Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by Galan007
As mentioned, I am just talking about a versus setting here -- hierarchical relevance/significance is another discussion entirely. Galactus, for example, is also extremely cosmologically significant, but this does not preclude the notion that he can still be beaten by forces that are not as cosmologically relevant as himself.

That said, the heavy/overt implication is that in a versus setting, Franklin would have been unable to defeat three Mad Celestials by himself:
https://ibb.co/DpvB3V8
https://ibb.co/1ZCmvsJ

Do you think a competent IG-wielder would have a problem handling three Celestials? I don't. Heck, even in Hickman's run, we saw an alternate Reed momentarily tap into the power of an IG, which he then used to one-shot [at least] three Mad Celestials simultaneously:
https://ibb.co/c6DFksg
https://ibb.co/tJkmF6L

That showing alone puts the IG above Franklin by a considerable degree, imo(again, in a versus/battleboard capacity.)

Preach!

Thing is, even though me and you are essentially making the very same points regarding the difference between role/significance and power (which he's conflating) and the explicitly demonstrated parity of power with Galactus displayed against a common point of comparison (the Mad Celestials) and an inferior showing in comparison to what the IG was doing to Celestials he'll accept this from you. However his bias against me, means he'll overlook and refuse to acknowledge entirely valid points which he'll readily accept from others, thus compromising the integrity of his contribution.

To sum things up, Franklin has great importance to the future of creation.

In a possible future, he was shown to be the next Galactus i.e to merge with sentience of the universe, to survive the end of this current reality and be reborn into the 9th cosmos in Galactus' current role:

https://imgur.com/XpeVaUU

An important role, but one that has been embellished and exaggerated beyond what it is:

Originally posted by ODG
Indeed, Al Ewing paints him as the lynchpin to the rebirth of the entire Marvel Multiverse's Ninth Cosmos' iteration.

This just isnt true. Galactus was no lynchpin for the creation of the 7th or 8th Cosmos and given that whats stated explicitly is that Franklin would be assuming Galactus' role, why would it be different for Franklin?

Furthermore, the fact that Mr Immortal, a being of no significant power was lined up as a backup for Franklin demonstrates:

1) That the transition isnt guaranteed (As we saw in Immortal Hulk where the Hulk actually killed Franklin)

2) That Franklin isnt essential to the process:

https://imgur.com/7zQvtgG

If Franklin and who he is and what his powers are, isnt essential to the process and his part in the process hasnt happened yet and isnt a guarantee, then how can said role be used to elevate Franklin within a current power hierarchy?

Its both illogical and inconsistent with how other characters are being evaluated.

Why not ignore Galactus' on panel showings and elevate him purely because of his role? The same role Franklins elevation is based on?

Not trying to be offensive, or cause a war of words, just trying to bring to light the flaws in this current approach and perspective.

The IG:

https://imgur.com/OrypdF9

https://imgur.com/ZHy919Q

https://imgur.com/hjJ83XB

https://imgbb.com/tJkmF6L

Franklin

https://ibb.co/1ZCmvsJ

https://imgur.com/eatOpGV

https://imgur.com/8A15fy5

Galactus currently occupying the role Franklin could possibly have in the next multiverse:

https://imgur.com/zJOMFQs

https://imgur.com/PKiv5xy

https://imgur.com/tuJebGS

Originally posted by ODG
I wouldn't be surprised if the Infinity Gauntlet shattered when trying to defeat the multiversally relevant Adult Franklin Richards. The Infinity Gauntlet shattered stopping a single Incursion.

Like it did when it manhandled Galactus in Infinity Gauntlet?

I think where youre getting confused, is in ignoring the fact that a universal Big Bang is the springboard for the subsequent multiverse. The multiverse isnt created all at once. It develops from that initial, single reality. However in assessing Franklins significance, youre looking at the end result (the multiverse) and trying to apply that future outcome to what you think he did at the start (triggering the Big Bang)

What youre also doing is conflating roles and getting confused on what he would actually be doing at the start of the 9th Cosmos. Based on Ewings words, Franklin isnt initiating a Big Bang, or having anything to do with the creation of the 9th Cosmos, he'd just be merging with Eternity to survive into the 9th Cosmos with said merger transforming him into Galactus.

Galactus in some possible futures has been said to be devouring planets in order to store life energy to be the Big Bang for the next cosmos, transforming his successor in the process:

https://imgur.com/NeAZ8Ls

https://imgur.com/h0almyg

https://imgur.com/XpEvyjg

So i think maybe you were assigning that follow up role to Franklin prematurely, before he had even fulfilled duties as a Galactus.

Either way....Power and role are not the same.

Power and future possible role should definitely not be mentioned in the same sentence.

