Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
Posted by Sean Curtin on November 02, 2001 at 15:59:37:

According to the key, Daredevil: The Man Without Fear is non-canon; 
but, it *has* to be canon, as it's been referenced in several 
canonical titles.  In particular, Daredevil #350, Deadpool #7 and 
Daredevil/Deadpool Annual '97 all reference Matt Murdock's accidental 
killing of a hooker in DD:MWF 2 (in DD 350 he revisits the brothel 
and tries to make amends; in DP3 7 and DD '97 Typhoid Mary claims 
to actually be that hooker).  Although the specifics of Daredevil's 
origin differ between DD 1, DD:MWF 1-2, and DD:Y 1-2, the only thing 
keeping the rest of DD:MWF from being canon is its placement of Jack 
Murdock's death in Matt's personal chronology.  In DD:MWF, Jack dies 
before Matt enters college, which contradicts stories published both 
before and after DD:MWF.  The easiest way to keep DD:MWF in the canon 
is to assume that the story was erroneous in terms of Matt's age at 
the time of his father's death, but is canonical in all other 
respects.  This seems to have been the Marvel policy at some point 
in time; Joe Kelly wrote DPOOL3 7 and DD '97, which play off of 
DD:MWF, but he also wrote DD -1, in which Jack Murdock sees Matt 
off to college.

			*	*	*

Re: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
Posted by Paul O'Brien on November 03, 2001 at 15:02:52:
In Reply to: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
posted by Sean Curtin on November 02, 2001 at 15:59:37:

> According to the key, Daredevil: The Man Without Fear is non-canon; 
but, it *has* to be canon, as it's been referenced in several 
canonical titles.

Man Without Fear was never meant to be canon, however.  It was an 
adaptation of a failed movie pitch.  The error isn't in the way MWF 
treats Daredevil's origin, but in the fact that subsequent stories 
referred to it at all.

The best approach, I think, is just to view those subsequent 
references as referring to unseen Marvel Universe events which 
broadly mirrored what we saw in MWF.  (Which would make them, for 
chronology purposes, original appearances rather than flashbacks.)  

			*	*	*

Re: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
Posted by Russ Chappell on November 05, 2001 at 19:50:45:
In Reply to: Re: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
posted by Paul O'Brien on November 03, 2001 at 15:02:52:

Yes, that's it exactly. The fact that subsequent books reference 
events in DD:MWF isn't conclusive proof that DD:MWF is canon. Some 
events in DD:MWF may have actually occurred (sp?), we just haven't 
seen them yet. Does that make sense?

			*	*	*

Re: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
Posted by ShadZ on November 05, 2001 at 16:26:05:
In Reply to: Daredevil: The Man Without Fear
posted by Sean Curtin on November 02, 2001 at 15:59:37:

> Although the specifics of Daredevil's origin differ between DD 1, 
DD:MWF 1-2, and DD:Y 1-2, the only thing keeping the rest of DD:MWF 
from being canon is its placement of Jack Murdock's death in Matt's 
personal chronology.  

I'm not a Daredevil expert, but I understand that DD:MWF also 
disagrees with the others about where and how long Matt went to 
college . . .

ShadZ

			*	*	*

Ghost Rider III mistake??
Posted by Justin on November 05, 2001 at 15:48:24:

I could be wrong, but in Spider-Man #7 Spidey says "Listen, I've 
heard about your actions, Ghost Rider. I don't need some rookie 
causing me headaches." This would insinuate that this is the first 
time Spidey has met GR. Also in MCP #65 when Wolverine sees Ghost 
Rider he thinks to himself "Who the--?" and GR thinks Wolverine is 
a Deathwatch henchman. This leads me to believe that this is their 
first meeting. Sooo.... Since the heroes involved all seem to know 
each other in FF #347 I would think that the FF storyline occurs 
AFTER these two stories and not before. If I missed something let 
me know. If not glad to help contribute a little to the project.

			*	*	*

Deah-Lock , Where is he ? 
Posted by Jesse James on December 24, 2001 at 00:37:48:
In Reply to: Ghost Rider III mistake??
posted by Justin on November 05, 2001 at 15:48:24:

Hey, Now your website says, we got every marvel character. blah blah, 
you know what you said. well anyway, my first try i look for 
death-lock. CAnt find em..... Maybe im just missing him, if so. Can 
someone get back to me on this ? 

thanks.

