Talk:Squadron Supreme

Squadron Sinister
Someone should mention the Squadron Sinister, which the Squadron Supreme was based on, and also the fact that, at about the same time the Squadron Sinister appeared in the Avengers comic, a group of characters based on Marvel Comics characters appeared in the Justice League of America comic (issue #87). Thor, Yellowjacket, Scarlet Witch, & Quicksilver became Wandjina, Blue Jay, Silver Sorceress, & Jack B. Quick, respectively. This, of course, was no coincidence -- it was an "unofficial crossover" coordinated by the writers of both comics. Mark Gruenwald didn't create the concept of Squadron Supreme -- he merely adapted it from the Squadron Sinister. --Kaijan 15:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Institute of Evil
It always seemed to me that Gruenwald based the Institute of Evil on not only enemies of the DC heroes but those chacters in combination, either look, characteristics, or powers, with the X-Men. I haven't figured it all out, just remember thinking that when I was reading it the first time. Thought the name "Institute" was a clue. Some are obvious (see Ape-X); some seem like a stretch. This is my best guess:


 * Gorilla Grodd                + Professor X          = Ape-X;
 * Sinestro                     + Storm                = Quagmire;
 * Lex Luther                   + Morph                = Shape;
 * Dr. Polaris                  + Banshee              = Dr. Decibel;
 * Parasite                     + Rogue                = Lamprey;
 * Dr. Alchemy                  + Shadow Cat           = Foxfire (a chemical   reaction by touch).

But it doesn't stop there:


 * Catwoman                    + Wolverine             = Mink(remember the claws);
 * Penguin                     + Beast (think bounce)  = Pinball;
 * Joker                       + Iceman                = Remnant.

Maybe it even goes to the new SS members:


 * Captain Cold                + Sunfire               = Thermite;
 * Grundy                      + Tbird                 = Red Stone;
 * Poison Ivy                  + Havok                 = Haywire;
 * Turtle                      + Gambit                = Inertia;
 * Mirror Master               + Marvel Girl           = MoonGlow.

-Dex __________________________________________________________________________


 * Nighthawk's redeemers always struck me as being based on the Outsiders:


 * Redstone = Geo-Force
 * Inertia = Halo
 * Moonglow = Looker
 * Thermite = Metamorpho (not in powers, but in not-quite-human appearance)
 * Haywire = Black Lightning


 * Though they are also a mostly-good match for the original X-Men:


 * Redstone = Beast
 * Thermite = Cyclops
 * Inertia = Marvel Girl
 * Haywire = Iceman
 * Moonglow = Angel (? well, she can fly)


 * Nighthawk's villains were based on Batman's villains:


 * Remnant = Joker
 * Mink = Catwoman (she's used claws in the past)
 * Pinball = Penguin


 * They're not as deadly as Batman's foes, but then Nighthawk is a lot less grim than Batman. I think putting Beast and Iceman in there is quite a stretch.


 * I think reading too much into this is a mistake, since I think Gruenwald came up with a number of these characters out of whole cloth. After all, it's not like Tom Thumb resembles The Atom very much! -mhr 23:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * i have allways thought that Redstone was based lossely on the Marvel supervillan Juggernaught. i allways thought that the name redstone, was a refference to  the gem that powered cain Marko. also both have simular superpowers: superhuman strengh that was gained through mystical means. they also have simular look apearances and bellow average inteligence. --Dr noire 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Squadron Characters
You make some interesting points; however, in the absence of anything concrete, I still believe the characters were made from combinations of other characters. The most obvious is Ape-X: Super intelligent Gorilla mixed with wheelchaired telekenesis user with "X" as a significant part of his name.

I believe you are correct that the Outsiders were probably the basis for the redeemers. This seems especially likely given the Batman (Nighthawk) relationship. The timing is right too. I think they came out in about 1983. Never read the outsiders series, and it has been about 10 years since I read the SS's mini-series, so I am not sure what attributes were taken from them or what they were mixed with. Without this information, I have a difficult time seeing the correlation between Haywire and Black Lightning, the only outsider I am familar with. Neither the powers nor the look of the character seem similar. Inasmuch as the Institute was based on Xavier's School it seems correct that other groups in the mini-series would be based on other "real" comic teams.

