Talk:Eternity (Marvel Comics)

Eternity and the IG

The IG was said to make its wielder Eternity's equal, not his superior. It was Thanos' "mortal drive" and Eternity's complacency that allowed Thanos to defeat and usurp Eternity's position, not superior power. Also, while the combined cosmic cubes were able to render Eternity catatonic for a limited period of time, they did not wield power equal to or superior to Eternity -- I do not see how this information is relevant to the article as stated. The Magus with the incomplete Infinity Guantlet (fake reality gem) was clearly more powerful than the combined cosmic cubes and he still was soundly defeated by Eternity/Infinity. TheBalance 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mates"?

If they can't be considered "mates", then they aren't "siblings", either. In addition, the Handbook of the Marvel Universe is currently Marvel's reference point for all contemporary titles. The comics may set continuity, but because different stories are handled by different creative teams, inconsistencies or nonspecifics may persist. The Handbook is used to state Marvel's present official standing with the character and, thus, take precedent over any prior story.

As an example, Marvel's multiverse has been given new mumerical designations (ex: Earth-1123) that hold precedent. This information did not exist previously, but has sense been established. King Zeal 20:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They are siblings and have referred to each other as such in comic. They have, to my knowledge, never referred to each other as "mates" in comic. Therein lies the difference. Handbooks are second hand accounts of what occurred in comic, that is why in comic information should always take predecedence over the Handbooks. If writers choose to incorporate Handbook information into a comic then it becomes canon. TheBalance 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you win. Unless I can find an actual reference whereas they've been referred to as "mates" besides the Handbook, I concede. It's just not worth going back-and-forth over. King Zeal 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

cosmic ballance

would it be apropriate to make refference that Eternity bound the Stranger after the results of X-men Forever in order to maintain the cosmic ballance between him death and galacticus?

Tidy up

Found a clearer image of Eternity, added references and pulled the parts that are unfortunately just unsourced speculation and "tell the story" (eg. Silver Surfer TV series - Eternity is in it. There's no need for a blow by blow account of who does what). The blurb on who's more powerful than who was also unnecessary.

Asgardian 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Eternity doesn't possess true omnipotence as the Infinity Gems and Heart of the Universe trumped him. Only the LT appears to have that.

Asgardian 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Ultimate Nullifier killed one timeline's Eternity. Doczilla 07:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ancient One

I just read Strange Tales 135 to 142 in the last couple of days and I'm sure that Doctor Strange mentions in 137 or 138 that the Ancient One had encountered Eternity before. So, I'm going to double check that and if I'm correct I will change the part of this article which says that Strange was the first human to contact Eternity. User: Uriah is Boss 20:41, 25 August, 2007

Yes, it is true that Eternity tells Doc Strange that it was he who gave the Ancient One the mystical amulet (which the Ancient One gave to Doc Strange). So, I corrected the article. User: Uriah is Boss 8:03, 31 Aug 2007

Check out Strange Tales #138, Eternity clearly reveals that the Ancient One was the first human (super-human) to have contact with Eternity. User: Uriah is Boss 10:07, 10 Sept. 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Eternity1.png

Image:Eternity1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the One-Above-All

I just read that the One-Above-All is even more powerful then the living tribunal so should that be added when it says his power is only surpassed by the living tribunal?--RemusLupo (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eternity's power is second only to the Living Tribunal. We do not count The One Above All because he is the "God" of the Marvel Universe...therefore he is NOT a cosmic entity. Cosmic entities still maintain some sort of physical presence in the Marvel Universe...The One Above All is above the MU so it is a given that any Marvel Character, from Living Tribunal all the way down to Rhino, is below TOAA in power. This is intuitive knowledge and does not need to be mentioned at all. Mobb One (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Eternity and DCU Counterpart

What confirmation is there that the "female universe" whom Eternity kisses in JLA/Avengers is Kismet? Looking at Kismet's page, she doesn't look any more like Eternity's lover than She-Hulk, and the description of Kismet doesn't make her sound like the incarnation of the entire DCU. Unless a reference can be found, I think it's safer to assume that the green female Eternity counterpart was an original entity created by George Perez specifically for this comic. She's not named in the book, so I wouldn't assume any name for her. 12.73.133.20 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Eternity calls himself, "Adam Qadmon, the Archetypal man

