This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
On Miracleman v Marvelman I personally think current identity, worldwide notability and the critical standing of the revival are unignorable factors. A bit like the Miller publishing model there's not been many (any?) precedents like it as far as I can see (though no-one calls Robot Archie by the Jungle Robot name). While the character's original name is naturally of great importance it's inescapable that the renamed version has a higher international profile in any quantifiable metric, and we're rapidly approaching a tipping point where it's been Miracleman longer than Marvelman to boot. Miracleman's done everything Marvelman's done, whereas Marvelman hasn't done everything Miracleman's done, if that makes sense. Thus for, say, character articles the current ongoing versions should be primary IMO, as long as we include the right clarifications.
As an aside to the above, taking Marvel's ownership as a whole it's hard to escape the conclusion that all pronouncements to the contrary between 1993 and 2013, they always planned to republish as Miracleman, and that use of Marvelman was partly to secure that trademark as well (with the Gower reprints effectively being an ashcan once their limited commercial appeal was exhausted), and partly as negotiations over the Miracleman trademark (which was of course separate from Anglo's affairs) were presumably ongoing, and as such showing Marvel had the rights to Marvelman and publicly announcing they were happy to continue the story as such were in effect a negotiating tactic to weaken any potential rival claimants to the Miracleman trademark. It makes a certain amount of sense commercially as well, as Marvel already have Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Blue Marvel etc, Miracleman being more distinctive. Had Marvel for whatever reason been unable to secure the Miracleman trademark the character probably would have retained the Marvelman name, but this didn't happen. However, with the potential money involved in any Marvel character these days through films, Funko Pops and so on, I don't think we'll get any more clarity on this in our lifetimes and naturally as such this is just speculation.
Stylistically some of them are a bit wall-of-texty; would it acceptable to break them up a little where appropriate with pictures of the likes of Moore, Gaiman etc from their own articles, Commons etc or is that not the done thing?
At what point did Guntag Barghelt become Guntag Borghelm? He's Barghelt in MM65. Sadly my only reference for YM's origin is the relettered Eclipse version, and vintage references to Guntag are very sparse afterwards... was the name retconned or simply misremembered for the revival? Again it would be a fun little fact to work in if anyone knows.
Firebug, was he a real MM villain? I know Leach designed two of the guys in the frame with Young Nastyman but I'm not sure on this chap, and he does get a call-out in the text...
On the ownership as said obviously the various legal issues associated with the title need coverage as it's a notable feature of the title, mentioned by many notable sources and is thus sadly hard to ignore. However I feel we need to absolutely hammer home that all the internet detectiving, "shares", Gaiman v McFarlane etc. was a completely pointless false trail, bald men fighting over someone else's comb even though we all like Neil more than Todd. My reasoning behind having a separate Ownership article is to keep the misconceptions and irrelevant reprinting away from the neglected coverage of the material itself, while also serving as a necessary lightning rod for the associated fanboy bitchiness and squabbling.
Eclipse Miracleman 8 seems to be the source of weirdness to some degree. Fill-in issues were obviously more common in the eighties among the majors but Eclipse seem to have pioneered the creator-owned template of issues shipping when they were ready regardless of whatever nominal schedule they followed. It would be great to know a) why Eclipse put out the issue and b) never tried it again every other time the book's schedule dropped off the face of the Earth. Negative reader reaction? Poor sales? Moore kicking off? There seems to be some confusion as to what SHOULD have been in 8 as well; theoretically it should have been the birth issue but Austen has said he never saw the script for it and Yronwode has specifically noted giving Veitch the reference material, not Chuck. But if Chuck didn't try to draw it there shouldn't have been any MM material to be lost in the flood (which is historically attested) at Eclipse's office.
The Yesterday Gambit stuff is so strange; Moore almost seems to go out of his way to reference it (to the extent where Huey and Silence almost seem to be created so the story makes sense) but by then the decision had surely been made to skip reprinting it...? It's odd that Eclipse never used it as a backup considering some of the mad crap they threw out in the title, and the only possible reason seems to be Moore vetoing it...Fornicate me though it's unsettling how so much of the story, including what little we know about the Dark Age, still more or less fits with the Warrior Universe chronology. Without wanting to fanboy, what an imagination.
The Eclipse era really seems to be a period where almost everyone involved fell out with everyone else and a lot of dull bitchery happened. A lot of this is sadly intertwined with the series' publication and even content and thus is hard to avoid mentioning but I've done what I can to centralise that article on the series itself and cover the he said-she said on the Ownership page. I have tried to do so in a balanced way, which is tricky when several creators flag issues with the publisher and only Yronwode is really there as a counter. It's obviously a bit damning that a bunch of people who hate each other unanimously agree they were stiffed by Eclipse but balance should be maintained until someone is sued over it.
I half remember reading somewhere that at least the first issue of Triumphant was going to centre on British Bulldog/Big Ben but I can't recall where, and the pages out there don't mean much out of context. Be a fun thing to add.
I can't really find anything about the mechanics and/or canonicity of Total Eclipse. I mean presumably at the time Gaiman was required to at least okay it as he believed he part-owned the character but obviously it's a bit incongruous in the character's history and not mentioned at all in MM, or it seems many (any?) interviews with the creators.
Talking of which, obviously Timeless underlines IMO the need for separate character and publication pages as Miracleman is likely to be exposed to the festering gash of the Marvel Universe and get tripped up by Squirrel Girl or be enlisted in X-Force or something. Weird for them to look at Doomsday Clock and go " hey, we can do that" but still. Be nice if we could ring-fence that somewhat.
Is there a story-in-progress template we can tag to the end of the Silver Age summary? I've intentionally kept SA summary material to a bare minimum for the time being. It does feel like the story is heading in a direction that might question if we're seeing the "real" Young Miracleman so taking too much of what's been published at incomplete face value could lead to a lot of backtracking, especially as we seem to be talking only a couple of months before we get the answers.
4 - Ah-ha! In Warrior Leach notes that Anglo used both and Moore used the one he liked best. He also notes the ambiguity in the Miller stuff as to whether it was taking place in America or the UK, and claims this was a factor in treating it as absurd dreams. Will work in ASAP.
As a sidenote, what is the etiquette in terms of editing stuff like this? Should I strikethru stuff that's been answered to avoid anyone wasting time looking it up only to find it's been resolved? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
