Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Discuss chronologies for characters in the main "Marvel Universe"

Moderators: Paul Bourcier, Kevin W., Col_Fury, Arthur, JephYork, Somebody

Locked
Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Michael » Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:38 pm

Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 is set in the Silver Age, before Reed and Sue were married. In the story, Peter's already enrolled in ESU and has met Gwen and Harry. Now, here's the problem- Peter has his first day of classes and meets Gwen and Harry in ASM 31. Reed and Sue were married in FF@3. Currently, we have ASM 31 placed AFTER FF@3. So should we revise our placement of ASM 31?

Paul Bourcier
Director
Director
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Paul Bourcier » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:11 pm

Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four v2 #1 is messed up. I don't know if:
1) Marvel is intentionally rewriting the established chronology;
2) The story is non-canonical; or
3) Christos Gage blew it

Established canon has Peter Parker entering ESU a few months after FF@ 3. Moving their order will definitely have a ripple effect.

In SM&FF2 1, Spidey professes not knowing about Reed's and Sue's engagement, and Johnny calls him uninformed. Funny, but Spidey attended Reed's and Sue's engagement party in FF 36!

You can't really argue that SM&FF2 1 occurs before that party because reference is made in SM&FF2 1 to FF 40 having occurred "not even a month" ago.

So already this issue isn't making sense.
Paul B.

Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Michael » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:18 pm

Paul Bourcier wrote: Established canon has Peter Parker entering ESU a few months after FF@ 3. Moving their order will definitely have a ripple effect.
Where was this established? If it was just in the indexes, then we can ignore it. If it was actually established in a comic book, then we should consider the possibility that this issue is non-canon.
Paul Bourcier wrote:In SM&FF2 1, Spidey professes not knowing about Reed's and Sue's engagement, and Johnny calls him uninformed. Funny, but Spidey attended Reed's and Sue's engagement party in FF 36!

You can't really argue that SM&FF2 1 occurs before that party because reference is made in SM&FF2 1 to FF 40 having occurred "not even a month" ago.

So already this issue isn't making sense.
That in and of itself isn't enough to declare this issue non-canon. For example, in SS3 36, Jen attacks the Silver Surfer because she doesn't recognize him, even though she's met him before in Avengers 266. But nobody would seriously argue that either Avengers 266 or SS3 36 is non-canon. We just have to assume that Jen got hit on the head one too many times and forgot the Surfer. Just because a character in an issue forgets something they've seen or heard before in a canon story is no reason to declare the issue non-canon.

Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Michael » Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:01 pm

Come to think of it, did Peter actually attend the party? I seem to remember him grabbing a slice of cake throught the window. Is it possible that he never actually found out what the party was about? It's a stretch, yes, but so is the "Hank McCoy decided that a child missing was the perfect time to take a shower" solution that was finally agreed upon for the Mutant Massacre.

The idea that Peter started college after Reed and Sue's wedding might be based on the idea that Johnny started college after Reed and Sue's wedding. I'm not willing to accept that as conclusive evidence, though. It's possible that Johnny started college late because of a paperwork snafu or a fire on campus or some odd scheduling at Metro College. Is there any other evidence in the actual issues?

Paul Bourcier
Director
Director
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Paul Bourcier » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:09 am

Michael wrote:
Where was this established? If it was just in the indexes, then we can ignore it.
Um..no. Let's not be hasty here, Michael. The Indexes are indeed one source of canon, seeing as how they're official Marvel publications and all. Not only that, but MARVEL SAGA ("the official history of the Marvel Universe") establishes the chronology as well. SAGA only went up to Reed's and Sue's wedding, but neither the interior contents nor the "Continuity Corner" feature of this series mention anything past ASM 28 and ASM@ 2 in their chronological review of events in the MU.

The question before us: is Gage's story an intentional reordering of events (a revised canon) or did he just not check established canon? The jury is out for now; I think we'll want to keep an eye on this mini to see what happens. We have seen examples of retcons not sticking (Galactus in Alias anyone?), so let's wait and see.

