't be enough with the new one.
 
You seem to make a good point about the merits of a variable tier in any case.
 
My main problem is with the "avatar" because it purports to be part of a comic story, when it really isn't. If I bring this up on Space Battles (or any other forum) someone is going to point out that there's no mention of an "avatar" in the story and that I'm just making shit up [I'm not trying to be offensive, it's just that I feel that it will be impossible to defend seriously].

Saying depending on the writer is better in this case.
 
The difference to put it bluntly is the portrayal and likely the canonicity. It's not just the character existing metafictionally.

The One Above All is very consistently portrayed as an entity that contains and surpasses all of Marvel to an unfathomable degree. We have repeated and consistent confirmation from writers and stories indicating that he is beyond all created things in the Marvel multiverse and views it as fiction. Even if he were not being portrayed as a metafictional author, that would still make him distinctly beyond everything else. The Above All Others is patently different, not only in how he interacts with creation but also how he is portrayed in the story itself. One is a transcendant force beyond all of Marvel consistently painted as the artist and/or author of reality, and another is a more traditional god entity that only appears in Jim Starlin's Infinity series and clearly can be affected and influenced by the surrounding multiverse. That isn't the only problem either.

Jim Starlin's Infinity series very frequently portrays Marvel's cosmic entities differently from the main series Marvel continuity- even the multiversal ones- and its events are also never referenced in any other branch of Marvel canon. The editor for every single one of the Infinity books (and chief editor for all of Marvel, I might add), Tom Brevoort, has gone on record multiple times saying that he does not consider Marvel: The End (a key entry in the Infinity series mentioned multiple times throughout each of the subsequent entries) to be canon in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, when Jim Starlin asked Tom Brevoort to make this most recent storyline (Thanos: The Infinity Ending) the plot for Thanos's ongoing series, he was flat-out rejected and religated back to his personal Infinity series. It's very clear that Starlin's interpretation of the Marvel cosmos and entities is something unique to him specifically. The editors don't stop him from screwing with established canon or cosmic heirarchies because they don't consider it canon. They consider it a stand alone project that allows one of their most famous writers on the team to do whatever he wants with minimal interference. It's its own thing. Each entry is blatantly a sequel to a non-canon work, and Tom Brevoort knows this. He reads over the script and looks at the draft before approving it. So no. It doesn't depend on the writer. There is specifically The One Above All (how literally every creator at Marvel writes their god) and there is The Above All Others (how Jim Starlin writes his god in the Infinity series). The two are impossible to recconcile and trying to conflate them might look reasonable at first, but it ultimately doesn't work because of the core nature to the whole thing.
 
Well, apart from that (if I recall correctly) Jim Starlin quit from Marvel Comics because Tom Brevoort asked another writer to copy part of his plot to the regular Thanos comicbook, I think that you are probably correct.
 
ClassicNESfan said:
The difference to put it bluntly is the portrayal and likely the canonicity. It's not just the character existing metafictionally. The One Above All is very consistently portrayed as an entity that contains and surpasses all of Marvel to an unfathomable degree. We have repeated and consistent confirmation from writers and stories indicating that he is beyond all created things in the Marvel multiverse and views it as fiction. Even if he were not being portrayed as a metafictional author, that would still make him distinctly beyond everything else. The Above All Others is patently different, not only in how he interacts with creation but also how he is portrayed in the story itself. One is a transcendant force beyond all of Marvel consistently painted as the artist and/or author of reality, and another is a more traditional god entity that only appears in Jim Starlin's Infinity series and clearly can be affected and influenced by the surrounding multiverse. That isn't the only problem either.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But these are not feats. It's just that certain writers considers him to be the manifestation of writers, editors and readers. But as far as power is concerned that doesn't mean much. It's similar to Morrison's the Empty Hand from DC. He's "piracy manifested" but that doesn't make him anything more than his feats.

ClassicNESfan said:
Jim Starlin's Infinity series very consistently portrays Marvel's cosmic entities differently from the main series Marvel continuity- even the multiversal ones- and its events are also never referenced in any other branch of Marvel continuity. The editor for every single one of the Infinity books (and chief editor for all of Marvel, I might add), Tom Brevoort, has gone on record multiple times saying that he does not consider Marvel: The End (a key entry in the Infinity series mentioned multiple times throughout each of the subsequent entries) to be canon in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, when Jim Starlin asked Tom Brevoort to make this most recent storyline (Thanos: The Infinity Ending) the plot for Thanos's ongoing series, he was flat-out rejected and religated back to his personal Infinity series. It's very clear that Starlin's interpretation of the Marvel cosmos and entities is something unique to him specifically. The editors don't stop him from screwing with established canon or cosmic heirarchies because they don't consider it canon. They consider it a stand alone project that allows one of their most famous writers on the team to do whatever he wants with minimal interference. It's its own thing. Each entry is blatantly a sequel to a non-canon work, and Tom Brevoort knows this. He reads over the script and looks at the draft before approving it. So no. It doesn't depend on the writer. There is specifically The One Above All (how literally every creator at Marvel writes their god) and there is The Above All Others (how Jim Starlin writes his god in the Infinity series). The two are impossible to recconcile and trying to conflate them might look reasonable at first, but it ultimately doesn't work because of the core nature to the whole thing.
Click to expand...
But it is considered canon. We know this because in the Infinity Finale (where the HOTU was mentioned), we have two different Adam Warlocks one of which is confirmed on Marvel's official site to be the 616 (canon) version of Adam Warlock. It's referring to this scene.