Originally posted by cdtm
UT above LT wtf? 😆

Im with you on this one to be fair.

Fantastic Four #49 where the UN reset the multiverse is quite ambiguous in how exactly this happened:

https://imgur.com/vaStOHC

https://imgur.com/IHSh1xs

https://imgur.com/T7iGpvK

Reading this there are many ways to interpret this scene.

1) Reed used the Nullifier and directly reset the entire multiverse

2) Reed reset the prime reality which had a knock on effect of resetting its divergent realities.

3) Reed nullified Abraxas which had the additional effect of undoing all he did and given his nature as a core part of reality it also reset reality.

Argument for and against point 1 - Its the simplest interpretation to gain from the scene. Reeds comment "In order to align all that is, we needed to end all that was." On a superficial level that aligns nicely with the visual representation. The problem though is that the UN has never before or after displayed this level of power. Its featured multiple times in Fantastic Four since and is always indicated to have universal capacity. Furthermore nowhere before or after this incident has the UN directly reset its target. Any resetting has been a knock on effect on other things the target has been connected with. In continuity the target has always been nullified, not reset.

Argument for and against point 2 - This aligns with the visual depiction and can also be argued to align with Reeds comment given the prime reality is the source of all that is. Furthermore resetting the wider multiverse by directly targeting the prime reality is more in line with the UN's established power levels both before and after this incident. As for why this doesnt add up, just like with point 1, the UN has never reset its direct target, only ever nullified it, which calls into question whether the reality was the direct target. If it was the direct target, then established continuity would suggest reality wouldve been nullified to non-existence.

Argument for and against point 3 - Destroying an Abstract is within the established capacity for the UN. Furthermore Silver Surfer stated not too long ago in Fantastic Four v6 #28 that using the UN to remove an Abstract from reality would likely result in reality becoming undone:

https://imgur.com/wXHqMZD

which ties into this image:

https://imgur.com/IHSh1xs

Then there are multiple handbooks which give us the official line to take when interpreting that scene:

https://imgur.com/DM3v1aN

Whilst Handbooks are somewhat looked down on in this forum, they are still an official source of canonical information and are a useful source when it comes to knowing how to interpret ambiguous scenes. Handbooks can only really be dismissed on a case by case basis. For example if theres something explicitly stated and shown on panel, but the Handbook says something else entirely, then the comic would take precedence as a source of canon. But thats not the case here. We have an ambiguous scene, with multiple ways to interpret it and the Handbooks have given us the official line to take. Also how would nullifying reality itself reset reality and somehow leave out Abraxas when he is a fundamental part of reality? Surely Abraxas would need to be targeted specifically?

As for arguments against point 3, it could be argued that this doesnt tie in as nicely with Reeds comment "In order to align all that is, we needed to end all that was." But then it could be argued that all that was (which is an ambiguous reference in itself) could be a reference to Reed surmising (just like the Surfer later did) that ending a fundamental concept would have knock on effects to wider reality.

Then theres the recent revelation that the UN was created by Watchers specifically to end the universal threat of the Reckoning:

https://imgur.com/XIiSIXn

It was designed to counter universal threats.

With all this in mind, i dont think we can say that the UN directly reset the multiverse. Not given its established capacity before and after this incident and the handbook summary.

The UN nullified Abraxas directly, which due to his nature as a fundamental part of reality had the knock on effect of realigning/resetting reality and the damage he did to it.

Reed was able to reset the Multiverse because he met Multi-Eternity in one of the tie-ins (I think it was the annual) so he was able to mentally target him.

Originally posted by Astner
Reed was able to reset the Multiverse because he met Multi-Eternity in one of the tie-ins (I think it was the annual) so he was able to mentally target him.

Thatd be supposition on your part as nowhere is that stated or even suggested in the scene in question.

We gotta consistently base our evaluations on a stronger evidence base, otherwise debates and discussions would be a fanboy riddled mess where anything goes.

Plus i addressed the possibility of Reed using the UN directly on Multi-Eternity in point 1 of my breakdown if you look back and it doesnt add up for the various reasons i outlined.

So if you really believe he did use it directly on Multi-Eternity, then think of any conclusive evidence you have that can counter the things raised in point 1 of my previous post.

Plus on top of that theres the Handbook to contend with. Handbooks cant be dismissed as evidence, theyre official sources that reiterate the canon of the comics. So as i said in that previous post, this comes in handy with ambiguous comic scenes as we then find out the official line to take and what we have to accept as fans.

The only time we can dismiss Handbooks is if something is explicitly stated or demonstrated in the comics and the Handbooks give a contrary account.

