Avengers >> View Thread

Author
Bildo




Could someone please explain that issue? Does this mean that the Beyonders third appearance in FF was totally false? Is he still a undeveloped Cosmic Cube or a mutant Inhuman? ...or both? Why wouldn't the heroes remember this meeting during his next two appearances? Was he just messing with the Illuminati and was really a cosmic cube? What did Doctor Strange do at the end of the story? Did he cast a spell to make the rest forget or to not be able to sense the Beyonder? Did he do something to the Beyonder? I just don't understand what this story was supposed to do - all it did was "muddy" our understanding of the Beyonder. Do any of you think you understand what really happen?

Thanks!


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
GammaSpidey




Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act out his own fantasies.

The F4 issue would have to be another retcon: The Beyonder just made them see what he wanted them to see.

I think the bigger issue raised here is that the Beyonder's abilities are just like Scarlet Witch's. So if they tell him to leave their universe, why did they drop the ball so poorly with Wanda?

Another thing I can see is that they might set Beyonder and Wanda up together in the future. It would parallel her brother's marriage to an Inhuman.



> Could someone please explain that issue? Does this mean that the Beyonders third appearance in FF was totally false? Is he still a undeveloped Cosmic Cube or a mutant Inhuman? ...or both? Why wouldn't the heroes remember this meeting during his next two appearances? Was he just messing with the Illuminati and was really a cosmic cube? What did Doctor Strange do at the end of the story? Did he cast a spell to make the rest forget or to not be able to sense the Beyonder? Did he do something to the Beyonder? I just don't understand what this story was supposed to do - all it did was "muddy" our understanding of the Beyonder. Do any of you think you understand what really happen?
>
> Thanks!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows Server 2003
oldman




> Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act out his own fantasies.
>
> The F4 issue would have to be another retcon: The Beyonder just made them see what he wanted them to see.
>
> I think the bigger issue raised here is that the Beyonder's abilities are just like Scarlet Witch's. So if they tell him to leave their universe, why did they drop the ball so poorly with Wanda?
>
> Another thing I can see is that they might set Beyonder and Wanda up together in the future. It would parallel her brother's marriage to an Inhuman.
>
>
>
> > Could someone please explain that issue? Does this mean that the Beyonders third appearance in FF was totally false? Is he still a undeveloped Cosmic Cube or a mutant Inhuman? ...or both? Why wouldn't the heroes remember this meeting during his next two appearances? Was he just messing with the Illuminati and was really a cosmic cube? What did Doctor Strange do at the end of the story? Did he cast a spell to make the rest forget or to not be able to sense the Beyonder? Did he do something to the Beyonder? I just don't understand what this story was supposed to do - all it did was "muddy" our understanding of the Beyonder. Do any of you think you understand what really happen?
> >
> > Thanks!


and who die in annihilation then ? it was suppose to be the form of the beyonder who evolve just like Kubik ... weird ... Now you know why i dont buy anything from bendis


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu




> Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act out his own fantasies.

Doesn't work, because too many of his actions on Earth in SWII and its crossovers had lasting consequences. You'd have to throw out, just for starters, Kurse as a Thor character, Rick Jones being cured of cancer in an ongoing Hulk plotline, and Doctor Doom regaining his original body after it was destoyed by Terrax and the Silver Surfer. And if you're willign to look at less "important" plotlines, you'll find more untenable revisions if that's what this retcon is meant to do.

And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3 were doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's a clumsy effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble -- what, pray tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make sure that one member of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is responsible in some way for every major Marvel event.

Issues like Illuminati #3 illustrate the weakness of the Illuminati as a retconned organization, because they flag up the fact that those older stories don't work if you pretend this council of super-types was behind the scenes for their events.

> The F4 issue would have to be another retcon: The Beyonder just made them see what he wanted them to see.
>
> I think the bigger issue raised here is that the Beyonder's abilities are just like Scarlet Witch's. So if they tell him to leave their universe, why did they drop the ball so poorly with Wanda?
>
> Another thing I can see is that they might set Beyonder and Wanda up together in the future. It would parallel her brother's marriage to an Inhuman.
>
> > Could someone please explain that issue? Does this mean that the Beyonders third appearance in FF was totally false? Is he still a undeveloped Cosmic Cube or a mutant Inhuman? ...or both? Why wouldn't the heroes remember this meeting during his next two appearances? Was he just messing with the Illuminati and was really a cosmic cube? What did Doctor Strange do at the end of the story? Did he cast a spell to make the rest forget or to not be able to sense the Beyonder? Did he do something to the Beyonder? I just don't understand what this story was supposed to do - all it did was "muddy" our understanding of the Beyonder. Do any of you think you understand what really happen?
> >
> > Thanks!