			*	*	*

Re: Deah-Lock , Where is he ? 
Posted by Andy Holcombe on January 09, 2002 at 11:37:48:
In Reply to: Deah-Lock , Where is he ? 
posted by Jesse James  on December 24, 2001 at 00:37:48:

Try Deathlok.  There are six different versions.

			*	*	*

Demonicus VS. Dr. Demonicus
Posted by benjamin sTone on November 06, 2001 at 22:03:11:

     I'm attempting a little clarification, and I need some backup 
from someone who read(s) IRON MAN.  I believe that the listing for 
DEMONICUS/DR. DOUGLAS BIRELY accidentally combines two different 
characters.

     The Demonicus I know only made a few appearances in DR.STRANGE 
and STRANGE TALES.  I know he appeared in STRANGE TALES V.1, #128, 
and I know he teamed up with Adria and Kaecilius in STRANGE TALES 
V.1, #143.  He was dispatched to the...*sigh*..."Dread Purple 
Dimension" in Dr. Strange, Volume 2, #56.

     I'm relatively certain that these are the only appearances by 
THIS Demonicus, but can someone else confirm that the OTHER Demonicus 
was not a Sorceror who big, baggy orange costume with a RIDICULOUSLY 
LARGE headpiece?

Thanks, I think this will help the Project out if we separate the two.

benjamin sTone
Occasional Hopeless Fanboy

			*	*	*

Re: Demonicus VS. Dr. Demonicus
Posted by Peter Fabricius on November 06, 2001 at 23:25:30:
In Reply to: Demonicus VS. Dr. Demonicus
posted by benjamin sTone on November 06, 2001 at 22:03:11:

You are right, the Demonicus from Dr Strange 56 is not the same 
character as Dr. Demonicus/Douglas Birely from Godzilla, Iron Man 
and Avengers West Coast.

Demonicus is a sorcerer with a beard. He dresses in orange.

Dr. Demonicus is a geneticist with a badly scarred face. He dresses 
in purple

Peter Fabricius

			*	*	*

Further Demonicus appearances...
Posted by Prime Eternal on November 24, 2001 at 15:47:56:
In Reply to: Re: Demonicus VS. Dr. Demonicus
posted by Peter Fabricius on November 06, 2001 at 23:25:30:

Should also be noted that in his first appearance, he was simply 
"Demon".

In addition to Strange Tales#128 & 143 and Dr. Strange#56, he also 
appeared in Strange Tales#132 (the "demon" of Mordo's who guards the 
Sanctum Sanctorum), and Strange Tales#141-142, where his plot with 
Adria & Kaecilius begins.

So, Demonicus' chronology should read:

ST 128
ST 132
ST 141
ST 142
ST 143
DRSTR2 56

			*	*	*

Where do I send gap entries to?
Posted by J1NG on November 10, 2001 at 10:23:13:

I standard email address supplied by the closing the gap section 
is not working for me, is there another email I shoiuld send it to, 
or should I just post it up here instead?

J1NG

			*	*	*

Re: Where do I send gap entries to?
Posted by Russ Chappell on November 12, 2001 at 19:01:24:
In Reply to: Where do I send gap entries to?
posted by J1NG on November 10, 2001 at 10:23:13:

I think I've received email from you, sent to the gap address since 
this message was posted, so I take it everything's ok?

			*	*	*

Re: Where do I send gap entries to?
Posted by J1NG on November 14, 2001 at 04:00:51:
In Reply to: Re: Where do I send gap entries to?
posted by Russ Chappell on November 12, 2001 at 19:01:24:

Hi Russ,

Yeah, before posting here, the email prog I use kept saying that 
the chronologyproject sever won't accept emails and the sending 
failed, I kept at it for around an hour or so before giving up and 
posting here. Several hours later, the emails just went with no 
problems. Weird.

Thanks anyway Russ! :)

J1NG (Fung Kam Wah)

			*	*	*

Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by garbonzo on November 10, 2001 at 16:08:31:

Ok.  I'm stumped.  Who is this Jessica Jones character in the comic 
book Alias?  She is some "former super hero" with connections to 
Luke Cage a.k.a. Powerman.  I missed the first issue, was it covered 
there?

Help!  It is driving me crazy!

			*	*	*

Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by Paul O'Brien on November 10, 2001 at 18:48:44:
In Reply to: Alias: Jessica Jones
posted by garbonzo on November 10, 2001 at 16:08:31:

She's a new character being retroactively inserted into continuity.

