All-New All-Different Marvel

[lithiumkatana17]

 

[JechtShotMK9]

Fully cognizant of the fact that I'm responding to a year-old post....

The use of "omniverse" mentioned in this thread is actually consistent with how Marvel has used it in the past. The most prominent example I can think of is with the character of Roma, who is the "Guardian of the Omniverse," and is basically the person who is in charge of all the Captain Britains, and who ensures that every universe has a Captain Britain. Or something like that.

X-Men/Excalibur/Captain Britain are not my specialty, though, so no idea on the particulars there. There is a pretty decent novel series in which Roma plays a part, though. The Chaos Engine trilogy is a pretty good read if you wanna pick it up.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

It's both consistent on that count and inconsistent on a more important count. The whole Wikipedia article on the subject is worth reading, but this sub-heading is particularly relevant.

You'll also note that the Marvel handbooks -- and most writers of the comics themselves -- correctly refer to the multiverse as "the multiverse" when speaking of the collection of assorted Marvel universes.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

To add to what I said in the previous post, I found this quote from "Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Alternate Universes" on the term "omniverse":

"It includes every single literary, television show, movie, urban legend, universe, realm, etc. ever. It includes everyone from Popeye to Rocky Balboa to Ronald Reagan to Romeo and Juliet to Luke Skywalker to Snoopy to Jay and Silent Bob, Mickey Mouse, Harry Potter, Super Mario to Sonic the Hedgehog, etc."

So, that's what I was trying to convey. The omniverse is the totality of all existence everywhere -- Marvel, DC, Image, and so on and so forth included.

 

[JechtShotMK9]

That's an 11 year old handbook that has been contradicted on-panel and in subsequent handbooks ever since.

Out of universe, Marvel has no legal right to declare any of those other properties within their purview. In universe, the contradictions just pile on and on and on. Just with Marvel and DC alone, the One Above All and the Presence cannot both be supreme beings. The Marvel Omniverse has literally been destroyed and rebuilt on panel.

Frankly, the handbook is wrong. Either Marvel's creative liberties supersede every other franchise in existence, or the writer was just talking out his ass. The entry you speak of even goes on to mention Merlyn and Roma, and their respective positions as the supreme beings of the Omniverse. There's a reason why that entry has not been repeated since, and nothing of that sort was ever indicated before 2005.

Honestly, it looks like they just made up the term "Megaverse" and replaced what had previously been known as the "Omniverse" with that (I don't believe "Megaverse" has ever been used on-panel), and just decided to throw in a stupid definition of "Omniverse" for the hell of it. Which could possibly constitute a retcon....if the comics themselves hadn't continued to use "Omniverse" as it had been used before the handbook.

After looking further, the 2008 handbook seems to go back to the pre-2005 usage of Omniverse, in its bio on the Exiles.

 

[JechtShotMK9]

On another somewhat unrelated note, would anyone else be interested in a Marvel metaphysics thread? Because that is my shit, and no one else ever seems to want to discuss that outside of asinine strength debates I really wanna discuss the Infinity Revelation with people, and, from what I've seen, there's, like, 20 people total who even know what it is lol.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

That's an 11 year old handbook that has been contradicted on-panel and in subsequent handbooks ever since.

It has usually been reinforced on-panel and in subsequent handbooks, and even where contradicted on-panel, that's clarified easily enough by thinking about it from an out-of-universe perspective rather than that of the characters within the fiction. Yes, there are numerous contradictions where the Captain Britain Corps are concerned -- but they don't tend to concern themselves with any reality that extends beyond their reach and jurisdiction, right?

Just look at this page from "Amazing Spider-Man" #7, vol. 3. They speak of all universes within the omniverse being threatened by the Incursions that were elsewhere explicitly shown to be confined to Marvel properties alone.

There are universes beyond their jurisdiction and beyond Marvel, though, and "omniverse," by definition, is the totality of all these realities.

Out of universe, Marvel has no legal right to declare any of those other properties within their purview.

Which is precisely the opposite of what the omniverse term implies, and counter to the purpose it serves. It actually defines the boundaries of what is within Marvel's purview -- and consequently that of The-One-Above-All -- while also explaining why the "JLA/Avengers" crossover from 2003 can be canon (seen here referenced in "JLA" #107, as well as here and here in official handbook entries published by Marvel) without anything from DC being included in the Incursion crisis that only destroyed all Marvel universes.