Amazing that no one remembers this from Dr. Strange #13, back in the 1970s. He clearly distinguishes himself and his "brother" Death, from God.MPA 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Separate PH & FCB needed

WikiProject Comics guidelines separate a character's real-world publication history, which should include discussion of the character's creation and creators and his use by different professionals throughout the years, and the character's ficitional, in-universe history. As it stands, these separate things are mixed together. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Early part of FCB

I can't find my Doctor Strange Masterworks offhand, and don't feel like pulling my old Strange Talees out of the longbox in the closet, so I can't get to it right now, but we really should fill in the early part of Eternity's bio, where he first encounters Doctor Strange etc.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm going to do that in next day or so. It's just one of those fidgety jobs that are a little time consuming. Asgardian (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: IMDb

IMDb is riddled with errors since it's essentially a wiki, which is why it's allowed as an EL but not as reference. Over at WP:FILMS, use of IMDb is extremely controversial. But since contributors to IMDb are supposed to give public sources, just like us, an actual public source other than IMDb is supposed to exist. If it doesn't, that means whoever added that claim to IMDb is using OR. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with this. I've inserted another. Asgardian (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest Edits

Firstly, the quote (fine as it is), belongs in the out of universe PH. Such things don't belong in the B, which describes in-universe events (that is, in the Marvel Universe).

Second, I've corrected the "avatar" mention to go with the flow of the narrative.

Third, the extra information on the IG is unnecessary, as it just "tells the story" and does so with colloquial language and incorrect grammar (eg. "Eternity and Warlock meet on later occasions, but do not get along well").

Finally, the last mention of the other entities simply isn't needed. The focus here is Eternity.

Hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the quote technically belongs in an OOU, but it seemed out of context and irrelevant where it was place. will correct, although some form of correlating ”see below” reference might be an idea?

The description is not lengthy enough to tell the story, and it is very noteworthy to expand a little here, as this is the only time anyone has actually explored Eternity's personality. There were also other context clarifications regarding Eternity's role and what happened to it. It was defeated and supplanted by Thanos. That is noteworthy to mention just to take an example. Ditto about clarifying the consequences of Richards actions, and not to twist the wording into an official Wikipedia endorsement of genocide.

Mentioning the other entities established Starlin's perceived cosmic hierarchy, with Living Tribunal, Eternity and Infinity far above the rest of the entities battling Thanos. And "to surrender to Thanos" is entirely inappropriate. It was not a matter of surrender. It was a matter of crushing force quickly overwhelming everyone except the LT, Eternity, and Infinity.

It would "help" if you stopped being a continuous bother everywhere for me and everyone else except MobbOne and TheBalance, and actually kept the inserts or clarifying expansions, but strictly improved the structure or similar. Dave (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize what you just said in that final sentence? I think you need to rethink that very quickly.

Once again, the mention of the quote is fine - there's too much overanalysis and speculation on your part. This was also reinforced at the Galactus article. The same applies here. The IG information is still weak colloquial language and not appropriate to Wikipedia. I can make a brief mention of the other two entities at the end, but that is all that is required. The Quasar mention was also inserted into the appropriate area. Remember, with a Biography we just try for the gist.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Rethink" how? In a far broader sense than this page, you really are continuously inserting ironic insincere statements everywhere, generally ignore my points, follow me around, censor any references you feel like etc hundreds of times over. Seriously, if your offer to "help" for once was sincere, then stop going out of your way to be a headache, and to actually compromise and collaborate by restructuring the information instead of deleting it. I continuously write up major changes to my edits in efforts to compromise, and keep all references, unless they are directly severely and directly contradicted elsewhere or inaccurate accounts, whereas you (or the two Galactus fans, but they are at least not manipulative, mostly sincere, and not nearly as much of a general problem) seem to frequently censor anything you don't like, but then again that's a subjectively biased impression from a long line of experience.

However, regarding the issues in this particular page, I don't have big problems with your edits, and there are only very minor ones remaining:

1-2 events got the wrong chronological order.