			*	*	*

Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by David Smith on January 09, 2002 at 11:21:32:
In Reply to: Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
posted by Paul O'Brien on November 10, 2001 at 18:48:44:

Yes she's a new character, but I'm not so sure that she's being 
inserted into continuity. I was under the impression that the MAX 
books were not Part of Regular Marvel Continuity but rather a take 
off from it.

			*	*	*

Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by Andy Holcombe on January 09, 2002 at 11:34:31:
In Reply to: Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
posted by David Smith on January 09, 2002 at 11:21:32:

>I was under the impression that the MAX books were not Part of 
Regular Marvel Continuity but rather a take off from it.

On the other hand, Bendis has said that as far as he's concerned 
the series is in the mainstream Marvel Universe.  My take is if 
they fit (Alias, thus far), they're in; if not (Fury, US War 
Machine), they're out.

			*	*	*

Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by ShadZ on January 14, 2002 at 21:18:16:
In Reply to: Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
posted by David Smith on January 09, 2002 at 11:21:32:

> Yes she's a new character, but I'm not so sure that she's being 
inserted into continuity. I was under the impression that the MAX 
books were not Part of Regular Marvel Continuity but rather a take 
off from it.

My understanding is that MAX books amy or may not be in continunity, 
on a case-by-case basis, and that it is going to be fairly easy to 
judge.  For instance, of the first 3 MAX books so far, US War Machine 
was billed as an alternate-universe story, and you don't have to read 
too far in Fury to realize it doesn't fit into the Marvel Universe.  
But when MAX does a series like Alias, which doesn't have any big plot 
points saying "hey, we are out of continunity here", you can safely 
assume it is in continunity.

ShadZ

			*	*	*

Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
Posted by David Smith on January 15, 2002 at 06:27:51:
In Reply to: Re: Alias: Jessica Jones
posted by ShadZ on January 14, 2002 at 21:18:16:

> My understanding is that MAX books amy or may not be in continunity, 
on a case-by-case basis, and that it is going to be fairly easy to 
judge.  For instance, of the first 3 MAX books so far, US War Machine 
was billed as an alternate-universe story, and you don't have to read 
too far in Fury to realize it doesn't fit into the Marvel Universe.  
But when MAX does a series like Alias, which doesn't have any big plot 
points saying "hey, we are out of continunity here", you can safely 
assume it is in continunity.

It's never safe to assume :-)

If it's all the same, to you, until I see Alias referenced elsewhere 
in the Marvel U, I for one consider it non-canonical alongside all 
the other MAX books.

			*	*	*

Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
Posted by douglas C on November 16, 2001 at 05:01:35:

  Most Marvel readers will know that the Earth has been basically 
a genetic experiment by the Celestials (or something along those 
lines) - especially in light of the Earth-X maxiseries.

  But can anyone tell me the chronological appearances of the 
Celestials, and/or any websites so I can put names to what-passes-
for-faces?

			*	*	*

Re: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
Posted by StAkAr Karnak on November 21, 2001 at 15:31:36:
In Reply to: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
posted by douglas C on November 16, 2001 at 05:01:35:

On 16 Nov 2001, douglas C spake:

> Most Marvel readers will know that the Earth has been basically 
a genetic experiment by the Celestials (or something along those 
lines) - especially in light of the Earth-X maxiseries.

While it is clear that the Celestials have tinkered with Humans, 
EARTH X is responsible for promoting the idea of the whole Earth 
being part of an experiment.  I'd hardly say EARTH/UNIVERSE/PARADISE 
X is canon.

> But can anyone tell me the chronological appearances of the 
Celestials, and/or any websites so I can put names to what-passes-
for-faces?

SERSI'S LOFT used to have quite a bit of Celestial info, but it is 
currently (AFAIK) on hiatus.  Individual Celestials include: Arishem, 
Black ("Dreaming"), Eson, Exitar, Gammenon, Hargen, Jemiah, Nezarr, 
One Above All, Oneg, Scathan, Ziran.

This info all comes from an MCP group tracking proposal of mine, 
located at http://www.geocities.com/glakandar/propose.htm.

Celestials have aliases such as "Ziran the Tester", "Scathan the 
Approver", etc.

