Talk:Final Crisis/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 7th July 2005 and December 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Batman/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Spoilers

On account of the spoilers, should we not have a spoiler warning at the top of the page? Thank You L1berat3r (s-o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.233.26 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What the...?

Weren't all earths (re)merged into one by the end of Infinite Crisis? How come they are all disjoined again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.109.43 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read 52 -Armaced (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Salted

I have protected this page from recreation until the issues that resulted in its initial deletion are addressed. Once the information here is supported by independent reliable sources there can be an article on this subject. When that happens you can ask that the page be unprotected at my talk page or WP:RFPP. Until(1 == 2) 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've undone this - the issue in the AfD was clearly not the sources (Newsarama has long been considered reliable) but the lack of actual information. Enjoy your article. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Other use of the phrase.

I'd just like to point out that I just noticed that the last issue (#12) of Crisis on Infinite Earths is also named "Final Crisis".--SeizureDog 04:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Grant Morrison Interview

Is it relevant to add that Grant Morrison has stated that this will not be a continuity reboot? Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issue?

In the "format" section it states the series will not cross-over with any other series "much to the delight of fans". Isn't this an NPOV (and fairly unsourcable) claim? Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot section over-hauled

Rewrote the plot section (complete with references for the reference nazis on Wikipedia) to reflect the main overarching plot for Final Crisis: Darkseid's the last God standing out of the entire Fourth World and that now that the Fifth World of Gods is rising and no one is left of the old Gods to oppose him, Darkseid plans to bring about a new age of evil upon the universe. I've also tossed into the equation the plot of "Legion of Three Worlds", which is being set up to be the Final Crisis tie-in that will have the most impact towards the main series as far as the fact that it will be dealing with the major plotlines from "Countdown" that Morrison won't be addressing (IE the Legion, Brainiac 5's lightning rod which is of grave importance, and possibly the notion that Superman will be busy with the Legion and be MIA during the course of Final Crisis mini-series. --BakerBaker (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

31st or 30th?

"While in the 31st century, Superman is summond to the 30th..." Even if this is accurate (I haven't been following Superman) this is a tad confusing.  Hazardous Matt  13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A Few Concerns...

1) Where is it confirmed that Orion is the survivor of the New Gods? 2) Where was it confirmed that none of the Tie-Ins would be in Ongoing existing titles? I was at the NYCC panel and it seemed to me that "Rage of the Red Lanterns" was a GL storyline that would tie in to final crisis, not a stand alone mini. 3) should we separate the One-Shot storys (Sumbit, Resist, Requiem) from the Mini's? 4) Should a section be added to discuss the planned one month gap in the story's printing from the perspective of the plot?

MaxusDarte (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Issue # 2 of Countdown and the last issue of the Death of the New Gods mini, Orion kills Darkseid and is the only one left. Kur 22:14, April 24, 2k8

1. As Kur points out, Countdown and Death of the New Gods ideally leave Orion as the last survivor, and fading from view. However, Darkseid has been used for the Final Night add copy and at least 3 characters from the Fourth World haven't been addressed: Little Barda, Forager, and the GL who IIRC was converted into an Alpha Lantern.
2. See here. 3 minis: Final Crisis: Rogue’s Revenge (July, 3 issues); Final Crisis: Revelations (Aug, 5 issues); and Final Crisis: Legion of 3 Worlds (Aug and 5 too). 5 one-shots: Final Crisis: Requiem (June?); Final Crisis: Superman Beyond (Aug); Final Crisis: Submit (Sept); Final Crisis: Resist (Oct); and Final Crisis: Red Lanterns (Nov).
3. Since we've got the cite, sounds like an idea.
4. No, and the "Relationships" and "Tie-ins" should be subbed to "Format". That is part and parcel to the publication intent of the series.

- J Greb (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS but The Final Crisis Character sketchbook contains mockups for many of the New Gods, and Morrison has talked openly about Darksied being a major player in Final Crisis. In fact, bizarrely, if anything, from all the previews it seems as if FC has Orion being the only god that ISN'T alive at the start of the series.