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It
displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
BlakGard




> > Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from
> > this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret
> > Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act
> > out his own fantasies.
>
> Doesn't work, because too many of his actions on Earth in SWII and
> its crossovers had lasting consequences. You'd have to throw out,
> just for starters, Kurse as a Thor character, Rick Jones being cured
> of cancer in an ongoing Hulk plotline, and Doctor Doom regaining his
> original body after it was destoyed by Terrax and the Silver Surfer.
> And if you're willign to look at less "important" plotlines, you'll
> find more untenable revisions if that's what this retcon is meant to
> do.
>
> And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3 were
> doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's a clumsy
> effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble -- what, pray
> tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make sure that one member
> of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is responsible in some way
> for every major Marvel event.

I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new concept or one that needs much explanation.
____________________




Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
Beowulf




> > > Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from
> > > this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret
> > > Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act
> > > out his own fantasies.
> >
> > Doesn't work, because too many of his actions on Earth in SWII and
> > its crossovers had lasting consequences. You'd have to throw out,
> > just for starters, Kurse as a Thor character, Rick Jones being cured
> > of cancer in an ongoing Hulk plotline, and Doctor Doom regaining his
> > original body after it was destoyed by Terrax and the Silver Surfer.
> > And if you're willign to look at less "important" plotlines, you'll
> > find more untenable revisions if that's what this retcon is meant to
> > do.
> >
> > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3 were
> > doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's a clumsy
> > effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble -- what, pray
> > tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make sure that one member
> > of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is responsible in some way
> > for every major Marvel event.
>
> I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new concept or one that needs much explanation.

Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants, especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Omar Karindu




> > > > Well my biggest theory and biggest retcon that would result from
> > > > this issue is this: the Beyonder never came to Earth during Secret
> > > > Wars II. Looks like he conjured up all the heroes so he could act
> > > > out his own fantasies.
> > >
> > > Doesn't work, because too many of his actions on Earth in SWII and
> > > its crossovers had lasting consequences. You'd have to throw out,
> > > just for starters, Kurse as a Thor character, Rick Jones being cured
> > > of cancer in an ongoing Hulk plotline, and Doctor Doom regaining his
> > > original body after it was destoyed by Terrax and the Silver Surfer.
> > > And if you're willign to look at less "important" plotlines, you'll
> > > find more untenable revisions if that's what this retcon is meant to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3 were
> > > doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's a clumsy
> > > effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble -- what, pray
> > > tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make sure that one member
> > > of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is responsible in some way
> > > for every major Marvel event.
> >
> > I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new concept or one that needs much explanation.

Yes...and no. There are Inhumans born with powers, and Inhumans mutated by Terrigenation to gain powers, but the idea in Illuminati #3 seems to be that the Beyonder is some kind of oddity with the x-gene or an analogue of it that caused Terrigenation to make him omnipotent instead of merely powerful.

And frankly, that's a bit strained in that the "mutant" part of the deisgnation is only there so that Xavier can make the deduction, and so that the Beyonder is "really" within the purview of Xavier and Black Bolt rather than being something...well, beyond those designations.

That's what I meant when I called it "strained Marvel technobabble." It sounds silly -- we've rarely seen Inhumans born with powers called "mutants" before, because "Inhuman" is infinitely simpler -- and the reason for the double technobabble of "mutant" AND "Inhuman" is pretty obviously not for clarity's sake, but for the (rather clumsy, as we agree) purpose of the story.

Luckily for all of us, though, it's just the Beyonder, and so likely to remain just a footnote. It's not as if there's a huge clamor by fans or creators for more of Shooter's folly, is there?

> Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants, especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable.

Yeah, my objection was stated poorly; it's more about the sheer weakness of the conceit than some sort of grave "misunderstanding" of Marvel technobabble on the story's part.

Can we all agree that the story is kind of dumb and move on? And also tat I need to cool it with the Kirby-style quotation marks?

- Omar Karindu

"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It
displeased me." -- Doctor Doom

"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
BlakGard




> > > > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3
> > > > were doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's
> > > > a clumsy effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble
> > > > -- what, pray tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make
> > > > sure that one member of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is
> > > > responsible in some way for every major Marvel event.
> > >
> > > I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new
> > > concept or one that needs much explanation.
>
> Yes...and no. There are Inhumans born with powers, and Inhumans
> mutated by Terrigenation to gain powers, but the idea in Illuminati #3
> seems to be that the Beyonder is some kind of oddity with the x-gene
> or an analogue of it that caused Terrigenation to make him omnipotent
> instead of merely powerful.
>
> And frankly, that's a bit strained in that the "mutant" part of the
> deisgnation is only there so that Xavier can make the deduction, and
> so that the Beyonder is "really" within the purview of Xavier and
> Black Bolt rather than being something...well, beyond those
> designations.
>
> That's what I meant when I called it "strained Marvel technobabble."
> It sounds silly -- we've rarely seen Inhumans born with powers called
> "mutants" before, because "Inhuman" is infinitely simpler -- and the
> reason for the double technobabble of "mutant" AND "Inhuman" is pretty
> obviously not for clarity's sake, but for the (rather clumsy, as we
> agree) purpose of the story.
>
> Luckily for all of us, though, it's just the Beyonder, and so likely
> to remain just a footnote. It's not as if there's a huge clamor by
> fans or creators for more of Shooter's folly, is there?
>
> > Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants,
> > especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing
> > the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable.
>
> Yeah, my objection was stated poorly; it's more about the sheer
> weakness of the conceit than some sort of grave "misunderstanding" of
> Marvel technobabble on the story's part.
>
> Can we all agree that the story is kind of dumb and move on?

