TOAA and "The Infinity Ending"

[ClassicNESfan]

Ant, can we please close this thread?

The edits have been completed, and there are no "avatars" to be seen.

I know for a fact that the staff and community has already had quite an extensive discussion regarding the connection between TOAA and TAAO, and that Note we added was specifically made to avoid more time consuming threads like this.

 

[Sorari]

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.

No, a feat is something that is or has been done, such as the creation of the multiverse.

Existing as the embodiment of a non-fictional concept isn't a feat, and it doesn't make the characters anything more than what they are. The prime example of this is the Empty Hand from DC. No one is making the argument that he should be above everyone else, because he literally embodies piracy which is hurting the industry.

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.

Steffi Feldman isn't an intern, she's employed. But this is a problem because you're denying the legitimacy of the official site.

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.

Tom Brevoort never said that these comics weren't canon. He said that the "The End" titles weren't canon. The problem with projecting this on stories that reference it, is that it virtually makes the entry of Marvel non-canon.

Let me explain. Thanos vol. 1 continues off Marvel: The End, that would according you you make Thanos vol. 1 non-canon. Annihilation War continues off Thanos vol. 1, that would make the Annihilation War non-canon. That makes Silver Surfer vol. 5, Nova vol. 4, and Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 non-canon. And it would have a domino effect because of all the tie-ins and spin-offs.

And these stories, are definitely canon.

So clearly referencing a non-canon work doesn't make you non-canon.

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?

No, because there's no evidence for it (like there is for the Celestial argument). The One Above All name has the exact same implication as Above All Others. If you're above all others then that means that there's no one above you.

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.

Even in GOTG vol 1. the LT calls TOAA the one being above him. So it makes no sense that these would be intended to be different.

 

[Sorari]

Does The One Above All page currently use the term avatar?

No it doesn't. But I'm arguing that it shouldn't be added or propagated as a real argument.

Ant, can we please close this thread?
The edits have been completed, and there are no "avatars" to be seen.

I know for a fact that the staff and community has already had quite an extensive discussion regarding the connection between TOAA and TAAO, and that Note we added was specifically made to avoid more time consuming threads like this.

I enjoy this debate. And I don't think it proper decorum to make a response and then ask a moderator or an admin to close the thread before the other guy can get a response in.

And just because something has been settled in another thread doesn't mean can't be brought up for revision when new information comes out.

If you don't think it's worth your time you don't have to participate, but don't ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[Sorari]

And I'm not sure whether this should be added here, but since the Immortal Hulk is publishing and all.

Al Ewing doesn't think that TOAA is stronger than TOBA (well he says "maybe" see the Tweet below)

 

[ClassicNESfan]

Your first reply ignores the scaling rules we have for this wiki. You can judge feats however you like at the end of the day, but here, transcending entities and realms is considered a feat and makes you eligible for higher tiers. Again, this has nothing to do with being metafictional.

Your second reply again ignores the rules of the wiki. There are guidebooks statements that we ignore here because they don't line up with the events portrated. So yes. I openly and unashamedly deny the legitimacy of a random article posted on Marvel's website by someone who was just asked to write an article informing readers about Adam Warlock and left to her own devices. Especially since what she wrote objectively conflicts with what we can observe in the comics.

Third reply is wrong again because it misses a key detail. Tom Brevoort was not executive editor of Marvel back when Thanos Volume 1 was published. He did not have the authority to dictate what was and was not canon at the time. Now he does. Furthermore, Marvel: The End is still never referenced by any writer other than Jim Starlin. Keith Giffen wrote the second half of that mini-series after Starlin was pulled from the project. And guess who wrote the Annhilation event? Keith Giffen. In which he only ever referenced his half of the Thanos mini-series. Once again, Jim Starlin's story tying into Marvel: The End is left unreferenced by any sort of canon outside itself. Not that it would matter if it was, because again, Tom Brevoort was not executive editor at the time of either of these publishings. He is now. He dictates the canon of Marvel, and he does not consider Marvel: The End canon. So seeing as he is- again- literally the editor for every single entry into the Infinity series, why would he consider any of them canon? They are direct sequels to a work he considers non-canon. The proof is in the pudding and the implications are obvious. Tom Brevoort does not consider them canon, so he allows Jim Starlin to do whatever he wants in those stories. And again, even if we didn't have Tom Brevoort's comments to confirm this entire line wasn't canon, we'd still have the fact that the events... repeateldly and unequivocally contradict canon. It's silly that we are having this discussion. The inconsistencies in how Marvel's multiverse and its gods are portrayed should be enough by itself to tell you that it isn't canon. Nevermind the inconsistencies with Infinity Thanos and canon Thanos, Infinity Warlock and canon Warlock, and any of the events occuring between stories. It's bizarre that I'm even having to explain to you that it isn't canon. If you've been reading those stories and keeping up with Marvel at the same time, you should know it isn't canon!