Also what to do about DC Universe which appears to set the stage for not just Final Crisis but a lot of other summer storylines [1], also it looks like a newspaper has leaked major spoilers for it [2]. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

More bits and bobs. (Emperor (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

It's also gotten press outside the comics industry — [3] and it got play on the AP. That article was on the CBC site, but has scrolled off. - J Greb (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

More and a review. (Emperor (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Another review. (Emperor (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Commentary. (Emperor (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Is it just me?

I've read and re-read the Plot section of this article, and its just horrible. There are quotes that are credited to no one, very few citations of actual information, and the whole thing is a jumble. The facts may be correct, but the way they are put together and explained (if explained) leads to much confusion. Maybe someone could go over it and make that section more coherent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.198.194 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, there's a lot of stuff in there that's purely speculative and very little of it cites any sources for the information. It does look a lot better now but I think that's besides the point. Whether it turns out to be true or not, I think for now the plot section needs to be reduced. DavetheAvatar (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the "And the story will be" material. Feel free to re-add non-plot summary stuff from the sole cite. Otherwise, it should be kept out until after the issues are published, period. - J Greb (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary stuff

Lots of stuff has been added which is NOT relevenat to Final Crisis. Yes, these things are being touched on in in-house ads and DC Universe #0, but they have nothing to do with this particular story, so I'm removing them. They are big DC projects for 2008, not part of FC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.115.100 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tie-Ins

I think the tie-ins can be arranged a bit differently (if they are necessary, I'm not even debating that). Do we need to list each and every individual issue of every tie-in (as well as the parent series itself)? There's a great deal of redundancy that could be removed.  Hazardous Matt  20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - we killed the checklist of tie-ins over on Secret Invasion too (see discussion there) - it is the kind of thing the publisher or a fan site might want but I don't feel it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Just crunch them down into a list of tie-ins. It may be they get spun off or we expand them into smaller sections here (and then look into splitting later), just not the checklist. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

In this case, I think we should remove things that are not expressly Final Crisis tie-ins (i.e. DC Universe and JLA) and include and discuss the official FC tie-ins (i.e. the miniseries with Final Crisis in the title). Since, well, I would think that Final Crisis would, in fact, discuss all of the series that made up Final Crisis and had "Final Crisis" in the title. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem including the tie-ins that are directly involved, I just think the structure could be reworked. We don't need that long list detailing ship dates and issue numbers.  Hazardous Matt  20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DC Universe and JLA #21 are worth mentioning in the publication history and/or the lead in to Final Crisis but we don't need it in the tie-ins sections. (Emperor (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps for stuff that is not expressly branded "Final Crisis" we could go with something like "Ramifications on the DC Universe line" or something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link notability?

I'm not able to confirm due to policies at my office, but it seems as if the "Essay" linked in the external section is an individual's blog. Does this hold any amount of notability? I ask because similar links to the same site have already been removed from similar listings.  Hazardous Matt  16:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it out as WP:EL states no blogs unless it is an expert and there is no sign they are. Here is the link anyway if anyone wants to check it out: "Essay on Final Crisis and its relationship to the tradition/modernity dialectic in DC Comics". (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Reviews

Placing the reviews here until they can be integrated in the prose. We shouldn't just dump them at in the External Links section; as this is a 7-part miniseries, reviews for single issues will quickly expand to large numbers. You can place further reviews as they are published below. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Final Crisis #1, Comic Book Resources
• Final Crisis #1, ComicList
• Best Shots Extra: Final Crisis #1, Newsarama
• Final Crisis #1, Broken Frontier
• Sunday Slugfest: Final Crisis #1, Comics Bulletin
• Final Crisis #2, Comic Book Resources

Issue by issue plot summary

I see there is a bit of back and forth in the article. I raised this point on the Comic Project talk page [4] and while there may be instances it might prove useful it is better saved for story arcs in longer series (if then) and here it will break up the flow and lead to plot bloat when the general principles should be to keep the plot tight and useful and not let the in-universe material outweigh other content in the article. I'm starting this section not only to point out the broader discussion but to give people a chance to discuss this specifically here or in general over there, rather than it get to be an edit war. (Emperor (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Any thoughts on just removing any plot summary until the miniseries is finished? It's really difficult to give a synopsis of the first two issue when they are effectively just set-up. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of schools of thought on that:

• Take it all out - probably not practical without a lot of trouble policing it
• Jam it all in and then clean it up later - this implies there will still be the same enthusiasm later. A shiny new series comes around the bend and the focus drifts and you are left with a bloated plot summary that is a big job for one person to sort out
• We add a skeleton outline now and so how things develop, then after it is done flesh it out once we know what the important aspects are (as you can bet Grant Morrison has more than a few tricks up his Wizard's sleeve).