- StAKAr Karnak

			*	*	*

Re: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
Posted by Prime Eternal on November 24, 2001 at 15:43:18:
In Reply to: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
posted by douglas C on November 16, 2001 at 05:01:35:

>   But can anyone tell me the chronological appearances of the 
Celestials, and/or any websites so I can put names to what-passes-
for-faces?

Known Celestials are: Arishem the Judge; Ashema the Listener; 
Tiamut, aka the Dreaming/Black Celestial; Eson the Searcher; 
Exitar the Executioner; Gammenon the Gatherer; Hargen the Measurer; 
Jemiah the Analyzer; Nezarr the Calculator; the One Above All; Oneg 
the Prober; the Red Celestial; Scathan the Approver; Tefral the 
Surveyor; Ziran the Tester.

What If Vol.1 #23 (flashback, creation of Eternals & Deviants)
Avengers#339 (flashback, creation of Brethren)
Thor Annual#15 (flashback, destruction of Terminus' creators)
Thor Annual#7 (flashback, 3rd host's arrival)
Eternals Vol.1 #2-4, 6-7, 9-13, 18-19
Thor Annual#7
Thor#283-284, 287-289, 291, 300
Incredible Hulk#243
Secret Wars II#5
Eternals Vol.2 #8, 11-12
Silver Surfer Vol.3 #4-5
Silver Surfer Annual#2 (Dreamer only)
X-Factor#43-46, 48-50
Thor#387-389
Fantastic Four Annual#23
Thor#407, 422-424
Quasar#24-25
Infinity Gauntlet#3-6
Warlock & the Infinity Watch#1
Thor#449-450
Quasar#37-38
Marvel Comics Presents#102
Fantastic Four Annual#26
Blackwulf#6
Fantastic Four#400
Heroes Reborn: The Return#1-4
Heroes Reborn: Ashema
Fantastic Four Vol.3 #25
X-Men Forever#1

Guardians of the Galaxy#46-50 (Guardians' future)

			*	*	*

Re: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
Posted by Warren on April 10, 2002 at 18:33:14:
In Reply to: Re: Does anyone know the Celestials chronology?
posted by Prime Eternal on November 24, 2001 at 15:43:18:

A site that might help
http://geocities.com/worthington011/Celestials.html

			*	*	*

marvel super special 1
Posted by Brian C on November 17, 2001 at 07:30:01:

Listed in Spider-Man's chronology in between Peter Parker The 
Spectacular Spider-Man #3 and Amazing Spider-Man 165 is M/SS 1 
which refers to Marvel Super Special #1.  Can anyone give me any 
information about this comic?  Thanks.

			*	*	*

Re: marvel super special 1
Posted by Randy Tischler on November 23, 2001 at 10:56:29:
In Reply to: marvel super special 1
posted by Brian C on November 17, 2001 at 07:30:01:

Marvel Comics Super Special #1 featured the rock group Kiss (as 
did #5) and, in the latter of the two I believe, had numerous MU 
cameos.

Randy

			*	*	*

Xemnu/Tales to Astonish
Posted by Dr Bruce Banner on November 23, 2001 at 17:38:38:

In Marvel Feature #3 they say that Xemnu appeared in Monsters on 
the Prowl #11 and 14. I'm fairly sure that the two issues were 
reprints of earlier Tales to Astonish (or perhaps Tales of Suspense)- 
if anyone can help please let me know.

Thanks,

			*	*	*

Re: Xemnu/Tales to Astonish
Posted by Peter Fabricius on November 24, 2001 at 01:38:11:
In Reply to: Xemnu/Tales to Astonish
posted by Dr Bruce Banner on November 23, 2001 at 17:38:38:

The stories in Monsters on the Prowl #11 and 14 is reprinted from 
Journey Into Mystery #62 and 66, according to Marvel Comics Index 
to Thor, and the Update 89 to The Official Handbook of the Marvel 
Universe.

Peter

			*	*	*

Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
Posted by Jeph! on November 28, 2001 at 04:22:10:

Okay, this may be a tacky subject right now, but...

Where on earth does Amazing Spider-Man v2 #36 (the "Sept. 11th" 
issue) fit into continuity?

Two problems arise this issue, that I can spot: Magneto and Hawkeye.  
Magneto has been "missing, presumed dead" since X#115, and before 
that he's been paralyzed since X#113.  Not to mention that he's been 
in Genosha since forever.