But as i laid out in my post that wouldnt apply here as the scene is ambiguous. It doesnt state "Reed used the UN on Multi Eternity and restored reality" for example.

So the scene leaves it open to interpretation about whether he used it directly on Multi Eternity, used it on Eternity which had the subsequent effect of restoring the affected divergent Earths, or if he used it on Abraxas.

Originally posted by Galan007
As mentioned, I am just talking about a versus setting here -- hierarchical relevance/significance is another discussion entirely. Galactus, for example, is also extremely cosmologically significant, but this does not preclude the notion that he can still be beaten by forces that are not as cosmologically relevant as himself.

That said, the heavy/overt implication is that in a versus setting, Franklin would have been unable to defeat three Mad Celestials by himself:
https://ibb.co/DpvB3V8
https://ibb.co/1ZCmvsJ

Do you think a competent IG-wielder would have a problem handling three Celestials? I don't. Heck, even in Hickman's run, we saw an alternate Reed momentarily tap into the power of an IG, which he then used to one-shot [at least] three Mad Celestials simultaneously:
https://ibb.co/c6DFksg
https://ibb.co/tJkmF6L

That showing alone puts the IG above Franklin by a considerable degree, imo(again, in a versus/battleboard capacity.)

Then theres this reference:

https://imgur.com/5VJOIQO

This is from the History of the Marvel Universe comic. It confirms what i said previously, Franklin combined powers with Galactus to achieve what he clearly could not do alone.

He didnt raise him up as a subordinate. He revived the unconscious Galactus and with their collective power took down the Mad Celestials.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Thatd be supposition on your part as nowhere is that stated or even suggested in the scene in question.

Originally posted by Astner
It's even worse, it's from memory. But that's how I made sense of the story back in the day.

Lol at least youre honest mate. Respect for that 😆

https://imgur.com/KQppsX4

This was the scene youre talking about im guessing?

Yes, that's the one. I think I've posted the context for my position at some point, but I can't find it so it was probably in the General Discussion thread before it was deleted. Either way it would've made Reed's encounter with Multi-Eternity superfluous it wasn't the case.

The idea that it was used on Abraxas and that in turn caused the reset of the multiverses seems like a stretch, especially since it relies on cross-referencing. But you're correct in that the handbook does say it was aimed at Abraxas.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes, that's the one. I think I've posted the context for my position at some point, but I can't find it so it was probably in the General Discussion thread before it was deleted. Either way it would've made Reed's encounter with Multi-Eternity superfluous it wasn't the case.

The idea that it was used on Abraxas and that in turn caused the reset of the multiverses seems like a stretch, especially since it relies on cross-referencing. But you're correct in that the handbook does say it was aimed at Abraxas.

When you say it relies on cross referencing, what do you mean?

If you think about it, the UN being used on Eternity to reset the multiverse is more of a stretch. Why? The UN is just a tool of destruction. Thats what it was designed for, thats all it does. Nullifies the target out of existence. Thats established in continuity both before and after the Abraxas incident.

But Eternity wasnt nullified, indicating that he wasnt the target. The multiversal cycles involve the same matter and energy being recycled again and again for each new cosmos, its just the sentience that changes each new cycle.

So if Multi-Eternity was nullified, where would the new matter come from? What power collected it and organised it into the previous Multi-Eternity except for the fact that Abraxas was no longer present along with the damage he caused? Thats what id call a stretch. Especially when the UN is just a tool of destruction.

Whats more logical is that Abraxas was nullified and as he is part of the fundamental make up of reality, this caused reality to realign in response. Thats in line with what the UN is established as being able to do (just destroy things.) Plus Abraxas' absence in the reset multiverse then makes sense.

"In order to realign what is, i had to destroy what was." Abraxas is the "what was" Reed was talking about.

Cross-referencing is when you use unrelated stories to either enforce or discredit an interpretation of a story. It isn't necessarily bad, but it's usually less reliable when trying to form a coherent interpretation of what happened in a scene.

That said, we do see Multi-Eternity shatter.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that what you're saying feels wrong according to what I remember. I'd have to reread the Abraxas mini-arc to address it properly.

Originally posted by Astner
Cross-referencing is when you use unrelated stories to either enforce or discredit an interpretation of a story. It isn't necessarily bad, but it's usually less reliable when trying to form a coherent interpretation of what happened in a scene.

That said, we do see Multi-Eternity shatter.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that what you're saying feels wrong according to what I remember. I'd have to reread the Abraxas mini-arc to address it properly.