Fourth Reply: That's not how this works. There is no evidence that he renamed it just because there is a celestial named "The One Above All." There is no evidence that he ever named it "The One Above All" in the first place. It was only a descriptor he used. It is plenty possible that his name change was more related to the fact that "The One Above All" as a name was snatched up by other writers and reinterpreted into something he did not originally want it to be.

Fifth Reply: Yes, it does. With all due respect, it's starting to feel like you aren't even listening to anything I am saying. Please read what I am trying to tell you here. There is an order of events. 1. It is established by Jim Starlin that an entity exists above The Living Tribunal in the cosmic heirarchy. 2. Jim Starlin provides a number of descriptors about this entity, including calling it "One who is above all." 3. Michael Gallagher takes Jim Starlin's first descriptor and turns it into a title for the entity. 4. Throughout the course of several decades, other Marvel writers slowly start using that name to refer to a writer entity that encompasses and surpasses all of creation until becomes standard canon. 5. Many years later, Jim Starlin revisits the concept that he originally created (the mysterious entity above The Living Tribunal) and reveals what it was he was talking about= a god like entity quite different from what other writers were calling The One Above All.

Do you see what is going on here? Jim Starlin had an idea. He foreshadowed the concept of a powerful being above The Living Tribunal, and now, he is following up on it. However, between the start of his plan and the end of his plan, other writers co-opted the concept of The Living Tribunal's superior and the original descriptor Starlin had used ("One who is above all") and tied it together with Mark Waid's depiction of "God" in The Fantastic Four #551. That was not Starlin's original intention, and The Above All Others is likely what he originally intended the being above The Living Tribunal to look like. They are two fundementally different concepts, though. The only thing they have in common is that both supreme beings originated from Jim Starlin's original proposal that there was something above The Tribunal.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

Also, your Tweet from Al Ewing does not indicate he thinks The One Below All is stronger than or equivalent to The One Above All. He's clearly saying that he doesn't know how power levels scale to the brand of philosophy he's trying to represent with the two.

Also, it's outdated. More recently, he's said that despite The One Below All existing, he still thinks The One Above All is the supreme being of Marvel.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

Look, I really don't mean to come across as rude, but while you might be enjoying this debate, I am not. Your questions and points are all things that have been brought up in other threads before being rejected, my replies are taking quite a long time to make, and sometimes I feel like you are not listening or understanding what I say in response. I can't be here all night, we've already derailed this thread, and I don't feel like we're getting anywhere. It's less like we're debating to find a conclusion and more like you're just looking for any excuse to downgrade The One Above All or give him some sort of varying key.

Let me put it simply. In accordance with wiki rules for evaluating high entities, The One Above All has certain characteristics that are incompatible with how The Above All Others is portrayed. Under some circumstances, this would be considered a retcon to the character, but in this case, there are other writers handling The One Above All right now who portray him identically to how he is usually portrayed. Since The One Above All and The Above All Others are being written side-by-side in ways that the wiki necessitates be viewed as different tiers, The Above All Others cannot qualify as a retcon of The One Above All. Instead, we either need to treat it as a different interpretation with its own stats or as an outlier to be removed entirely. This is all further compounded by the fact that Jim Starlin's Infinity series is pretty much completely ignored by all other writers and stories and the fact that he is the only writer among dozens who portrays The Above All Others in the way that he does. We cannot just scale the entity to his specific portrayal when there are over a dozen writers and editors who all depict The One Above All in a way that is contradictory by our methods of analysis and tiering. That would be inconsiderate, sloppy, and dismissive of every other writer and their interpretations. So either Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets its own key, Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets its own profile, or Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets ignored entirely. But ditching the much more consistent portrayal by dozens of writers and editors for Starlin's own personal depiction that probably isn't even considered canon? No. That would betray the purpose of this wiki.