And Hawkeye has been in prison since T-Bolts #50 ... sure, he escaped, 
but he's a fugitive, and doesn't have his weapons.  He shouldn't be 
picvking through the rubble with the Avengers either.

Now, this issue could take place way before any of that happened, or 
it could take place sometime AFTER "now", when the status quo has 
inevitably drifted back to normal.  Magneto will, of course, return 
(the liner notes for the "E is for Extinction" TPB have it as soon as 
X#126), and Hawkeye will inevitably get his uniform back.  The 
details of them gathering/being in NYC can hash themselves out.  One 
can assume they turned on the news.

Now, some morbid free-association:

The last time we see the WTC towers, standing, in the pages of a 
Marvel comic, is Thunderbolts #57.  That issue also cameos Cyclops 
and Wolverine in their "New X-Men" outfits (first seen in UX#394).  
This means the towers are standing AFTER Magneto's paralyzation in 
X#113 ... and likely after his "presumed death" in X#115.

(Morbid thought; which happened first in the MU, the destruction 
of Genosha or the WTC disatster?)

So: ASM #36 needs to take place AFTER T-Bolts #57 and after Magneto's 
incapacitation.  Therefore, we probably need to push it up past the 
Graviton saga (T-Bolts #55-59), past the concurrent Kang saga 
(Avengers #42-current, featuring the now-tactless destruction of the 
UN Building), and up to a point where Magneto returns.  (Or, to a 
point just before his "public" return ... bear in mind, nobody but 
the villains SAW him at the disaster site.)

Same with Hawkeye; ASM #36 needs to be pushed up in T-Bolts' 
continuity past the eventual point where he extricates himself 
from his "convict" situation.  Look for that storyline to continue 
past #62 ... luckily, in terms of the T-Bolts, issues #53-59 take 
place over a few hours and future issues can easily be shifted back 
to fill that void...

Storm was at the disaster site too, but that's not too much of a 
problem: she could have just flown the winds there from Spain, or 
Australia, or wherever they'll be in the near future.  Her I'm not 
worried about.

Also, ASM#36 interrupts an ongoing storyline in its OWN book, so 
we can be reasonably sure it DOESN'T take place in between issues 
#35 and #37.

So, to wrap up:  My theory is, ASM #36 takes place in the NEAR 
FUTURE of the Marvel Universe.  We can push it up until the first 
time we see a character mention "Sept. 11th" in dialogue.

HEROES, by the way, appears to be out-of-continuity.  But we knew 
that.

Rebuttals?

	-Jeph, tactless

			*	*	*

a question...
Posted by Christopher Giles on November 28, 2001 at 10:15:24:
In Reply to: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
posted by Jeph! on November 28, 2001 at 04:22:10:

Jeph - when was it stated that Magneto was paralyzed?  It appeared 
to me that Wolverine killed Magneto in X#113.  Then again, it didn't 
explain Xavier's comment in X#115 that since Genosha was destroyed, 
so was Magneto.

Just curious, I'm afraid that I've missed something somewhere.

As for the WTC events in Marvel continuity, I've tried to figure it 
out, but can't.

			*	*	*

Re: a question...
Posted by Jeph! on November 28, 2001 at 13:41:35:
In Reply to: a question...
posted by Christopher Giles on November 28, 2001 at 10:15:24:

Well, it sure LOOKED like Magneto was killed in X#113.  That may 
have even been how writer Scott Lobdell intended it.  But in X#115, 
we see Magneto in two panels, sitting in a high-tech wheelchair 
similar to Xavier's.  Just after we see him, he and his citadel are 
destroyed by a wild sentinel hand.

The assumption there is that the X-Men knew he had survived in X#113, 
and are only NOW presuming him dead.

	-Jeph!

			*	*	*

Re: a question...
Posted by Christopher Giles on November 29, 2001 at 10:15:23:
In Reply to: Re: a question...
posted by Jeph! on November 28, 2001 at 13:41:35:

Wow, you're right, Magneto is there in X#115.  Not sure HOW I 
overlooked that.  I was probably trying to figure out Quarterly's 
art. *smile*

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.

			*	*	*

Re: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
Posted by Paul O'Brien on November 29, 2001 at 15:39:20:
In Reply to: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
posted by Jeph! on November 28, 2001 at 04:22:10:

> Rebuttals?

Isn't there a more fundamental question as to whether this story 
is even intended to be in continuity at all?  To be honest, I'd 
been working on the assumption that it isn't.