In universe, the contradictions just pile on and on and on. Just with Marvel and DC alone, the One Above All and the Presence cannot both be supreme beings.

They can certainly both be the supreme beings of the multiverses within their jurisdiction.

Why is that so hard to imagine when a single Marvel universe can have a supreme being who is still subject to the judgment of the Living Tribunal, whose authority extended to all Marvel universes? The Tribunal, of course, being but an agent of The-One-Above-All.

It's entirely possible that the Presence and TOAA are equivalent to one another with regard to their respective areas of creation -- or perhaps the Presence is yet another agent of TOAA, much like the Tribunal. We can't really do anything but speculate with that.

There's a reason why that entry has not been repeated since, and nothing of that sort was ever indicated before 2005.

P0JTA8F
"Quasar" #31 in 1992 begs to differ -- "Quasar" being the book that expressly defined and explored Marvel's cosmology.

And that's not even the first time the term came up, but it's the first one I can point to with scans off the top of my head -- and it's sufficient, as it undercuts your claim above by a whole 13 years. If you even simply google the word "omniverse," you'll find that where it's applied to fiction, it's generally understood to mean the totality of all existence anywhere and everywhere, regardless of who owns what.

"Omniverse" was even the title of a magazine produced by Mark Gruenwald in the 70s exploring the concept of continuity within Marvel and DC -- Gruenwald later being the executive editor of Marvel who wrote all but one of the 60 issues of "Quasar," firmly cemented the structure of reality where Marvel is concerned, and pioneered the "Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe" publication.

It's simply inaccurate to assert that there isn't a legitimate, appreciable difference between "omniverse" and "multiverse" where comic continuities are concerned, or that the difference hasn't been explicitly featured on-panel for decades. What you're calling for here is throwing away a clearly defined structure that makes sense of everything, and then replacing it with nothing.

To bring this back around to my comments of a year ago, while characters within the books can get away with using the terms wrong, the writer really shouldn't be having them get it wrong in the first place in a book whose whole conceit is exploring and clarifying continuity (e.g. "Ultimates") -- and the writer definitely shouldn't be getting it wrong in text captions that can't be attributed to a character's own limited knowledge.

I should also note that these definitions we're going over are what Marvel allows to stand on their own website -- and while that encyclopedia can be edited by fans, submissions have to be approved by Marvel editors or writers of the official handbook.

... I don't believe "Megaverse" has ever been used on-panel ...

I believe you are correct on this count. Though it seems largely superfluous, I can see some utility in this term for drawing a distinction between the more unique universes (when compared to the vast majority of universes belonging to DC and Marvel).

For instance, the Wildstorm Universe is ultimately part of the overall DC Multiverse, but it's quite distinct from the majority of the universes that fall under this umbrella. Along the same lines, Marvel's New Universe -- and later the New Universal universe as well -- was outside the cluster of more similar universes that comprised the traditional notion of the Marvel Multiverse, as shown in "Quasar" #30-31, where Quasar was still within the greater Marvel Multiverse, but was outside the cluster of universes that all contained a Watcher and similar heroes/villains when he went to the New Universe.

Similarly, the various Squadron Supreme universes could probably be considered their own megaverse, but they still fell within the overall Marvel Multiverse. Illustrating this point, both versions of the New Universe as well as the various Squadron Supreme universes were all destroyed by the Incursions leading into "Secret Wars," just as the Wildstorm Universe was affected during major DC events like "Flashpoint" and "Convergence."

On another somewhat unrelated note, would anyone else be interested in a Marvel metaphysics thread? Because that is my shit, and no one else ever seems to want to discuss that outside of asinine strength debates I really wanna discuss the Infinity Revelation with people, and, from what I've seen, there's, like, 20 people total who even know what it is lol.

I would be interested in such discussions. We actually do have a thread for "The Infinity Relativity," and I did reviews of the "Thanos Annual," "The Infinity Revelation" and "Thanos vs. Hulk," but I never really got around to talking about "The Infinity Entity" or "The Infinity Finale."

Things just got kind of weird there at the end. I love Jim Starlin dearly, but his understanding of Marvel's cosmology seems to be nearly as askew these days as Al Ewing's (but not quite), what with Jim writing this series under the assumption that each universe has its own Living Tribunal rather than there being only one Tribunal in the entire Marvel Multiverse.

