Talk:newuniversal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pittsburgh[edit]

Is this set in Pittsburgh? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Issue #1 has a variety of settings, but the newuniversal version of Star Brand isn't in Pittsburgh (unlike the original New Universe version?), he's in Oklahoma. --Mrph 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. Much of New Universe was set here in Pittsburgh. The whole project was Jim Shooter's baby, and he loves his hometown. When he left Marvel, a number of people disliked him, and they went about destroying the New Universe, starting with Pittsburgh. The comic The Pit shows a map of the damage. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Universe & newuniversal - articles for alternate versions of characters[edit]

This is likely to be a factor in a few issues time (as with Ultimate Marvel, Supreme Power etc), so for clarity - as I understand 'em, WP:CMC guidelines (as noted here) are...

  • "Alternate versions of characters should have entries in the main article unless that article grows unmanageably large" - and only if it's still that large after it's "been copyedited to conform with editorial guidance"
  • ...based on that, characters who appeared in the original New U should be sharing articles with their newuniversal equivalents. Izanami Randall is one possible exception - if she's not using the 'Nightmask' name, there's no direct link between the two versions, so a new article might make sense (as with Supreme Power's Blur, which is a similar situation).
  • Although Star Brand has an article, that's no specifically about Ken Connell - it's about the New Universe version of the brand/weapon. If the newuniversal version turns out to be something very different, it might be worth creating a Ken Connell article, then adding the New U Ken Connell history segments into that...? I don't think that's anything that needs to be done soon, though.

Opinions? --Mrph 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Give them a separate section unless they really diverge so far from the originals that it all stops making sense and they can be considered as a separate character. Perhaps this section could be used for that discussion if that looks like happening so everyone can give their opinion. (Emperor 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I think that there is enough content that we can make separate pages for each of the four main characters (Justice/John Tensen, Nightmask/Izanami Randall, Star Brand/Ken Connell, and Cipher/Jennifer Swann). I've already taken the liberty of making a page for Cipher, given that the nature of her character has changed so much and that fact that she is now a superhuman. If the series ever gets back on its feet then we'll have plenty more content as new material is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McBeardy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style comments...[edit]

Little things, but might be worth working into the article at some point...

  • The first three covers are all very distinctive - both in terms of the image and the way they're colored. No characters, no action scenes.
  • Lettering - captions are (mostly) all caps, human dialogue is sentence case (unlike Izanami's apparition)
  • ...which neatly ties into the date/time thing. I've mentioned this in the article - so far, newuniversal is clearly not running on comic book time - but Ellis seems to consciously nail every scene to a time. They're listed to the minute and they're listed in Universal Standard Time as well as local time - he's doing this to make a point...

--Mrph 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm surprised no one' mentioned the fact that all the characters look like famous actors. From issue 1:

  • Tensen = Bruce Willis
  • the nurse Tensen kills = Harrison Ford
  • Ken = whoever plays Sawyer from "Lost"
  • Jim Braddock=Gene Hackman
  • the sherriff (maddie's dad) = whoever plays Tony Soprano

Is it just me? Am I reading into things too much? Plotlessviolence 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Events that occured in Earth-555 that's derived from Our World"[edit]

Typos aside, I've got a couple of concerns about putting this into its own subsection.

  • Firstly, these are aspects of the "setting" section - that's where the alternate world of newuniversal is summarised, after all.
  • Secondly, we're only one issue in and we've already got a five-point bulleted list. I don't expect quite so many references in #2 - some of this was initial scene-setting, making it clear that this isn't our earth. But I don't think there's much point in an ever-growing list of trivia either, especially when much of it (currently) has no relevance to the larger plot.

Opinions? --Mrph 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comparisons to Heroes?[edit]

What it says above.Any similarties?Any differences (apart rom the obvious?) - R.G. 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's similar in that certain people start developing powers. That's about it. I don't think it deserves mention any more than Rising Stars deserves a 'comparison to Heroes' section.-Wandering Ghost 13:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premise behind the first New Universe line of comics was the question "What would happen if normal people became superhuman overnight?" back in 1980's. But right many comics and one or two Tv Series ask that question like:
  1. Supreme Power
  2. Heroes
  3. Rising Stars
  4. Ultimate Marvel line of comics

--Brown Shoes22 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

It's starting to look like the plot section needs a fair bit of rewriting, for length and for clarity. Currently, we've got too much detail, including some word-for-word quotes, and it's not that easy to follow. Anyone able to fix this? I'll take a stab at it when I have time & references to hand, but I'm not sure how soon that'll be... --Mrph 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a imprint or more like Supreme Power?[edit]

?--Brown Shoes22 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Universe was definitely an imprint. So far, this is closer to Supreme Power. --Mrph 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


External links[edit]

I've deleted the links to preview pages for #1 and #2 again, as the issues are out - we've already got these covered in the article, so the previews don't seem to add much information. Ditto for the comicon page, which was already linked as a reference. If we do have reasons to link to these again, can someone explain them here? I can see a possible reason to add the previews (and the trailer) as references, using them as examples of Marvel's online promotion for the series, but other than that... Thanks! --Mrph 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character descriptions[edit]

The text of the descriptions needs some major grammatical and editorial correction. They don't appear to be written by native English speakers and are full of typos, fragments and incorrect grammar.

Jim Braddock[edit]

...is probably an alternate version of James Braddock, Captain Britain's father. Which would fit with the other references to the Marvel Universe that are in there. Need a bit more confirmation before it can go into the article, though... --Mrph (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delays[edit]

Is there any news on why Shockfront #3 & 4 have slipped off the charts, and when they'll get back on? I've scoured the web, and no-one even seems to be acknowledging that it's happened. --81.154.252.56 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same problem trying to get some info about the comic's status. A couple months ago, the Marvel site said September 17 for no. 3. That date came and went; no news from anywhere. However, I see that the artist Kurth is now working on other comics(Mighty Avengers), which I take as a bad sign for the future of newuniversal:Shockfront.Mytg8 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the marvel online catalog, and it says shockfront #3 won't be released until december 31, 2013. I hope it's a typo on the catalog, but that's what it said at this moment. http://www.marvel.com/catalog/?id=9128 96.233.177.171 (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that its a simple typo, waiting over five years for the next issue is insane. I emailed Marvel.com for some info, so hopefully this is just a mistake or a joke. McBeardy (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Marvel has removed Shockfront #3 from the catalog. The page #3 was on is comming up blank at the moment, and a #3 isn't showing up in the catalog when I search for it. 96.240.210.159 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Article structure[edit]

I find that the article could use a little minor re-structuring. I propose that rather than having the "Setting", "Characters", "Major Characters", and "Other Characters" sections as sub-sections of "Plot", which doesn't make sense, they be moved to their own sections. This will help to make the article to look better and be easier to read. McBeardy (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newuniversal. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newuniversal&oldid=1204276708"