Beyonder vs LT

This is similar to what DC pulled in Trinity, when they referenced events from JLA/Avengers.

During a flashback scene in Trinity #7, Krona(as he appeared in the crossover) used the exact same dialogue he used in the crossover...
Krona: "NO! NO! No, you can't -- My power! Not while I still haven't--":
http://i.imgur.com/yfOfyGZ.jpg

Here's the exact same scene/dialogue from JLA/Avengers #4:
http://i.imgur.com/RKhuO1F.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oMirgO3.jpg

Furthermore, the scene from Trinity also makes an indirect-yet-direct reference to the Avengers being present:
"He was so close--and then torn from the universe again, ripped apart--The League was there, The League AND OTHERS--":
http://i.imgur.com/yoJjZ1T.jpg

See? Even DC has mentioned the events of a crossover between the companies, without directly infringing on any copyright laws.

_______________

Here's another example from Superman v2 #50...

Mxy: "Here I am, having fun with my Fantastic new friends...":
http://i.imgur.com/XkUtE9m.jpg

Mxy: "Okay... Now that that's done... Back to my Four new friends."
Then, just before assuming a form very similar to Impossible Man, Mxy states: "Oops! Almost forgot... Sometimes it's just Impossible to remember what I look like from world to world!":
http://i.imgur.com/8SCZLoR.jpg

So yeah, Mxy was shown clearly impersonating Impossible Man, and clearly heckling a version of the F4. But again, DC only made a few indirect-yet-direct references to Marvel, as to not infringe on any copyright laws.

There are other examples, but you get the point. Were any characters/names from other companies specifically mentioned? No, that would have ended up with litigation. However, we as readers don't need explicit character references to still know what is going on.

pretty much what i was saying.... [chrug]

but i see his MAIN point--i suppose you could read into it that lt seems to be the one who was intended to have created/fashioned the brothers. guess i never looked at it from that point. it is....puzzling. but the whole brothers fiasco is itself a clusterphuck of epic, omniversal proportions......

@Galan 👆 ... No, no that can't be, becauce, because ... lol.

Why'd you wait so long to post that, it could've ended things pages ago. 😠

Originally posted by Mr Master
@Galan 👆 ... No, no that can't be, becauce, because ... lol.

Why'd you wait so long to post that, it could've ended things pages ago. 😠

Because there is a difference. In one events are mentioned in the other altered. You can mention something indirectly, but a company has no legal point to change said events by itself. Or else we might as well say that Pre rect Beyonder is officially Mxy, according to DC implications.

He held two fictive companies in his hand, if you want to be exact, and one isn't DC.

Originally posted by leonidas

but i see his MAIN point--i suppose you could read into it that lt seems to be the one who was intended to have created/fashioned the brothers. guess i never looked at it from that point. it is....puzzling.

"The Brothers are thus intermediary in power and authority between the Living Tribunal and Eternity
(or their comparable counterparts in the DC Megaverse).
However, each Brother tends has some authority
and control over universes outside the standard Multiverse, but within the Megaverse,
while the Living Tribunal has not been shown to have authority over worlds outside the Multiverse.

Notice how the Brothers have more jurisdiction than the LT, but the LT is still above them.

The only writer that once said the LT operates in other multiverses was Kaminski in FFAnnual#23,
this is the same guy who had Kubik state: "Celestials are several magnitutes above us' ...

Just sayin.

Originally posted by leonidas

but the whole brothers fiasco is itself a clusterphuck of epic, omniversal proportions......

I know what happened, but I don't know why it was portrayed.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe

Because there is a difference. In one events are mentioned in the other altered. You can mention something indirectly, but a company has no legal point to change said events by itself. Or else we might as well say that Pre rect Beyonder is officially Mxy, according to DC implications.

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe

He held two fictive companies in his hand

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
Because there is a difference. In one events are mentioned in the other altered. You can mention something indirectly, but a company has no legal point to change said events by itself. Or else we might as well say that Pre rect Beyonder is officially Mxy, according to DC implications.

In the DC/Marvel crossover, the Blue Brother represented DC, while the Red Brother represented Marvel. Given that the Blue Brother was essentially a DC character, you're saying that Marvel doesn't have the legal or canonical authority to alter/retcon him into something else? If so, I agree. If not, then I have no clue what you're getting at.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Good lord, even after Galan's scans you're still coming back with explanations?

Whatever.

His explanations don't contradict what I said.

So you agree it isn't DC, but well you already did some pages ago.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Jeff pointed out that while the Brothers may be Megaverses,
they are still below the LT, but above Eternity,
and the same goes for DC's counterparts of the LT and Eternity:

"The Brothers are thus intermediary in power and authority between the Living Tribunal and Eternity
(or their comparable counterparts in the DC Megaverse).
However, each Brother tends has some authority
and control over universes outside the standard Multiverse, but within the Megaverse,
while the Living Tribunal has not been shown to have authority over worlds outside the Multiverse.
Notice how the Brothers have more jurisdiction than the LT, but the LT is still above them.

The only writer that once said the LT operates in other multiverses was Kaminski in FFAnnual#23,
this is the same guy who had Kubik state: "Celestials are several magnitutes above us' ...

Just sayin.

👆 ... The whole depiction in the X-Men book is really senseless.

I know what happened, but I don't know why it was portrayed.

ok, but that doesn't really address the main point which seems to revolve around the revelation that lt "fashioned" the brothers. now, as i said, i sort of always just assumed that lt AND spectre were in cahoots (in this retcon) and were BOTH responsible for the creating the brothers and for their following whatever crptic 'predestiny' the bros seemed to have. but it is very unclear.

it really is an incredibly clumsy and confusing scene. i really don't have an answer for it other than supposition of my own.... [chrug]

Originally posted by Galan007
I think I see what you're saying...