That still seems somehow less egregious than referring to Eternity as the embodiment of the entire Marvel Multiverse.

I do realize, by the way, that Ewing's "Ultimates" issues are as likely (more so) to have passed before the eyes of an editor as the definitions from the "Marvel Universe" entry on the Marvel website, but my point in referencing that was more to emphasize that these terms have been long established and understood -- and in the case of that entry, it's only been edited twice since it was originally posted in January of 2008, with those definitions present from the first post submission.

 

[JechtShotMK9]

The 2005 handbook lists much, much more than DC as being part of the Omniverse. The very entry you quoted up above show that Marvel is going waaaaay beyond their purview with this, unless you want to believe that the Scarlet Witch destroyed you and reformed you without you remembering, that we are protected by a Captain Britain appointed by either Merlyn or his Daughter, etc.

I mean, this thing mentions Luke Skywalker. Given Lucas' lukewarm reception to the expanded universe of his own franchise (mind you, we're talking about a 2005 entry here), what do you think his response would be if you were to walk up to him and say, "Hey great job on that Star Wars thing. Best part of the Marvel Omniverse, for sure."

And you seem to have misunderstood me earlier. I wasn't equating the omniverse with the multiverse, I was saying that the term "megaverse" seemed to have been created to define what the omniverse has generally been treated as in the comics.

If Marvel wants to include DC, Ultraverse, Witchblade, etc., (e.g., all their crossover stuff) as part of some "Marvel Omniverse," that's one thing. But the handbook entry is waaaay overstepping its bounds, and seems more like the efforts of a rogue writer than any kind of real creative decision.

As for TOAA, he is listed in the handbooks as being the true supreme being, and the creator of the omniverse. Personally, I don't believe that my life is being drawn by Jack Kirby somewhere beyond time and space, but that's just me

Concerning Starlin, I may have a bit of a bias seeing as I've met the guy , but the man basically created "Cosmic Marvel." I tend to hold his work above most other writers on the topic, especially since Starlin has a habit of going back in using his stuff to retcon the other works (the whole Thanosi thing, for example.) I'd rather just take Starlin at his word than assume that Thanos just randomly reverts to his 70's personality for Infinity.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

The 2005 handbook lists much, much more than DC as being part of the Omniverse. The very entry you quoted up above show that Marvel is going waaaaay beyond their purview with this ...

Yes, by saying "Universes exist outside our intellectual property," they're displaying unparalleled boldness. =P

... unless you want to believe that the Scarlet Witch destroyed you and reformed you without you remembering, that we are protected by a Captain Britain appointed by either Merlyn or his Daughter, etc.

Not only are you once again taking the term to imply the opposite of what it entails, but you're applying what the Scarlet Witch did to the totality of Marvel's multiverse, when she only affected her own universe. A double whammy of mischaracterizing the cosmology.

I mean, this thing mentions Luke Skywalker. Given Lucas' lukewarm reception to the expanded universe of his own franchise (mind you, we're talking about a 2005 entry here), what do you think his response would be if you were to walk up to him and say, "Hey great job on that Star Wars thing. Best part of the Marvel Omniverse, for sure."

I wouldn't be calling it "the Marvel Omniverse" -- and, thus, using the term incorrectly -- in the first place.

And you seem to have misunderstood me earlier. I wasn't equating the omniverse with the multiverse, I was saying that the term "megaverse" seemed to have been created to define what the omniverse has generally been treated as in the comics.

You're probably right there. That seems to be what the Captain Britain Corps are referring to when they say "omniverse."

If Marvel wants to include DC, Ultraverse, Witchblade, etc., (e.g., all their crossover stuff) as part of some "Marvel Omniverse," that's one thing. But the handbook entry is waaaay overstepping its bounds, and seems more like the efforts of a rogue writer than any kind of real creative decision.

Yes, Mark Gruenwald -- fondly remembered by fans and many within the industry as "the father of modern superhero comics"; the man who introduced the terminology and sensibilities for parallel universes and time travel that have been in play at both Marvel and DC for decades; who is credited with making the cataloguing of continuity a thing; to whom we owe the tradition of huge crossover comic events, seeing as he wrote the first one ("Marvel Super Heroes Contest of Champions") -- is "some rogue writer."