I think the last approach will give us the best chance of producing a tight and useful plot. We should already be planning to make this the best article we can and that means a solid plot summary that works to support the out-of-universe sections and those are the interesting "story" we can tell (as Morrison is telling the comic one and doesn't need us). Obviously things like character development and the aftermath will have to wait until the story is done and we see how things play out but we have plenty on the scripting writing and artistic plans as well as the reaction (which is an interesting story in itself - I haven't read a lot of review of issue #2 yet but it looks like issue #1 got a lukewarm reception with some confusion thrown in and now things are turning around as the story starts to unfold). The plot is a bit of a sideshow and I'd rather people just kept it compact for now - it will have to be heavily rewritten at the end of the series so we might as well try and make that job as easy as possible. Perhaps a note in the plot section? Or some variation on the future comic tag "this series is ongoing so plot should be kept to a minimum until the broader picture emerges".

Anyway just my opinion. (Emperor (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

I wouldn't mind just removing the plot summary until the series is complete and doing our best to remove edits that restore it. The plot summary is supposed to catch the average reader up to speed in order to compliment other items (such as critical reviews and making-of details), but that's very hard to do when the story is still in progress. Compare to how film articles typically don't have a plot secion until the movie is released. We should just try to summarize the series' premise and refrain from detailing the plot, because right now aside from the Orion murder investigation, it's hard to gauge the narrative importance of everything else happening in the story. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult but I certainly we'd favour as little plot as possible for now as we are really not going to have any idea of the scale or scope of the story until at least the half way mark so trying to write a plot section now is pretty pointless (personally I rarely get involved in adding to the plot until well into the story - until then a sentence or two is all you can/should write). It might be a good idea to get try and get a project-wdie consensus on this over the Comics Project talk page, as this seems to be an even bigger (with updates to things like the list of known Skrulls getting a little too fanboy). (Emperor (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Superman's Identity

I'm not sure the note that implies Libra knows Superman's identity is necessary, or if there's other material stating such knoweldge. If I recall correctly (haven't read Supes in a while) Superman has always had a good connection with the Planet and Lois in particular, so wouldn't that be enough for the bombing? I don't really see a need to mention Libra might know Supes' identity unless formally stated. Agree? Disagree?  Hazardous Matt  18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Firmly agree. Stating otherwise is OR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Not getting into whether or not the section is warranted, should Lois and Perry be included? "Apparently" does not state fact, and it's still up in the air if they have survived. They can be noted as being caught in the explosion in the plot summary if necessary, but they should not be prematurely listed under casualties. Agree? Disagree?  Hazardous Matt  19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

According FC:3 and Superman Beyond both of the are alive. So we should safely remove their names from the casualty list. Rather we should add Dr. Light and Effigy who were killed by Spectre in FC:Revealations 1. Simianwolverine (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Make a freaking casualty list, it's not hard. Use all tie ins to FC, just note what book they are from. It is that easy. Just let me know if you like and I will save a copy of it and repost it if someone deletes it. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kraken's identity

In the main article it cites that kraken is Granny Goodness. Not only is this speculative, it is rongly speculative as well. It would seem that the Reverend Good is Granny Goodness, but again can only be speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.78.40 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, it was Kraken. 70.10.78.40 (talk)

Kraken vs. Stewart? Might be Speculation (and wrong)

I'm not sure we can say that Kraken was the one who attacks Stewart either. The text doesn't say so, and the only connection made is that Batman says that "john has a hell of a right hook" which is frankly just sort of confusing, since we never see Stewart punch anyone and Kraken isn't suffering from being punched in any case: she's fighting being possessed.

