Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Hall (comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy

[edit]

Is he ever referred to as "Daniel Hall"? —Paul A 05:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. -mhr 05:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure the 'police' reference it at least once. Kusonaga 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the statement claiming that Daniel hardly ever changes his robes. There are two main reasons for why we see him in his first set of clothing. 1) Illustrators who draw him outside of Sandman continuity are often too scared to draw him in anything else; 2) he has almost always appeared to characters of a Twenty-First Century, Western Environment, and so has never had to adjust his robe for them. I recall that he has changed his outfit on occasion when he entered the DC Universe - adopting a Trenchcoat and Hat after the story 'The Conqueror' and a loose white robe when he spirited his Original Mother and Father away to the Dreaming.

Editing of article

[edit]

I have edited the article and hopefully improved it. I think the notice can be removed unless the editing is deeemed unsatisfactory. Zuracech lordum 16:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Daniel Hall

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be another notable Daniel Hall (In fact, that page just redirects here.), so I suggest we move this article.--209.243.31.233 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article.

[edit]

This really needs work. The style is a little confused and, most significantly, Dream (white version) is categorically not Daniel Hall. The character specifically states this in issue #73. This article should,IMHO, concentrate on the infant Daniel. The "second incarnation of Dream" material belongs in the main Dream article.Sceptic-all 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream claims not to be Daniel Hall, but the Furies tell him that the burning was not successful and something human remains in him. Since neither Dream/Daniel nor the Furies/Lyta are omniscient, it is ambiguous.--VAcharon 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]