=P

As for TOAA, he is listed in the handbooks as being the true supreme being, and the creator of the omniverse.

Not true. He is only ever explicitly referred to, whether on-panel or in handbooks, as the supreme being of the multiverse, with the remaining language always being carefully selected to leave open-ended whether his power extends beyond Marvel to the rest of the omniverse.

Examples:

https://imgur.com/8uc35fy.jpg
-"All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe" #6

https://i.imgur.com/jA8djX2h.jpg
-All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Update" #2

https://i.imgur.com/Lkhbyd0.jpg
-"Thor Annual" #14

Personally, I don't believe that my life is being drawn by Jack Kirby somewhere beyond time and space, but that's just me

You also didn't introduce the term to comics. But it's simple enough anyway to just think of the term as applying to the totality of all fictional realities without bringing our own into the matter, if that suits you better.

Concerning Starlin, I may have a bit of a bias seeing as I've met the guy , but the man basically created "Cosmic Marvel." I tend to hold his work above most other writers on the topic, especially since Starlin has a habit of going back in using his stuff to retcon the other works (the whole Thanosi thing, for example.) I'd rather just take Starlin at his word than assume that Thanos just randomly reverts to his 70's personality for Infinity.

I've met him as well (at HeroesCon 2014), and being that Thanos has probably been my favorite comic character since I was five years old, I have no doubt that I hold Jim in even higher regard than yourself. Cosmic Marvel has been a cornerstone of my overall love affair with Marvel ever since "The Infinity Gauntlet" was published, and I have every Thanos, Warlock or Silver Surfer story he ever did.

Regardless, Jim's depiction of the Tribunal in his most recent "Thanos: The Infinity Revelation/Relativity/Finale" opus is flatly in error. The Tribunal has always otherwise been depicted as the judge of the multiverse, with only a single such entity in existence -- going back as far as the first story arc depicting him:

https://i.imgur.com/VnMDfhCh.jpg
-"Strange Tales" #158

 

[JechtShotMK9]

The very scan you posted lists TOAA as the creator of the Omniverse. Like, verbatim.

And yes, I am bringing the real world into this, because the handbook entry that started this whole clusterfuck brought it up. As much as we may wish otherwise, Ronald Reagan was actually a real person.

Regardless of what Gruenwald may have said, and I don't doubt he said it, the definition used in the 2005 handbook doesn't make sense. Being the basis for something doesn't mean that his word is some kind of immutable law (to my knowledge, DC doesn't even use the omniverse term, just Marvel.) Stan Lee created Iron Man, but Tony Stark's backstory no longer involves the Vietnam War.

The Scarlet Witch affected the entire omniverse.

Aside from that, the Endangered Species storyline had Beasts desperately searching for ways to repower mutants after House of M, only to discover that Wanda's powers extended far beyond the 616 reality. I don't have that scan on me, but you literally see the Beast searching through other realities. You seem to be well-read on Marvel; I'm sure the storyline shouldn't be too hard to find if you are interested.

The point I've been making is that there is a discrepancy between how the omniverse is depicted on panel, and how it is defined in that handbook. According to the handbook, it encompasses everything ever, up to and including the real world.

On panel, it basically describes any fictional entity that has ever been connected to the Marvel franchise media.

One of these actually makes sense, and doesn't require our lives to be dictated by some old guy with a magic pencil. I'm fairly sure Grunwald did not intend for his coinage of the term to imply that fictional universes would be able to affect real ones.

You can argue that the handbook is using the "proper" term, and that the comics have been incorrectly using "Omniverse" for decades, and I could agree with that, to an extent. But honestly, you could make the same case with essentially any use of "omni-(insert something here)" ever used in comics. The handbook's could be the out-of-universe definition, but, on panel, the omniverse is used differently, which was the point I was making when I first posted in this. Trying to reconcile the on-panel usage with the handbook definition leads to stupidity like real life Earth being protected by a Captain Britain, or Merlin the Wizard being the guardian of all of existence.