 

[Sorari]

Your first reply ignores the scaling rules we have for this wiki. You can judge feats however you like at the end of the day, but here, transcending entities and realms is considered a feat and makes you eligible for higher tiers. Again, this has nothing to do with being metafictional.

Then in what way does TOAA surpass AAO? The only justification I've seen is that he's metafictional. Because they're both the supreme creator of the Marvel Multiverse.

Your second replyagain ignores the rules of the wiki. There are guidebooks statements that we ignore here because they don't line up with the events portrated. So yes. I openly and unashamedly deny the legitimacy of a random article posted on Marvel's website by someone who was just asked to write an article informing readers about Adam Warlock and left to her own devices. Especially since what she wrote objectively conflicts with what we can observe in the comics.

Except that you're not dismissing this based on any portrayal, you're basing this of your own theory based on what Brevoort has said about the canonization of The End.

Third reply is wrong again because it misses a key detail. Tom Brevoort was not executive editor of Marvel back when Thanos Volume 1 was published. He did not have the authority to dictate what was and was not canon at the time. Now he does. Furthermore, Marvel: The End is still never referenced by any writer other than Jim Starlin. Keith Giffen wrote the second half of that mini-series after Starlin was pulled from the project. And guess who wrote the Annhilation event? Keith Giffen. In which he only ever referenced his half of the Thanos mini-series. Once again, Jim Starlin's story tying into Marvel: The End is left unreferenced by any sort of canon outside itself. Not that it would matter if it was, because again, Tom Brevoort was not executive editor at the time of either of these publishings. He is now. He dictates the canon of Marvel, and he does not consider Marvel: The End canon. So seeing as he is- again- literally the editor for every single entry into the Infinity series, why would he consider any of them canon? They are direct sequels to a work he considers non-canon. The proof is in the pudding and the implications are obvious. Tom Brevoort does not consider them canon, so he allows Jim Starlin to do whatever he wants in those stories. And again, even if we didn't have Tom Brevoort's comments to confirm this entire line wasn't canon, we'd still have the fact that the events... repeateldly and unequivocally contradict canon. It's silly that we are having this discussion. The inconsistencies in how Marvel's multiverse and its gods are portrayed should be enough by itself to tell you that it isn't canon. Nevermind the inconsistencies with Infinity Thanos and canon Thanos, Infinity Warlock and canon Warlock, and any of the events occuring between stories. It's bizarre that I'm even having to explain to you that it isn't canon. If you've been reading those stories and keeping up with Marvel at the same time, you should know it isn't canon!

Brevoort never said that he made them non-canon, he said that they were never canon in the first place because they were never intended as such.

And the second half of Thanos vol. 1. doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a continuation first half of vol. 1, and so is Annihilation.

And there's more to it than this because Thanos: Infinity Revelations (the prequel to Infinity Finale) is a continuation of Thanos vs. Hulk, which is a continuation of Savage Hulk vol. 2.

Fourth Reply: That's not how this works. There is no evidence that he renamed it just because there is a celestial named "The One Above All." There is no evidence that he ever named it "The One Above All" in the first place. It was only a descriptor he used. It is plenty possible that his name change was more related to the fact that "The One Above All" as a name was snatched up by other writers and reinterpreted into something he did not originally want it to be.

It is evidence of that Jim Starlin was aware of that TOAA was the name for a Celestial.

There's no distinctions between these characters canonically. Different writers have different takes on characters, but this isn't limited to TOAA.