I don't see the connection between the original X-men alone and the Redeemers. I could maybe agree on Iceman/Haywire as they both shoot their "weapon" from their hands. I suppose you could argue that both the Beast and Redstone are the strongman of their respective groups but that is a relative characteristic and I was focusing on absolute characteristics. Plus I think that comparison has a magnitude problem; Beast could lift between 500-1000lb before he turned blue and furry, while Redstone took out a blinded Hyperion with a couple of punchs. What is the common thread between Marvel Girl and Inertia be other that they are both female? I am equally unsure of the commonality between Cyclops and Thermite - the ability to shoot ruby energy beams for the eyes and the ability to fire either cold or heat "beams" from the hands? Finally, Moonglow (not Arcania in Moonglow guise) could not fly. All of her abilities were based on illusion.

No doubt Mink, Remnant, and Pinball were based on Catwoman, Penguin, and the Joker. I just still believe they were blended with additional characters. Yes, I did make some guesses that were quite a stretch. That is why I prefaced my selections with an acknowledgement of that ("...seems like a stretch"). I chose Wolverine because of the type of claws - not at the fingers like Catwoman but three from the back of the hand/wrist area - and, as I hear from a couple of friends that used to work at a mink ranch, mink are vicious little guys. However, your point about the more cheerful nature of Nighthawk is well taken.

Iceman was chosen because of the thousand and one uses for his ice. The particular idea came to me when Nighthawk and his crew use Remnant's fabic as a magic carpet to ride on [although this may have actually been in Cap. America as I seem to recalled they appeared in his mag trying to recruit]. Just reminded me of Iceman and the way he shuttles everyone around on his ice. If you just look to the Joker alone, the only simularity that I remember is that they are both tall, lanky guys with exotic colored hair. I think Gruenwald's homage, while not just a mere copy, was too perfect for such a weak link.

Admitedly, linking the Penguin and Beast to Pinball is not as strong. I chose Beast because during the mini-series he was at the height of his bouncing, blue tigar phase. Since Pinball used physical attacks based on bouncing into the opponent, I connected the two. However, this guess was made in trying to keep with the premise that the Penguin was combined with a member of the X-men. If there was no pattern, clearly, he is more like Bouncing Boy from the Legion of Super-Heroes.

Finally, while I agree that reading too much into something is bad (by definition), I have to disagree that Gruenwald created any of the characters in the mini-series out of whole cloth. Okay, maybe the Rustler and Bollux (or was it Bollix). Never really thought about them. Lamprey doesn't look like Parasite either but the conection is clear. The idiom "cut [or made]of whole cloth" came from a loomed cloth designation and was used to mean something in its entirety. Because of scarity, people had to reuse fabic a great deal making a garment made from whole cloth was a luxury. In the 19th century the phrase began to be accepted as something utterly without foundation in fact: completely fictitious. In this sense of the word, you are correct but then every comic book would be cut from whole cloth as they are completely fictitious (except maybe things like the Avengers Letterman issue). A more modern use of the phrase is to mean ex nihilo - from nothing. This indicates that the maker of the subject had no model or earlier edition upon which to base it. This, I believe, was the meaning that you intended. Clearly, Tom Thumb was based on the Atom and, therefore, was not create ex nihilo. Although the Atom was more diminutive, the small crimefighter/super scientist model is there.

I am not suggesting that Gruenwald didn't add his own flare in creating something new but he did it, in the mini-series, based on a previous model. You don't get Quagmire by just mixing Sinestro's power with Storm's Mohawk look. He just took that as his model.

A further argument for this is to look at the mini-series as a whole. It seems odd that a story teller would go to the trouble of developing a charactor as an homage to 11 members of of the JLA and create one whole cloth character. Especially, when he went on to create homage characters for 11 more villians/anti-heroes. As far as I can tell, there were no whole cloth characters in the mini-series and that is exactly why it was such a good story-telling vehicle for Gruenwald.

-Dex

you're wrong about some of the characters. How is Quagmire, a person who shoots a tar like substance, later revealed to be the Darkforce in a set that involved heroes fighting others covered in black matter, similar to Goldface and Sinestro? Foxfire based on starfire? impossible. two different powers. Haywire fires strands of malleable but strong wire. How is he similar to black lightning? Thermite's powers are based in fire not the elements like Metamorpho. how is pinball based on the penquin? one has a suit in which he grows in size, the other is a bon vivant criminal.

pretty much all of those odd combinations dex came up with is utterly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.198.194 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 August 2005