As for the Living Tribunal, given what Hickman did to the guy in the leading up to Secret Wars, that may be Marvel's new take on him. It sucks, but given how Doom outwitted the Beyonders, you'd think being a multiversal entity that exists throughout all of time and space would be able to overcome beings that cannot affect time. I like Hickman's writing, but I honestly feel that he could have left the Tribunal out of the story completely, or just had written in some "rule" why he couldn't interfere, like the Chaos War author did for Eternity.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

The very scan you posted lists TOAA as the creator of the Omniverse. Like, verbatim.

Only they didn't:

"... the entity that is apparently responsible for all life in the multiverse, and possibly beyond."


"The entity believed to be the supreme being/creator of the omniverse."


Again, these words are carefully selected, whereas there has been no hesitation to outright state that the being is the supreme entity of the multiverse.

And yes, I am bringing the real world into this, because the handbook entry that started this whole clusterfuck brought it up. As much as we may wish otherwise, Ronald Reagan was actually a real person.

I'm trying to help you out here since you seem to be having the issue with it. It doesn't bother me.

The Scarlet Witch affected the entire omniverse.

Aside from that, the Endangered Species storyline had Beasts desperately searching for ways to repower mutants after House of M, only to discover that Wanda's powers extended far beyond the 616 reality. I don't have that scan on me, but you literally see the Beast searching through other realities. You seem to be well-read on Marvel; I'm sure the storyline shouldn't be too hard to find if you are interested.

Right, I remember that nonsensical clusterfuck now. It was almost immediately ignored since it would have called for nearly all mutants in every other reality to no longer have their powers -- and that didn't happen.

Shit, in the "Age of Apocalypse" ongoing series that was published in 2012 (seven years after "House of M"), the AoA Sabretooth and Jean Grey (who still have their powers, mind you, despite Forge previously saying that no mutants from their world still did) go back to their reality after visiting Earth-616 and try to recreate the "No More Mutants" spell on their own Earth (via cloning that reality's deceased Scarlet Witch) after learning about it in the 616.

To say nothing of the mutants of Earth-1610 (the Ultimate Marvel universe) retaining their powers on up to 2015 and the destruction of their reality, the "X-Men Forever" ongoing series (began publication in 2009), the various mutants witnessed on Incursion worlds, and so on and so forth.

The point I've been making is that there is a discrepancy between how the omniverse is depicted on panel, and how it is defined in that handbook.

Just happily ignoring "Quasar" there, I see.

Sure, there are occasional discrepancies (which, again, we can easily No Prize an explanation for). But the prevailing definition is one that actually makes sense and serves a legitimate function, establishing a solid structure for the fiction to sit upon while still allowing for the existence of other realities.

According to the handbook, it encompasses everything ever, up to and including the real world.

On panel, it basically describes any fictional entity that has ever been connected to the Marvel franchise media.

One of these actually makes sense, and doesn't require our lives to be dictated by some old guy with a magic pencil.

And I know which one it is.

After all, I'm not the one calling for DC to be part of Marvel's multiverse over here since "JLA/Avengers" is canon -- which, yes, I know you haven't explicitly said. But it'd be the result of what you've been insisting upon by refusing to accept the correct definition of the word we're discussing.

You can argue that the handbook is using the "proper" term, and that the comics have been incorrectly using "Omniverse" for decades, and I could agree with that, to an extent. But honestly, you could make the same case with essentially any use of "omni-(insert something here)" ever used in comics. The handbook's could be the out-of-universe definition, but, on panel, the omniverse is used differently, which was the point I was making when I first posted in this. Trying to reconcile the on-panel usage with the handbook definition leads to stupidity like real life Earth being protected by a Captain Britain, or Merlin the Wizard being the guardian of all of existence.

Even if we pretend for the sake of argument that "Quasar" hadn't used the term on-panel correctly, I still insist that Ewing -- whose book's expressed purpose is exploring and clarifying the cosmology -- should be using these terms correctly.

God's sake, man, he wrote that Eternity is the embodiment of the multiverse. How can you be defending this?

Also, no, that silliness you speak of ("Trying to reconcile the on-panel usage with the handbook definition leads to stupidity like real life Earth being protected by a Captain Britain ...") only pops up if you insist upon it. It's simple enough to just recognize that the Captain Britain Corps use the word incorrectly.

Hell, even before the Incursions, not every Marvel universe had an Earth. That means no Britain. So no Captain Britain. So they weren't even everywhere in the traditional Marvel Multiverse to begin with. For that matter, they weren't even on all worlds that did have an Earth -- e.g. the Earths of Shadowline, the Squadron Supreme, the New Universe, etc.