If it is, then there's at least one current Marvel storyline it has 
to precede, namely the "Underboss" arc in Daredevil, given the 
Kingpin's brief appearance among the, er, weeping villains.  (Unless, 
of course, the Daredevil storyline is a bluff, which is still 
possible.)  Still, that storyline seems to be fairly free-standing.

As for Thunderbolts #55-59 and the Kang War taking place 
concurrently - I know Thunderbolts #57 included a cameo by Kang, 
suggesting that his attack hadn't actually got underway yet, but 
does that actually work?

I don't have my issues to hand, but Hawkeye makes an appearance in 
Avengers: The Ultron Imperative, where we're told he's been released 
from prison specially to participate.  So obviously that story takes 
place before he leaves Seagate with the rest of the chain gang in 
Thunderbolts #whenever-it-was, leading directly into the rest of the 
Thunderbolts storyline.

Now, by the time Ultron Imperative rolls around, the Kang War is 
pretty far advanced.  I have a feeling they might even have got up 
as far as having the bloody great walls around all the cities, in 
which case the Thunderbolts material surely can't be running 
concurrently.

The Thunderbolts storyline seems to fit much more neatly overall if 
it takes place after the Kang War is done and dusted.  That certainly 
explains why the Scarlet Witch and Wonder Man are available to sit 
around at Avengers Mansion and listen to Dallas Riordan talk about 
her feelings for two issues in a row.  That still leaves Kang's 
cameo to account for, but hell, he's a time traveller.  Maybe he 
decided to go back and attack earlier.  Maybe he's hanging around 
for a completely different storyline.

I may be wrong on this, by the way, but isn't Iron Man in his new 
(and hideous) armour in the Thunderbolts #57 cast-of-thousands cameo?  
If so, that has to come after the Kang War because the Iron Man 
storyline creating the new armour has to take far too much time to 
fit sensibly within the Kang War.  This is presumably why we haven't 
seen him in his armour during the Avengers storyline - it provides a 
handy excuse to avoid making the time discrepancy too obvious.

			*	*	*

Kang War, etc.
Posted by Jeph! on November 29, 2001 at 20:58:23:
In Reply to: Re: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
posted by Paul O'Brien on November 29, 2001 at 15:39:20:

>(several very good points)

Good Lord.  I can't argue that.

I collect T-Bolts but not Avengers, so I have no basis to sit down 
and lay the books out side-by-side.  Here's all I know:

In T-Bolts #55, Fabian Nicieza made the mistake of having Wonder 
Man say something about the "business with Kang".  Fans on the 
message board jumped on that, saying that for several reasons the 
Kang War couldn't be over yet.  So two issues later, Fabe tossed 
in a Kang cameo to cement the theory that the board fans had 
espoused: that T-Bolts #55-59 all take place DURING the Kang War -- 
after his first attack (in which he destroyed the UN, I believe?) 
but before the all-out conquering began.

I personally don't know if this theory works.  I just know that the 
majority of fans on that board THINK it works.  Your mileage may 
vary.  But Kang's cameo seems to ask us to MAKE it work; otherwise 
we're left with a scenario in which Kang sits above the earth, 
thinking of his campaign soon to begin in the recent past, when if 
he looked down at that time he could see that it had already failed.

That didn't make sense, but I think you know what I mean.

There is one more piece of evidence that suggests there is a gap of 
a day or two just after Kang blows up the UN: in FFv3 #46, that event 
is referenced as having "just happened" on page one, yet the FF still 
have time to search for the Nullifier and repulse Abraxas (issues 
#46-49).  I know there isn't much crossover between books, but it 
looks like the FF go through a few days where they don't seem to be 
distracted by other considerations.  Such as Kang's assault upon the 
entire earth.

Of course, placing both T-Bolts #55-59 AND FFv3 #46-49 into this 
imaginary gap after Kang's initial assult (Av3 #42?) has other 
problems, as we clearly see a NON-pregnant Invisible Woman suspended 
by Graviton.  That would mean weaving T-Bolts #55-59 into not only 
the Kang War but the Abraxas saga.

Damn that Kang cameo!

I have no clear answer on this one.

Questions for you, Paul:

What evidence is there that Avengers: the Ultron Imperative takes 
place during the Kang War?