It is probably structurally unwise to segment events that were not directly connected and considerably chronologically apart.

A clarification is in order regarding the "Big Battle" of the Infinity Gauntlet series, which was between Thanos and Eternity. Unlike the other entities it was able to directly engage Thanos' full power on its lonesome for a while. This is important to not misword so it sounds like Eternity was just one of the ones ganging up on Thanos to barely be able to keep him confused while severely holding back.

It seems of interest to insert a few notes about Eternity's personality as not a perfect serene being, but from Adam Warlock's perspective, as unreliable, ungrateful, greedy, and conceited, explicitly referred to in the "Warlock and the Infinity Watch" series. Someone could always retcon it as an "incomplete manifestation body" I suppose, but nobody has as of yet, so it remains noteworthy. Dave (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Dave, first of all, irrespective of what you think and what you believe others to be thinking, please desist from these kinds of comments: "you really are continuously inserting ironic insincere statements everywhere, generally ignore my points, follow me around." Wikipedia requires us to act in good faith.

(2) Also, try and avoid the obtuse side bars. There's no need to mentiion the Galactus article here or comment on the other two editors involved.

(3) As to the edits, if you feel something is in the wrong order, by all means, point it out. As to the mention of the stories, I think you tend to mention a tad too much detail. We try for the gist, and use formal language (see the example of colloquial language mentioned above). We can add that Eternity was concerned re: Warlock's use of the Gauntlet, but cannot speculate or infer what the entity or Warlock may be thinking. That's also reading into it a tad too much for the purposes of an article.

I hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) It has been stated repeatedly by different users that you use this and "incivility" as a shield for stating what you are doing, and as such this too only sounds deliberately insincere, and satirical of Wikipedia's regulations. However, I do agree with the principle in general, but hardly in terms of geining hundreds of consistent bad experiences that completely contradict it. I'm respectful until proven very wrong, but am extremely honest and say what I think at that point. You should know this very well by now. I recently had a period when I went gone overboard with giving you benefit of doubt, but you started to consistently disprove it again, so there isn't much to do about it.

(2) I also tend to stray and not keep the whole context separated from the smaller one. This is part of the way I work and has little to do with yourself.

(3) Warlock stated the "gratitude of kings" comment outright, Eternity was upset and screaming at Warlock when the latter casually dismissed the entity, and it stated outright that its intents were to convince the Tribunal to give it the Gauntlet (and tried to psychologically manipulate Warlock during the trial). These were matter of fact explicit things, but I agree that this part might be shortened down, so if you want to incorporate this information in a more concise manner, please do so rather than simply remove it.

Beyond this, details were very much not excessive, simply matter-of-fact statements, so I don't see the problem, and you have meshed together a couple of stories that were considerably apart into single sentences. The Defenders story and Galactus trial were considerably apart. The Secret Wars II, Elders of the Universe, and Infinity Gauntlet stories were also unconnected and should not be in the same sentences. Quasar vs. Maelstrom chronologically happened shortly before the and right at the beginning of the Infinity Gauntlet. But the "Friendless"/DC's "Endless" spoofs happened later and I placed them inaccurately.

I also somewhat dislike the sentence "thereby allowing them to understand that Galactus is a vital part of the universe, despite the continued loss of entire races." For one it should be "species", not "races", but that could just as well have been non-sentient creatures, so I like "despite the continued deaths of entire planetary populations" to signify sentience and functioning societies better. Dave (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Eternity featured in the Guardians of the Galaxy film

Eternity is featured in the Guardians of the Galaxy film. In Guardians of the Galaxy: The Art of the Movie it is explained that Entropy, Infinity, Eternity, and Death are responsible for the creation of the Infinity Stones in the film. Also, Eternity and the other Cosmic Entities are seen in the Temple Vault on Morag and the Hologram in the Collectors Museum. Here's an image of all the cosmic entities from The Art of the Movie 2601:C:780:234:F452:E816:C14D:4ECA (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be added to the page? If so, I agree. Especially considering Eternity is also featured in the new Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. I think these appearances warrant a mention in the "In other media" section. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done (almost 5 years later...) 2pou (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eternity (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/tony/back20050510.shtml to http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)