As for the Living Tribunal, given what Hickman did to the guy in the leading up to Secret Wars, that may be Marvel's new take on him.

It isn't. As Hickman also wrote him during "Time Runs Out," there was explicitly one Tribunal in the multiverse. Whereas Jim wrote "The Infinity Finale" with there being a Tribunal in each universe, with just the 616's getting killed by the Beyonders.

Another problem with the continuity of Jim's latest story is that he started writing it with its events set prior to "Infinity," "Time Runs Out" and "Secret Wars" (explicit references are made in "The Infinity Revelation" that establish the events of "Avengers Assemble" as having occurred recently), but by the time we got to "The Infinity Finale," we're hearing references to the Living Tribunal being murdered by Beyonders. It's absolute bananas.

 

[JechtShotMK9]

Listen, we're not going to agree here. And, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be getting agitated over this, so I'm just going leave one final post, and I'm out. Feel free to respond, but I won't be replying back. This is my closing argument, as it were. We seem to at least have an audience of one, so we can give X-Soldier a show.

I will say that, in and of itself, I put very little stock in off-panel, out of universe statements concerning Marvel characters. Back in the day when I wasn't working a full time job, I would pick out inconsistencies in the handbooks for fun (strength stats, and minor errors and whatnot.) Then you have the stuff like Brevoort saying that the events of Marvel: The End did not happen in the main continuity, despite essentially every cosmic storyline of the second half of the decade being built on a foundation that directly references those events (None of the later stuff can happen without Annihilation, Annihilation can't happen without the Thanos Mini, The Thanos Mini directly references The End.)

Being a historian, my first instinct is to just go with what's in the primary source. In this case, this is the comic itself. Furthermore, with this being a form of media in which later writers overwrite older ones (Starlin's Thanosi explanation, again, for example), generally the newer stuff takes precedence over the older stuff. The Handbooks, interviews, etc., are all supplemental to the primary source itself, which, in this case, is the comic, and, therefore, the source material takes precedence. As for interviews, I'm a strong believer in Death of the Author. I don't particularly care what is said out of universe.

The handbook clouds this particular issue even further, because after giving out that definition of Omniverse, it goes on to bring up all the Captain Britain stories I've been talking about so far. You are saying that the writers of Captain Britain are using the term incorrectly, yet the work you are citing as the chief piece of your argument directly references the Captain Britain comics in the entry on the Omniverse.

http://www.marvunapp.com/ohotmu/appendixes/omnapp.htm

So, going by what's in this entry, the real world falls under the same omniversal umbrella as Marvel. The entry directly states that there is ONE omniverse. It further goes on to discuss all that Captain Britain stuff I've been talking about, including Merlyn and Roma being the ones who basically run the thing. So, according to the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, every single idea in all of creation is it's own corporeal reality that is ruled by a guy who spent his spare time as a wizard in Britain and his daughter, and all of this was "created" (fine, whatever "is believed to be created by," but you know full well what they mean.) by the supreme being of the Marvel Universe. Who may also be the same guy as the Presence, or God, or Allah, or (insert any other idealization of a singular creative entity), which may not contradict your personal beliefs, but does kinda suck if you are Hindu or something.

You are probably rolling your eyes at this point, but I'm getting to my point, which is basically an attack on omniverse theory in general

Essentially, if an omniverse exists that consists of all realities, real and imagined, and is truly infinite, then, for example, I could imagine a universe in which a being exists that can and will totally destroy the omniverse in 3 seconds. Because real and fictional realities are equated under this theory, then my idea is just as true as any other, since the omniverse is infinite, and all possibilities occur within it at some point. So, enjoy your last 3 seconds of existence, while my omniversal destroyer gets ready to do his thing...
...
...
...
Huh. That's weird.

Now, I know you are rolling your eyes at this point. But that is precisely my point. This definition you are clinging to so hard makes no logical sense. It's the same issue when trying to discuss any kind of "omni" whatever, in that all it takes is one contradiction, then boom. It's incorrect.

Within the confines of a fictional franchise, this isn't an issue, because logic and accuracy must needs occasionally give way to suspension of disbelief and entertaining storytelling. But The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe didn't confine its definition to merely Marvel's own work. It decided to use this all-encompassing definition instead, and attached the prior works to it.