Michael wrote:
Come to think of it, did Peter actually attend the party? I seem to remember him grabbing a slice of cake throught the window. Is it possible that he never actually found out what the party was about?
True. Spidey notes: "I'm sure they would have invited me if they knew where to find me, so I'll just help myself to a piece of cake." The implication is that he knew about the party and what it was for, but your interpretation can serve if necessary. Swung by, saw a party, grabbed cake, remained oblivious to the media coverage of the engagement for a while.
Paul B.

Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Michael » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:08 am

Paul Bourcier wrote: Um..no. Let's not be hasty here, Michael. The Indexes are indeed one source of canon, seeing as how they're official Marvel publications and all. Not only that, but MARVEL SAGA ("the official history of the Marvel Universe") establishes the chronology as well. SAGA only went up to Reed's and Sue's wedding, but neither the interior contents nor the "Continuity Corner" feature of this series mention anything past ASM 28 and ASM@ 2 in their chronological review of events in the MU.
I'm not disputing that the indexes are canon as long as they don't contradict themselves or the stories- I'm arguing that the indexes aren't canon if they contradict a story- a similar rule applies to the Official Handbooks. If Marvel decides to put out a story that contradicts the indexes, than that in and of itself shouldn't be enough to declare the story non-canon. OTOH, if Marvel decides to put out a story that contradicts other stories, like the flashbacks in that Uncanny Annual (where Namor and Tony go to a party with Norman Osborn while he's believed to be dead) or the X-Men vs. Hulk one-shot (which features a Savage Hulk during a period when the Hulk wasn't savage), then we either have to explain the discrepancies or declare the story non-canon.

As for the Marvel Saga not mentioning it, the general rule is that not mentioning something in and of itself is not conclusive.

User avatar
Russ Chappell
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4278
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Contact:

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Russ Chappell » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:17 am

Michael wrote:
Paul Bourcier wrote: Um..no. Let's not be hasty here, Michael. The Indexes are indeed one source of canon, seeing as how they're official Marvel publications and all. Not only that, but MARVEL SAGA ("the official history of the Marvel Universe") establishes the chronology as well. SAGA only went up to Reed's and Sue's wedding, but neither the interior contents nor the "Continuity Corner" feature of this series mention anything past ASM 28 and ASM@ 2 in their chronological review of events in the MU.
I'm not disputing that the indexes are canon as long as they don't contradict themselves or the stories- I'm arguing that the indexes aren't canon if they contradict a story- a similar rule applies to the Official Handbooks. If Marvel decides to put out a story that contradicts the indexes, than that in and of itself shouldn't be enough to declare the story non-canon. OTOH, if Marvel decides to put out a story that contradicts other stories, like the flashbacks in that Uncanny Annual (where Namor and Tony go to a party with Norman Osborn while he's believed to be dead) or the X-Men vs. Hulk one-shot (which features a Savage Hulk during a period when the Hulk wasn't savage), then we either have to explain the discrepancies or declare the story non-canon.

As for the Marvel Saga not mentioning it, the general rule is that not mentioning something in and of itself is not conclusive.
True, as far as it goes, but you cut out Paul's conclusion. He is suggesting that we wait at least until the story is finished, before trying to place events that contradict established canon. His example is particularly apt. We went through many backflips and contortions, trying to get Galactus to appear in Alias before Peter graduated from high school, only to have Tom Brevoort tell us, basically, "That wasn't really Galactus."

Let's see where this goes.

Edited to add: By the way, good stuff here.


watching: moonlight

Michael
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:41 am

Re: Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four 1 (2010)

Post by Michael » Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:01 am

When you put it that way,Russ, Paul's advice is sound. We'll wait for the remaining issues. If next month's issue takes place prior to Eddie Brock's first appearance as Venom but features Valeria,for example, then we'll know the series is non-canon.

Locked