As far as the naming convention goes Starling has referred to this being as: The One Who Is Above All , The One Who Is Above Even Gods , and now the Above All Others. We know that this is the same being because it's the being the Living Tribunal serves. And according to the "Infinity Conflict" he serves no other being than AAO.

I think the reason he changed it was because there's a Celestial with the same name . And we know that Starlin was aware of this because this Celestial showed up in the Infinity Gauntlet .

But my main problem with calling it an avatar is that it seems like something that was brought up in a comic, when it hasn't. In no story, no Tweet, etc. is the idea of AAO being a limited avatar/facet/m-body of TOAA supported. It's just something that we've made up because there seems to be a discrepancy between writers of what the character is and represents. If we simply say that these are different interpretations that's fine, because it's straightforward. But if we use a fictional term like avatar, it implies that this is something established in canon when it's not.
 
You're missing the point. Existing above the multiverse and considering it fiction is in and of itself a feat. It's not about being metatextual. It's about transcending other realms and entities.

And no. As counter-intuitive as it sounds, having an article posted about something on Marvel's website does not make it canon. Those articles are written by interns who are asked to do their own research on a character and then do a write up for them. They do not undergo the same intensive editing oversight that a comic book does. Those entries can get things wrong and be filled with incorrect interpretations. This wouldn't be the first time. In this case specifically, it's easy to conflate the two if you don't know what you're doing, but that Adam Warlock in the Infinity series literally cannot be the 616 Adam Warlock. It is functionally impossible. The events that occur in the Infinity series clash with 616 canon even more than they clash with the multiverse's canon. Thanos is literally doing things in each series that directly conflict with each other. I can provide you a list of things that don't add up if you really want it. And again, according to Marvel's executive editor, it's not canon.

The naming convention has nothing to do with it. If you look more carefully at the panels you are citing, you'll realize that neither of the two issues you're referencing actually give a name to The Living Tribunal's superior at all. Those are merely descriptions for the at the time unnamed entity. Nobody used "The One Above All" as a title at all until Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1 50, written by Michael Gallagher. It is indeed true that this was likely a direct reference to Jim Starlin's description of the entity in Infinity War, but Jim Starlin actually never named the entity at all. He only described it multiple times. "One who is above all," "Laws set forth from above," "Might from on high," and "One who is above even the gods." The very fact that Starlin never uses the same descriptor twice is proof in and of itself that none of these are names. It was just "the entity above the Living Tribunal" until Michael Gallagher came along and decided to use Starlin's first description as a title. It has since grown well out of Starlin's hands and is used pretty much exclusively to refer to a writer entity that encompasses and transcends all of creation. Is it not more likely that Jim Starlin's change in the name has more to do with the fact that there is no evidence he originally intended for the entity above the Tribunal to be a truly supreme being or named The One Above All in the first place? All he ever did was allude to some existence beyond the Tribunal. It was everybody else on the writing staff who ran away with the concept, tied it into Mark Waid's depiction of God, and dubbed it "The One Above All." During Starlin's first ever live portrayal of the concept he originally came up with, he called it something different, portrayed it differently than everybody else, and treated it differently than The One Above All. Frankly, the only thing they have in common is that they are both supposedly above The Living Tribunal. Literally everything else about them is different. They had the same origin point, but there isn't a shred of evidence that this is any less than Jim Starlin following up on a concept he wrote years ago and ignoring the other entity.

Frankly, at the end of the day, I don't care what you call The Above All Others. You can refer to it as an avatar or a non-canon portrayal of The One Above All or a different entity entirely or remove it from the wiki altogether. What you cannot do is use this one interpretation of the character that directly contradicts all other portrayals by every other writer from a story that directly contradicts canon numerous times and is ignored by all other writers to downgrade the character as a whole. Either create two separate keys for two separate characters/interpretations/canons or delete The Above All Others entirely. There is absolutely no reason that Jim Starlin's interpretation of a character should take precidence over literally every other writer's interpretation when they are all otherwise consistent with each other and adhere to canon much more closely.
 
Well, then I don't see the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
2-B MCU Thor & Thanos: WoG Proofs
2 3 4
Replies
128
Views
5K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
VeryGoofyToddler
Divine Creator(Marvel Comics) Profile
2
Replies
79
Views
6K
VeryGoofyToddler
VeryGoofyToddler
Robo432343
TOAA illusion creation
Replies
10
Views
1K
Robo432343
Robo432343
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
Marvel Revisions Interlude: The Cosmology Page
Replies
35
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Eseseso
  • Locked
High 1-B Upgrade for Mephisto and Hell Lords within their own realms
2 3
Replies
101
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top