And no, I don't think that whoever wrote the entry put that much thought into this, but I don't see that as a reason to accept a logically incoherent viewpoint from a supplemental source to a franchise above what was already a relatively consistent cosmological system. Marvel's on-panel use of the term "omniverse" may have been linguistically "incorrect," but at least it was logically consistent within its own setting. The handbook's use of the term, while "correct," is enormously inconsistent, as it takes a logically impossible concept, and then goes even further, by asserting its own franchise into a position of supremacy over every other real and fictional reality in existence.

Gruenwald may have come up with this idea of an Omniverse, but I seriously, seriously doubt that he declared Marvel Comics to be the arbiter of who runs the whole deal.

Aaaaand I'm done. There's a sample of comic terminology, metaphysics, and philosophy from the mind of a sleep-deprived, hungover, overworked history professor at 4:50 in the morning. If nothing else, I'll get a kick out of reading this again in the morning after I've slept, and see the extent of my rambling.

X-Soldier, enjoy I feel like Tres will respond with a fair amount of incredulity, but I'm tired and really don't care at this point

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

There's no need for me to be incredulous since you're able to acknowledge on your own that you're applying a particular point of view that insists on problems where I would point out there don't have to be. Ironically, I would argue that my approach is that of the historian, because -- to my mind anyway -- a historian would look for what makes all the pieces fit together as much as possible, discarding something only when it's utterly irreconcilable (e.g. M-Day hitting every universe).

Like you, I'm willing to defer to the primary source when supplemental sources are contradictory -- and what I see when I look at the primary source is that the JLA met the Avengers, they teamed up, had an adventure, and then the events of that adventure were acknowledged later to have legitimately occurred. All of this is still on-panel at this point within the primary source: actual comics.

So, what we then have to do from here is work with terminology and concepts that allow for this to be true without the universe of the JLA (any universes with them, actually) also being part of the universal cluster that caved in on itself and was destroyed between the beginning of Hickman's "New Avengers" #1 and the end of "Secret Wars" #1.

If that destroyed cluster is both the Marvel Multiverse and what the Captain Britain Corps have always referred to as the omniverse, then that leads us to two simple conclusions:

-There are universes beyond the Marvel Multiverse/the Captain Britain Corps' "omniverse"

-And by consequence of the first result, the Captain Britain Corps have been using "omniverse" erroneously

We aren't even being haughty, out-of-line irately entitled fans in reaching these conclusions because, in addition to reasoning our way here by the most simple of deductions from what's shown on the page, we are also arriving at a destination that was already put in place decades ago -- on-panel and off -- for us to make sense of these very situations.

I won't say much on whether you're off base or on the money with regard to omniverse theory as a scientific concept in real life. Supposedly, it's a thing. I get why you say it doesn't seem logical, and I would largely agree (leaving room for "conservation of energy" or some such explanation to explain why there isn't a universe out there where someone is engineering our demise across the whole of all realities), but as much as I love sciency shit, I also don't have the mind to make sense of a lot of it. I do well to understand the biological, chemical and mechanical processes at work within the wastewater plant where I work.

Ideas like "time as we perceive it is an illusion/all time is happening in the same moment"? I can't wrap my head around that stuff beyond the sentence I just wrote. Apparently that is the true nature of reality, but imagining it makes me want to take Professor X's stance on time branching vs. overwriting history in the "Days of Future Past" movie and say, "No, Hank. I don't think I believe that."

What I will say on the matter, though, is that the issue you have with an infinite omniverse already applies when looking just at the concept of an infinitely expanding multiverse -- i.e. when dealing with even just those universes directly within Marvel's purview.

In fact, this was sort of addressed once, though I'm not sure that was the out-and-out intention. The "Guardians of the Galaxy" series in the 90s featured a villain named Protégé who could copy the power of anyone -- even the Living Tribunal. And he did it.

Anyway, if you think too hard about the "infinitely expanding" thing, you'll start wanting to challenge how infinite universes could have ever been whittled down to just Earths-616 and -1610. They're comics. They're supposed to be fun. And if you want them to make sense, you'll see the sense in those two conclusions I spoke of above.

And also, Brevoort is forever full of shit.