Now the Celestials are servants of the Fulcrum and it has been hinted that that is either an abstract which is below LT or the Bartender who has been hinted to be Jack Kirby so it hust depends which you subscribe to.
__________________
I'm not Joking, Boy
Ignore list: Abhi for the sake of the forum.
53>6.6
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GCAMfDmX86o
My YouTube
... even if it had been TOAA engaging withIN the story, at-least a 4th wall tone would be indicated,
but there wasn't any of this that I recall in the Fulcrum books.
The Fulcrum is obviously a powerful cosmic,
that's been around since the beginning of the current Marvel Universe. (after Galan's reality)
He was also monkey-wrenched into Celestial/Watcher/Horde history as their master, possibly creator.
Which is a twister since history tells us Eternity did this, and we still don't really know who exactly created the Celestials.
So imo, the Fulcrum is not TOAA. But another uber cosmic to add to the list.
If that was the off-panel intent, (toaa = fulcrum) ... they did a poor job of portraying it so imo.
__________________
Last edited by Mr Master on Jul 4th, 2014 at 07:06 PM
this page tells us that tiamut not only became equal to the fulcrum, but also became the most powerful celestial to ever exist in marvel: http://i.imgur.com/4uoOBkN.jpg
from that, one can deduce the following: fulcrum=evolved tiamut>scathan>LT.
__________________
Last edited by Galan007 on Jul 4th, 2014 at 07:24 PM
definitely wasn't retconned, as the tiamut/horde/fulcrum affair has been referenced in bios and whatnot. i prefer to assume the events simply took place retroactively(ie. at different points in time.)
__________________
Last edited by Galan007 on Jul 5th, 2014 at 05:24 PM
Apparently so. And Pak also extrapolated further upon Tiamut's presence in San Francisco, since it was his memories through which we saw the Celestials' multiverse-creation feat.
Either that or the Fulcrum incident happened after the Gillen's Uncanny run and Pak's Xtermination run.
What isn't disputable is that Tiamut has shown up more than once after that Eternals mini in which he ascended to become TOAA's lover. Kind of like what Franklin Richards is supposed to become w.r.t Galactus.
He has a fourth head at the back as well, which is represented by cosmic beings like the Stranger.
@Master: So Jack the Bartender doesn't ring as a Jack Kirby reference to you? Or the fact that the Fulcrum in its true form was given a blue visage of Jack Kirby? Imo you're trying too hard to reach around the fact that the Fulcrum was an obvious Kirby-avatar, which makes him TOAA by default.
Which should be logical, given the biblical vernacular in which Gaiman set the tone of the narrative, equating the Celestial host with the Angelic host and the Dreaming Celestial(Tiamut) with the Fallen Angel(Lucifer) and what not.
Fulcrum is TOAA avatar, he was also drawn that way... about Tiamut,... it was more about individuality, to have free will, to decide on his own, never equal to TOAA avatar literally power wise.
Still Fulcrum > LT > Tiamut
__________________
Last edited by Xplosive on Jul 5th, 2014 at 07:24 PM
correct. however, the only reason i brought up tiamut's OHOTMU entry in the first place is because it specifically references his 'ascension' with the fulcrum, which only serves to solidify/canonize existing on-panel events.
also, gillen's run didn't formally retcon anything...i don't know why that theory is even being thrown around. in the world of comics, events occur retroactively all the time--and that is clearly the case here.
__________________
Last edited by Galan007 on Jul 5th, 2014 at 07:52 PM
Gillen isn't the only one who wrote down the Dreaming Celestial still being present on Earth. Pak did so too. Coincidentally under whose pen Tiamut ended up dead.
I have proof in the form of the works of Pak and Gillen that Gaiman's Fulcrum scene was retconned. Either that or Tiamut never actually accepted the Fulcrum's proposition, since that too was never shown on-panel, merely mentioned in a handbook bio.
Either ways, I have the proof and the necessary forum stance on bios vs on-panel evidence to back my claims.
Let's say you're correct for the time being. Then that means that the thing which we've seen post-Eternals in San Francisco bay is nothing more than an empty husk of the Dreaming Celestial. Which shouldn't be possible, since Tiamut's memories from the creation of the multiverse were retrieved by Sage.
Writers ignore plot specifics from previous arcs all the time. As someone once said, "in the world of comics, events occur retroactively all the time--and that is clearly the case here".
That's not true. The Tribunal said that the Stranger could have been his fourth face but there's nothing there. Again, three faces and one head. It's pretty simple.
what are you trying to argue, exactly? that the events surrounding tiamut/fulcrum were retconned simply because tiamut was shown on earth in later comics? sorry, but that isn't a formal retcon by any stretch--that is simply a retroactive event. it happens all the time in comics. the aforementioned event being specifically referenced in later bioS only helps to concrete the notion that it is still regarded as canon.
your egotistical/smart-ass comments aside, i don't think you understand what i mean by 'formal retcon'. i think you're arguing just to argue(which is all you ever seem to do.)
__________________
Last edited by Galan007 on Jul 5th, 2014 at 08:17 PM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 4th, 2014 08:05 AM