I hear that and i def get that perspective. But we are dealing with a shared universe and more importantly a continuity that has never been rebooted. So whilst later stories might not necessarily reflect a past writers original intentions at the time, if they offer explanations or present facts that can change or shed light on our understanding of past stories then id argue its valid evidence. If this was DC with its multiple reboots then that'd be a whole different story lol. Also if the different stories are written around the same timeframe then that'd make cross referencing even more viable as evidence as the writers dont work in isolation. They generally have to have an awareness of whats going on in other books with characters/artifacts shared between different titles. Theres also an overarching editor to at the very least feed into consistency.

Also the Abraxas explanation doesnt rely on cross referencing per se. The UN being simply a tool of destruction was a long established canonical fact when that Fantastic Four story was written. The comic didnt conclusively assign it any additional abilities to explain the discrepancy there'd be if it did directly reset nullify and then recreate Eternity. Just makes more sense that it removed Abraxas from the equation which would be in line with its established abilities and it would explain his absence after the UN was used.

The story arc itself highlighted Abraxas as a fundamental part of Eternity thats always existed:

https://imgur.com/a18nhEW

Therefore an explanation for why removing Abraxas would resultantly realign Eternity's being is offered by the same title, which wouldnt be a cross reference.

But then on the other hand you have Reed thinking the UN actually is capable of destroying the multiverse:

https://imgur.com/kX4cLDt

But then we have the ambiguous scene in question which doesnt conclusively show that he did use it directly on the multiverse.

The points i mentioned previously as to why him doing so wouldnt explain the outcome we received i.e a reset multiverse with no Abraxas present.

And the fact that the Handbook tells us that he used it on Abraxas directly.

So despite what feels most right or wrong to us, we cant discount an official take on an ambiguous comic book scene. The UN was used on Abraxas is the official line.

As for placement in a hierarchy. Reed saying in that one story he thought the UN could destroy the multiverse was an outlier in established continuity before and after the incident.

In the recent Reckoning War, the UN was spoke about in universal terms and was stated to be designed by the Watchers to address universal threats:

https://imgur.com/XIiSIXn

and we've never seen a conclusive showing of it destroying a multiverse, unlike something like the M'kraan crystal or the Beyonders.

Id place it above the universal Abstracts but below the IG.

I've gone back and forth with this over the years, but the odd thing to me about the UN/Abraxas showing has always been the "reboot" effect that it had. In every other showing(both before and after that), the UN has only been described as a weapon of pure destruction; never creation.

IOW, if Multi-Eternity(ie. the multiverse-proper) had indeed been the UN's primary target, then why was he/it instantly restored afterward, instead of being permanently eradicated from existence?

Conversely, if Abraxas himself was the primary target of the UN's nullification, then I suppose that could have potentially caused a subsequent reboot effect: ie. Abraxas(Multi-Eternity's antithesis) is destroyed, Multi-Eternity is effectively altered at a fundamental level, and the cosmos automatically realigns itself a corollary.

But yeah, can't say for sure. It is a rather ambiguous scene.

Originally posted by Galan007
I've gone back and forth with this over the years, but the odd thing to me about the UN/Abraxas showing has always been the "reboot" effect that it had. In every other showing(both before and after that), the UN has only been described as a weapon of pure destruction; never creation.

IOW, if Multi-Eternity(ie. the multiverse-proper) had indeed been the UN's primary target, then why was he/it instantly restored afterward, instead of being permanently eradicated from existence?

Conversely, if Abraxas himself was the primary target of the UN's nullification, then I suppose that could have potentially caused a subsequent reboot effect: ie. Abraxas(Multi-Eternity's antithesis) is destroyed, Multi-Eternity is effectively altered at a fundamental level, and the cosmos automatically realigns itself a corollary.

But yeah, can't say for sure. It is a rather ambiguous scene.

Originally posted by Galan007
I've gone back and forth with this over the years, but the odd thing to me about the UN/Abraxas showing has always been the "reboot" effect that it had. In every other showing(both before and after that), the UN has only been described as a weapon of pure destruction; never creation.

IOW, if Multi-Eternity(ie. the multiverse-proper) had indeed been the UN's primary target, then why was he/it instantly restored afterward, instead of being permanently eradicated from existence?

Conversely, if Abraxas himself was the primary target of the UN's nullification, then I suppose that could have potentially caused a subsequent reboot effect: ie. Abraxas(Multi-Eternity's antithesis) is destroyed, Multi-Eternity is effectively altered at a fundamental level, and the cosmos automatically realigns itself a corollary.

But yeah, can't say for sure. It is a rather ambiguous scene.

🤘

One of the biggest missed opportunities;

Deaths Head and his detachable melee weapons meets Primes axe.

The two never even met, would have been a perfect time to dig out the iconic axe if they had.

Some of these feats seem really OP... Even for Vader:

Power creep is real. The original Vader from Ep 4-6 could TK just a few boxes.