Fifth Reply: Yes, it does. With all due respect, it's starting to feel like you aren't even listening to anything I am saying. Please read what I am trying to tell you here. There is an order of events. 1. It is established by Jim Starlin that an entity exists above The Living Tribunal in the cosmic heirarchy. 2. Jim Starlin provides a number of descriptors about this entity, including calling it "One who is above all." 3. Michael Gallagher takes Jim Starlin's first descriptor and turns it into a title for the entity. 4. Throughout the course of several decades, other Marvel writers slowly start using that name to refer to a writer entity that encompasses and surpasses all of creation until becomes standard canon. 5. Many years later, Jim Starlin revisits the concept that he originally created (the mysterious entity above The Living Tribunal) and reveals what it was he was talking about= a god like entity quite different from what other writers were calling The One Above All. Do you see what is going on here? Jim Starlin had an idea. He foreshadowed the concept of a powerful being above The Living Tribunal, and now, he is following up on it. However, between the start of his plan and the end of his plan, other writers co-opted the concept of The Living Tribunal's superior and the original descriptor Starlin had used ("One who is above all") and tied it together with Mark Waid's depiction of "God" in The Fantastic Four #551. That was not Starlin's original intention, and The Above All Others is likely what he originally intended the being above The Living Tribunal to look like. They are two fundementally different concepts, though. The only thing they have in common is that both supreme beings originated from Jim Starlin's original proposal that there was something above The Tribunal.

This is your speculation of the events that transpired, but at the end of the day the result is the same it's 2 different takes of the same being.

They're both THE supreme being, there's no one above AAO just as there's no one above TOAA.

 

[Sorari]

And yes, it's made clear in the story that AAO is supreme.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

1. Not going through all of this again. Please just read the stories and our tiering rules.

2. No, I am basing it entirely on a portrayal. Again, the events of the Infinity series objectively contradict dozens of things in 616 canon as well as multiverse canon. What happens in the comics >>>>> Random article posted on Marvel's website by an intern asked to fill new readers in on Adam Warlock

3. Tom Brevoort is the executive editor and has the final say in what publications are/are not canon. It's literally his job. And again, there's the fact that the events of the Infinity series contradict a metric ton of important canon and are ignored by literally every other writer but Jim Starlin.

4. Again, Jim Starlin objectively portrays The Above All Others differently than every other writer portrays The One Above All. I'm not necessarily saying that his choice to switch the name around was definitely indicative of a big, flashing sign that says 'This is MY take on the character,' but considering the previously mentioned metric ton of canon that his series ignores, I don't see why your interpretation is any more valid than mine. They're both theories mind you, but you can't just say yours is the correct one.

5. "Speculation" is a bit of a nasty word to be using in reply to this point. What I described is almost definitely what happened. Suggesting that Jim Starlin had any hand whatsoever in The One Above All's name and job description eventually being tied to Mark Waid's interpretation of God and then being accepted among the vast majority of Marvel writers puts a massive burden of proof on your shoulders, not mine. What I described is par for the course in this industry. Suggesting something else happened is far more speculatory. These two entities have one thing in common. They were both almost certainly born from Jim Starlin's original proposal that something existed above The Living Tribunal and its power was "above all." That's it. Everything else about how they are portrayed is patently different.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

I'm tired. This is getting monotonous and very repetative. I'm genuinely trying to communicate with you. Please just take a look at this shorter summary of the problems that I provided earlier:

Let me put it simply. In accordance with wiki rules for evaluating high entities, The One Above All has certain characteristics that are incompatible with how The Above All Others is portrayed. Under some circumstances, this would be considered a retcon to the character, but in this case, there are other writers handling The One Above All right now who portray him identically to how he is usually portrayed. Since The One Above All and The Above All Others are being written side-by-side in ways that the wiki necessitates be viewed as different tiers, The Above All Others cannot qualify as a retcon of The One Above All. Instead, we either need to treat it as a different interpretation with its own stats or as an outlier to be removed entirely. This is all further compounded by the fact that Jim Starlin's Infinity series is pretty much completely ignored by all other writers and stories and the fact that he is the only writer among dozens who portrays The Above All Others in the way that he does. We cannot just scale the entity to his specific portrayal when there are over a dozen writers and editors who all depict The One Above All in a way that is contradictory by our methods of analysis and tiering. That would be inconsiderate, sloppy, and dismissive of every other writer and their interpretations. So either Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets its own key, Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets its own profile, or Jim Starlin's supreme deity gets ignored entirely. But ditching the much more consistent portrayal by dozens of writers and editors for Starlin's own personal depiction that probably isn't even considered canon? No. That would betray the purpose of this wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

I am inclined to agree with ClassicNESfan.

We should probably close this thread.

 

[ClassicNESfan]

Please do. This has gotten way out of hand and derailed a lot.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.