In the DC/Marvel crossover, the Blue Brother represented DC, while the Red Brother represented Marvel. Given that the Blue Brother was essentially a DC character, you're saying that Marvel doesn't have the legal or canonical authority to alter/retcon him into something else? If so, I agree. If not, then I have no clue what you're getting at.

👆 That's exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by Galan007
I think I see what you're saying...

In the DC/Marvel crossover, the Blue Brother represented DC, while the Red Brother represented Marvel. Given that the Blue Brother was essentially a DC character, you're saying that Marvel doesn't have the legal or canonical authority to alter/retcon him into something else? If so, I agree. If not, then I have no clue what you're getting at.

that's what i get from it as well. and the fact that lt is said to be the one responsible for creating/fashioning them, which seems.... 😑

an analogous scene in some random book showing spectre doing the same thing would have been an ideal way to handle this and end the confusion...

to add to that--the allusion is crystal clear and seems to be supported by dc in the sense that carlin had a hand in the book. seriously, just....one of the dumbest scenes in the history of comics.

^^ 👆

Originally posted by Galan007
I think I see what you're saying...

In the DC/Marvel crossover, the Blue Brother represented DC, while the Red Brother represented Marvel. Given that the Blue Brother was essentially a DC character, you're saying that Marvel doesn't have the legal or canonical authority to alter/retcon him into something else? If so, I agree. If not, then I have no clue what you're getting at.

I don't even know what was the point of them doing this tbh but there's no doubt DC was in compliance.

Because Mike Carlin (DC's Executive Editor at the time) co-wrote the story.

I posted these facts already I'm sure you know. His name on panel and all that.

Originally posted by leonidas

ok, but that doesn't really address the main point which seems to revolve around the revelation that lt "fashioned" the brothers. now, as i said, i sort of always just assumed that lt AND spectre were in cahoots (in this retcon) and were BOTH responsible for the creating the brothers and for their following whatever crptic 'predestiny' the bros seemed to have. but it is very unclear.

So, it does signify some equality between them.

It was a Marvel book so LT's gonna get the most play of course though.

Originally posted by leonidas

it really is an incredibly clumsy and confusing scene.
i really don't have an answer for it other than supposition of my own.... [chrug]

i wonder--since the bros were both shared, could there be something different regarding their use--legally i mean? shrug

Originally posted by Mr Master
Galan friend remember, this isn't just some character picked from DC,
it's a character that was shared by both companies in a story: DC vs Marvel.

Perhaps Marvel came out of that Amalgam-universe mess with the rights to both Brothers..? Dunno. If not, they *shouldn't* have the authority to legally/canonically retcon what the Blue Brother represented within DC. /chrug

Originally posted by leonidas
i wonder--since the bros were both shared, could there be something different regarding their use--legally i mean?

Originally posted by Galan007

The Blue Brother still embodied the DCU exclusively, though, and as such, was solely a DC character... He was no different then, say, Superman in that regard.

Perhaps Marvel came out of that Amalgam-universe mess with the rights to both Brothers..? Dunno. If not, they *shouldn't* have the authority to legally/canonically retcon what the Blue Brother represented within DC. /chrug

Don't get me wrong, that's equally 🤨 ...

Look, even if we disregard that being DC, we still have the LT holding Two comic book lines.

So, what's that all about? And if it's not DC, then who/what is it?

Because we can all agree without a shadow of a doubt that's what the writer of the bio conveyed.
1 Megaverse = one company as in Marvel. Yet, there are Two in his hand. hm

Originally posted by Mr Master
Interesting observation.

Oh I agree with you good friend. I don't believe they chaged either Brother though.
It seems they changed how LT and Spectre stand next to them.

Don't get me wrong, that's equally 🤨 ...

Look, even if we disregard that being DC, we still have the LT holding Two comic book lines.

So, what's that all about? And if it's not DC, then who/what is it?

Because we can all agree without a shadow of a doubt that's what the writer of the bio conveyed.
1 Megaverse = one company as in Marvel. Yet, there are Two in his hand. hm

Ultimately it doesn't matter what a writer who loaned advice to the Marvel writer wanted to portray, the fact of the matter is that the blue brother held by the LT in a exclusively marvel comic was not DC.

It would mean that the DC company was at the mercy of a marvel writer, which it never was.

Originally posted by Board Walker
Ultimately it doesn't matter what a writer who loaned advice to the Marvel writer wanted to portray, the fact of the matter is that the blue brother held by the LT in a exclusively marvel comic was not DC.

It would mean that the DC company was at the mercy of a marvel writer, which it never was.

👆

i think everyone realizes that at this point and i'm not sure anyone ever really disputed the LEGAL aspect of that particular truth. the complication arises from the crystal clear intent imo, and the dc collaboration, such that it was. so, while it was obviously never overtly mentioned as dc or the spectre, the allusion is as clear as could be. to me though, the much more interesting part is the fact that, with dc involvement, it appears to have been ok to suggest lt started the whole mess. unless we assume spectre ALSO had a hand in setting things in motion, the whole thing is just 😑 i'd have loved to be in the room with all of them when they came up with this idea....

Originally posted by leonidas
i think everyone realizes that at this point and i'm not sure anyone ever really disputed the LEGAL aspect of that particular truth. the complication arises from the crystal clear intent imo, and the dc collaboration, such that it was. so, while it was obviously never overtly mentioned as dc or the spectre, the allusion is as clear as could be. to me though, the much more interesting part is the fact that, with dc involvement, it appears to have been ok to suggest lt started the whole mess. unless we assume spectre ALSO had a hand in setting things in motion, the whole thing is just 😑 i'd have loved to be in the room with all of them when they came up with this idea....

Most likely they didn't though it through or considered it valid but did it for the lulz of the readers.