Talk:Immortus

Fantastic Four villain?
I know there's some confusion due to the fact that Immortus was once Rama Tut, but Immortus is in fact an Avengers villain; one need only look through his history to see that 90% of his dealings involve the Avengers. How would one go about changing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.232.14 (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Iron Lad and Kang the Conquerer
While I certainly think this article should be expanded, I would say it should remain a stand-alone article and NOT merged with Kang the Conquerer. At the end of the Avengers Forever storyline, Kang and Immortus were separated. In other words, the current version of Kang the Conquerer will not necessarily become Immortus but has the option of remaining as himself for the remainder of his life. Markeer 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Kang and Immortus are two separate characters as of the divergence in Avengers Forever.--StAkAr Karnak 21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although Kang and Immortus are divergences from the same person, in action they're treated like two different characters. A weak but passable comparison would be Superman and Bizarro; although hailing from one central origin, they've sufficiently differentiated themselves into two opposing forces to justify them standing separate.  Yeah, it's a confusing mess, but I'd call them different. - --El benito 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

They are all the same person so they should be merged -jokauff 21:46 7 June, 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Strong oppose - Kang and Immortus are the same peson but very different and separate characters. Kant2k6

Question
Is Immortus a descendant of Mr. Fantastic? Noneofyourbusiness 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorta. Last I checked, they're saying Nathaniel Richards journeyed into the future and made Earth a Utopia; while there he had some kids.  Kang's real name is Nathaniel Richards, and he's supposedly named after his ancestor. Dr Archeville 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Immortus 001.jpg
Image:Immortus 001.jpg 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 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 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 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is He Who Remains from the Loki finale an adaptation of Immortus?
In the Loki Season 1 finale, Jonathan Majors portrays a version of Kang with some similarities to Immortus, namely relation to the Timekeepers, occupation being maintain a timeline rather than conquering it, being a version living beyond other Kangs in addition to his outfit containing yellow markings around the chest, much like the medallion Immortus uses. Should he be considered an adaptation of Immortus? Enb 11 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, I suspect so myself, but with Wikipedia, it's probably best to wait for official confirmation, right? Don't want to put unsourced information on there and violate that one "no original research" rule Goddale120 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)