Cosmic Marvel >> View Post
·
Post By
Reverend Meteor

In Reply To
bd2999
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: You said he was mistaken in the title of your post. nnt
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 01:56:23 am EST (Viewed 5 times)
Reply Subj: I did not say he was wrong...
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 at 04:39:05 pm EST (Viewed 348 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I don't know where you read that it was stated that Galactus was a merger between Galan and Infinity.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          The Living Tribunal states that Galactus was once Galan AND the Sentience of the sixth universe. Which I thought showed a far above average understanding of Galactus' origin. Galactus isn't simply Galan empowered, but a product of the union between Galan and the sentience of the previous (now 6th) universe. Galan is only one half of Galactus, I was impressed with the writer's continuity accuracy (and comprehension) here.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The Living Tribunal says

        Quote:

          Quote:
          "Galactus--formerly Galan of Taa and the sentience of the sixth Infinity."

          Quote:

            Quote:
            That could mean universe, but to me, in context it does not mean that. Seems to mean the entity. Or at least is a bit unclear. So, I was not batty. At least not totally so.


I said he was mistaken. He said he had no idea where I got the Infinity part from. He did not complete the quote. I did, so I concluded that I am not completely daft. If you read through my response.


    Quote:
    It does not mean the Infinity entity. Galan is from the sixth iteration of the universe/multiverse. This is a truth that from what I remember predates Secret Wars.


I do not remember it specifying what version each one was previously. At least not the cosmic stories I can think of. And you cannot tell from the context that is given. If you read the quote I provided.

Entities present are referred to by a number. Which hardly matters too much. Even the LT was from a given universe as stated by Order and Chaos.

They mention Galan and Infinity. The later very well could mean the abstract in the general context. As it is not used interchangeably with universe in the context.


    Quote:
    Galan - Universe 6 (not really relevant outside of Galan's backstory)
    Everything Marvel related pre-Secret Wars - Universe 7
    Everything after Secret Wars - Universe 8


I do not see what this matters too much. I am not arguing the numbers of things. I am only taking the statement for what it was.


    Quote:
    Galactus having the sentience of the universe he's from comes if I'm not mistaken from Fantastic Four #262 during Reed's trial but Galactus's origin was detailed earlier than that in Thor #169 I believe.


It was but if you read those the origin is very different. The initial origin had Galan fly and bond with a solar system, galaxy or something like that. In the Super Villain Origins or similar they made it the dying previous universe.

It was not until that point or there abouts that the whole merger with the previous universe thing was brought up. In FF and other places it was Eternity and in some handbooks. The more recent handbooks said the Phoenix Force.

And given writers can be mistaken, it is not a shock if they said Infinity. As in Thanos Imperative the authors refered to the Celestials, Promial Gods and Galactus as the assembled abstracts. Despite them not being abstracts.


    Quote:
    And before everyone brings up the multiverse I'm just going to assume almost everything in each of the pre-big bang universes were part of multiverses where all the timelines more or less had the same start and ending points and that an appreciation of the complexities of the multiverse is ultimately not relevant to events that transpired in pre-big bang universes.


I am not even thinking that much into it. As the FF is probably still putting that together. Given the context so far of Ultimates Eternity in the context we see him is referred to as more of an omniversal/multiversal entity instead of a universal one. As he was classically.

I still do not see where I was wrong.

I do acknowledge at the end that it is possible just a reference to an Infinity being a universe (I doubt it) so just a generic universal sentience. However, either way the poster did not give the full quote and asked where I got my assumption that it was Infinity. I provided it, he forgot that part. So was mistaken at least on that point.





Attachments

is is.jpg (400 x 400)
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 51.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software