Yeah. It's best to move on. Just pointing out that we have seen mutant Inhumans in the past, so this shouldn't be a shock on that level. I really just don't see the point in revisiting Beyonder (at all). At this point, I preferred him being some kind of Eternity-type being from another universe.
____________________




Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
emerick man




The powerful Avenger villain Maelstrom... might probably fit in as an example for the arguements in this interesting thread:

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/maelstrom.htm
http://www.marvel.com/universe/Maelstrom

> > > > > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3
> > > > > were doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's
> > > > > a clumsy effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble
> > > > > -- what, pray tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make
> > > > > sure that one member of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is
> > > > > responsible in some way for every major Marvel event.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new
> > > > concept or one that needs much explanation.
> >
> > Yes...and no. There are Inhumans born with powers, and Inhumans
> > mutated by Terrigenation to gain powers, but the idea in Illuminati #3
> > seems to be that the Beyonder is some kind of oddity with the x-gene
> > or an analogue of it that caused Terrigenation to make him omnipotent
> > instead of merely powerful.
> >
> > And frankly, that's a bit strained in that the "mutant" part of the
> > deisgnation is only there so that Xavier can make the deduction, and
> > so that the Beyonder is "really" within the purview of Xavier and
> > Black Bolt rather than being something...well, beyond those
> > designations.
> >
> > That's what I meant when I called it "strained Marvel technobabble."
> > It sounds silly -- we've rarely seen Inhumans born with powers called
> > "mutants" before, because "Inhuman" is infinitely simpler -- and the
> > reason for the double technobabble of "mutant" AND "Inhuman" is pretty
> > obviously not for clarity's sake, but for the (rather clumsy, as we
> > agree) purpose of the story.
> >
> > Luckily for all of us, though, it's just the Beyonder, and so likely
> > to remain just a footnote. It's not as if there's a huge clamor by
> > fans or creators for more of Shooter's folly, is there?
> >
> > > Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants,
> > > especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing
> > > the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable.
> >
> > Yeah, my objection was stated poorly; it's more about the sheer
> > weakness of the conceit than some sort of grave "misunderstanding" of
> > Marvel technobabble on the story's part.
> >
> > Can we all agree that the story is kind of dumb and move on?
>
> Yeah. It's best to move on. Just pointing out that we have seen mutant Inhumans in the past, so this shouldn't be a shock on that level. I really just don't see the point in revisiting Beyonder (at all). At this point, I preferred him being some kind of Eternity-type being from another universe.
> ____________________
>
>


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BlakGard




> The powerful Avenger villain Maelstrom... might probably fit in as an example for the arguements in this interesting thread:
>
> http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/maelstrom.htm
> http://www.marvel.com/universe/Maelstrom

Possibly. Though he was half Deviant, which might explain it.

Other examples: several members of the Dark Riders were exiled members of the Inhuman Royal Family, yet also referred to as mutants.
____________________




Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
CenturyL Your Alien Hero




> > The powerful Avenger villain Maelstrom... might probably fit in as an example for the arguements in this interesting thread:
> >
> > http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/maelstrom.htm
> > http://www.marvel.com/universe/Maelstrom
>
> Possibly. Though he was half Deviant, which might explain it.

Indeed, he's usually been described as a Deviant/Inhuman hybrid.

> Other examples: several members of the Dark Riders were exiled members of the Inhuman Royal Family, yet also referred to as mutants.

The entire original 9-member lineup were introduced as members of the Inhuman royal family, yet were referred to as mutants in at least 3 subsequent stories, although that has the smell of "recurring mistake" rather than any actual intent that they be both.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
emerick man




> > > The powerful Avenger villain Maelstrom... might probably fit in as an example for the arguements in this interesting thread:
> > >
> > > http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/maelstrom.htm
> > > http://www.marvel.com/universe/Maelstrom
> >
> > Possibly. Though he was half Deviant, which might explain it.
>
> Indeed, he's usually been described as a Deviant/Inhuman hybrid.
>
> > Other examples: several members of the Dark Riders were exiled members of the Inhuman Royal Family, yet also referred to as mutants.
>
> The entire original 9-member lineup were introduced as members of the Inhuman royal family, yet were referred to as mutants in at least 3 subsequent stories, although that has the smell of "recurring mistake" rather than any actual intent that they be both.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software