And, back on a WTC-note, could you explain to me why the "Underboss" 
story in Daredevil would affect the Kingpin being unable to be at the 
WTC site?  I don't read the book ... is he in jail?  Dead?  In any 
event, though, I agree that "DD" seems, by and large, to be relatively 
free-standing.

	-Jeph!

			*	*	*

Re: Kang War, etc.
Posted by Paul O'Brien on December 01, 2001 at 04:44:56:
In Reply to: Kang War, etc.
posted by Jeph! on November 29, 2001 at 20:58:23:

Caution - spoilers for the current Daredevil storyline...

> What evidence is there that Avengers: the Ultron Imperative takes 
place during the Kang War?

Well, fairly crucially, that's what the book itself says.  It's 
placed between Avengers #45-46.  You can't fudge it and place the 
story between pages of Avengers #45 because Captain America is 
bouncing around happily in A:UI, whereas in Avengers #45 he's 
still covered in bandages up to the end of the story (unless my 
memory is really playing tricks on me).

> And, back on a WTC-note, could you explain to me why the "Underboss" 
story in Daredevil would affect the Kingpin being unable to be at the 
WTC site?  I don't read the book ... is he in jail?  Dead?  

Killed on page one, in what's effectively a flash forward (almost 
all of the actual story is a "one week ago" flashback).

If the Kang appearance in Thunderbolts follows the Kang War then 
he doesn't necessarily have to be anticipating that particular 
attack - he could be coming back for a completely different scheme.  
That would actually be consistent with Iron Man #48 - which can't 
possibly take place during the Kang War - in which Iron Man contacts 
the Avengers to enlist their help against Ultron ((in a story 
expressly following Ultron Imperative) only to be told that they're 
all away ffighting Kang.  That has to be either a different attack 
or a rogue topical reference.

			*	*	*

Re: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
Posted by SKleefeld on December 05, 2001 at 13:52:46:
In Reply to: Re: Tacky Chronology Question about ASM#36 (spoilers)
posted by Paul O'Brien on November 29, 2001 at 15:39:20:

> Isn't there a more fundamental question as to whether this story 
is even intended to be in continuity at all?  To be honest, I'd been 
working on the assumption that it isn't.

I'm going to have to go with Paul on this one.

Problem 1: Way too many continuity gaffs to reconcile. As mentioned, 
Hawkeye's in jail, Magneto's paralyzed/dead (depending on when you 
try to place it), Dr. Doom is trying to re-conquer the Heroes Reborn 
world, and Kingpin is at least blind, maybe dead. Not to mention 
trying to squeeze things in and/or around the Kang, Abraxas, and 
Graviton stories.

Problem 2: Cyclops's eye beams are a concussive force. He could 
blast apart an i-beam, but he couldn't slice through it like a 
laser.

"Problem" 3: Page one of ASM 36 provides a disclaimer of sorts. I 
expect it was in deference to how we originally found out about the 
WTC disaster, but it also implies that the story itself is an 
interruption from continuity.

I don't think the story should be considered canon, and I don't 
think Straczinsky (sp?) wrote it keeping anything of the sort in 
mind.

- Sean

			*	*	*

Lockheed
Posted by mikeo' on November 30, 2001 at 16:55:19:

In the Lockheed apps, it lists Captain America 289 as a BTS app of 
the little critter. I went and got it, and there is no mention, hint 
or even drawing of the dragon anywhere in the issue. Should this be 
listed? Or am I just missing him in there somewhere? 

			*	*	*

To whom it concerns...
Posted by Dr Bruce Banner on November 30, 2001 at 21:51:09:

These are a few excerpts from the AOL Defenders board addressing 
Erik Larsen:

>>>Outside of Savage Dragon what else are you involved in now?<<<

Nothing-- and that's just the way I want it.

I'm pretty tired of trying to make sense of continuity that no 
longer makes sense.  It's just not fun for me any more...

...It's gotten to the point that I simply don't enjoy Marvel Comics 
any more as either a creator or a reader. Lingering health problems 
were not my only reason for excusing myself from the sandbox that I 
used to love to play in.  Seems the cats who are playing there now 
are using the box for other purposes and I'm sick of putting my hand 
in it.

<< You've always struck me as one who liked doing comics, something 
I can't say about everyone working at Marvel...<<

I can't say that they're not enjoying what they're doing-- I think 
they're having a lot of fun destroying everything that I liked about 
their characters.

---------
Just thought these might be of interest.

Dr Bruce Banner