More importantly, the white glove of Stewart's attacker that we do see is NOT Kraken's usual hand/gloves.

So I'm voting that listing her as Stewarts attacker is spec at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot restored

Restored the plot section because without it, you might as well delete the whole fucking article, since without a plot there is no article. Also added into the top of the article that while Final Crisis flows directly from Countdown/DCU #0, that DC pretty much downplayed said continuation of story from the moment FC #1 hit the stands as far as saying instead it's SSOV/52 instead of CTFC/DOTNG that Final Crisis flows directly from....

I think some plot section is necessary, but I strongly disagree that it's the point of the whole article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After some thought, I'm against having a plot summary in a article about a miniseries still being published. The breaking point came when I tried to trim the summary again. My comic store didn't get in issue three this week, so it made it impossible to trim down the summary. Also, there's the tendency of editors to list every detail in the stories, to the point of turning this page into a substitute for actually reading the issue, which is unacceptable from a copyright perspective. We won't really know which events are worth noting until the story is complete. The best we can do right now is a brief "premise" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So because you didn't get the issue this week, no one else can include the summary of the plot because you can't do it yourself? (editted for civility) BakerBaker (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We do include plot summaries in ongoing works, including things like comic books and television shows.You not having access to the source material doesn't mean the material shouldn't be included. AniMate 04:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, my point is the basic story is set to take place over seven issues. Only three of those issues are out yet. Given we don't have half the story, and because of that we don't know the relative amount of importance to afford the details in those issues, and plot summary would be half-finished and poor. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or it could be extremely detailed, even if some of the information provided is unimportant to the story. Which is why wikipedia is the great information source it is, it provides details, some we may not want/need to know, but details nonetheless.

No, excess plot detail needs to be avoided, because then it can be considered copyright infringement. Plus it's just poor writing.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with excess plot being unnecessary, however plot sections are included in ongoing works. Just because we don't know how it's going to end, doesn't mean we shouldn't report what has happened so far. AniMate 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that fanboy enthusiasm for analyzing every littl edetail and reporting on it ad nauseum is something we want to avoid, but at the same time deleting the entire plot is not the solution. Over at the Secret Invasion article, we just focused on the main mini series once all the fanboy-gasms were removed. Then slowly other tie-in stuff was added. Can't that be done here?Shin-Goji (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone - this will most likely get deleted soon, but at least one of you who actively maintain this article will read this. As an average user of Wikipedia, I have come to expect that articles about mini-series currently being published will have a summary of the series as of the most recently published issue. This was done in several articles, including Infinite Crisis, Countdown to Infinite Crisis, and Countdown to Final Crisis. I would appreciate you considering putting back the plot up until now (a basic, superficial rundown, not a spoiler-filled overly-detailed version as some people would suggest). As those articles were updated as each issue was released, I would argue a precedent has already been established that the articles should contain as much plot as is available, even if the entire series hasn't been published yet (you could extend the argument to include open ended series such as Action Comics - even though they haven't finished their run, summaries of major and ongoing story lines are included in the entry). Anyway, thanks for your updates and consideration - please keep up the excellent work! 209.130.205.171 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that simple issue by issue breakdown is sufficient. Is someone from DC editing this page cause it otherwise is simply just and advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.186.77 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley - we aren't here for blow by blow plot summary. what's currently there is fine until the series finishes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This plot section is a joke, it has not been updated since issue 3, that is pathetic, please do not listen to morons like Cameron, we need a change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.62.62 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Lantern is that?

Which Lantern is that in the picture used at the top of the page? Obviously it's not Alan Scott or John Stewart, but which one is it? Considering the number of GL's there are, it would be a good idea to list which Lantern it is. It looks like Hal Jordan, but having not read any of the FC issues, I couldn't tell. If it is, the caption under the picture should say "Green Lantern Hal Jordan" etc. If it's Guy Gardner or Kyle Rayner, then it should list their name (I doubt it's Gardner based on the look, and I don't know what Rayner currently looks like). Anakinjmt (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's likely Jordan as he's investigating and later acccused of Orion's murder.Gr8Methos (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional reference to the Background section

The reference to the Background section (second paragraph) comes from this newsarama interview: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.111 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)