I had this saved:
--------------------------------------------------
The "Fulcrum," ... there's a Celestial that is, ... his equal:
"You are no longer my device ... you have proven a power equal to my own"
That would be Taimut!
--------------------------------------------------
While mighty Galactus is just a silly drawing on a piece of paper to the real "One Above All."
(heck, Reality itself is just artwork as well)
just sayin.
... 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.
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. 🙂
Originally posted by Galan007Thanks for clearing this all up.
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.jpgfrom that, one can deduce the following: fulcrum=evolved tiamut>scathan>LT. 🙂
I would like to formally congratulate you on winning this thread.
Originally posted by Galan007
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.jpgfrom that, one can deduce the following: fulcrum=evolved tiamut>scathan>LT. 🙂
Originally posted by Mindsetty. couldn't have done it w/o your help. 👆
Thanks for clearing this all up.I would like to formally congratulate you on winning this thread.
Originally posted by zopzopdefinitely 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.)
Didn't Gillen retcon this? I mean Tiamut was still in San Fran during that X-men arc.
Originally posted by zopzop
Didn't Gillen retcon this? I mean Tiamut was still in San Fran during that X-men arc.
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.
@Galan: On-panel stuff automatically overrides handbook bios.
Originally posted by Dampyre
The Tribunal has one head with 3 faces.
@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.
Originally posted by Epicuruscorrect. 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. 👆
@Galan: On-panel stuff automatically overrides handbook bios.
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. 🙂
Originally posted by Galan007
handbooks do, however, help solidify established on-panel fact--which is the only reason i brought up tiamut's OHOTMU entry in the first place: it specifically references his 'ascension' with the fulcrum, which further solidifies/canonizes the final volume of eternals. 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.🙂
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.
Originally posted by Galan007
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. 👆
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". 😉
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.)