The Utopia Project
Looking for a detall story Synopsis. Issues by issues? --Brown Shoes22 16:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Going Overboard With DC Connections
Folks, let's bear in mind there is no mandate that every character in the Squadron universe has to be connected to a DC character. Mark Gruenwald had ambitions greater than paying homage to the Justice League like those who previously wrote Squadron stories, so many of the new characters he introduced are not linked to any particular DC hero or villain. Some of the connections drawn are obvious (Skymax the skrull and Martian Manhunter) while many others are tenative at best. For instance, other than being overweight, what is the similarity between Pinball and Penguin? Thematically, they're very different. How can Redstone be based on Geo-Force, when there's no resemblance in name or appearance, nor does Redstone have Geo-Force's gravity or thermal powers (and Geo-Force is not invulnerable or even bulletproof)? The similarities really aren't there, and that's not even getting us into really off-the-wall associations like basing Haywire on Black Lightning (???). It's all well and good to harbor your own theories about Gruenwald's inspirations, but do highly speculative correlations really belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveg99 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2006

Hear, Hear. This article is starting to look like a fansite or blog, rather than an encyclopedia. Let's de-cruft this page, and please stop trying to find DC correlations for every minor character or storyline. Speculation is just out of control here. --68.58.123.201 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just went through and removed all of the "possibly" and "may be" comparisons. Again. CovenantD 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am curious - has it been written somewhere citable that Squadron Supreme was a "thinly-disguised" copy of DC's JLA? If not, then I have to agree that it sounds like a bit of SS bashing, and not at all neutralArcayne 18:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of the 'thinly disguised' line, but I've added two footnotes to verify that Roy Thomas did indeed intend the Squadron Sinister to be versions of the Justice League. Of the two footnotes, the second is from a published interview he gave where he directly stated this was the case (so by far the stronger of the two citations).  That said, any characters created after Roy Thomas that seem similar to JLA characters will need citation if one wishes to state they are analogues, copies or homages.  Hope this helps -Markeer 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK...big tidy up of the introduction and added present tense and references. Removed a lot of very pro-DC POV and tell-the-story. Also culled the second SHB as each entry only has one - additional boxes are not added for every series otherwise entries like the Avengers or Inhumans would be huge. The first section now looks far less like a fan site and more like the Wikipedia entry it should be. The Roy Thomas line will come later in another section once finished.

Asgardian 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tidy up bar minor edits complete. I couldn't really find anything concrete about the SS/JLA connection as one of the sources cited is still just POV with no hard quotes. I think the article can stand on its own merits without so much DC information anyway.

Asgardian 03:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes to the introduction, most notably to try to conform to an out-of-universe perspective. Marvel Comics earth numbering system seems inappropriate to be used without context as it is, pretty much by definition, an in-universe system.  Also I've restored reference to the first appearance of characters as the Squadron Sinister and the footnote to Roy Thomas basing them on DC Characters.  The source is a direct interview with the writer and creator of the characters, and therefore cannot be considered POV by wikipedia's guidelines.  Please do not remove it again unless you can find a citation from a primary or secondary source directly contradicting Roy Thomas.  I do however agree that this article does not need to belabor the point of the DC connection as there has never been any verifiable proof of any connection except the initial appearance.


 * I've also removed the one footnote describing the Gruenwald series it as "regarded as a precursor" to other comics. "Regarded" seems to be a weasel word as the assertion is itself uncited at present. -Markeer 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Three problems with Asgarian's last revert:
 * The Squadron Sinister link redirects to this article. Leaving out the information, or minimizing it in a POV note is just plain wrong. It may well be that the Squad Sinister needs an article. But get that in place first.
 * The interview reference is a verifiable, reliable secondary source. As such it should stay in. It also goes a long way in covering the actual history of what the character were and why they were created. In that vein the article should be restructured to have a publication history showing bluntly that the team and the characters are a work of fiction, and just as bluntly showing how the hit in history of the medium of comic books.
 * The reference that were re-inserted are opinions nothing more. If those are valid statement, they need to come from verifiable, reliable secondary secondary source. That source also needs to be presented. IE the claim goes into the body of the article with the cite going into the references. As they stand, and as they are placed, the comments are original research presented as asides.
 * - J Greb 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One comment to try to avoid further revert wars and reach some consensus. Asgardian: you mention in an edit note that the Roy Thomas footnote is "personal research". Stop. It's an interview with the creator of the characters in this article, in which he makes a direct statement about those character, and therefore is being added here. A citation by Bob Kane in an article about Batman is good. A citation by JMS about what he intended regarding Supreme Power would be good. Very few people disagree on this, and Wikipedia's guidelines insist on it. I completely respect trying to avoid a common problem with comics-related articles where editor enthusiasm takes the place of verifiable information, but that's not the case with the Roy Thomas quote. As I say above...if you wish to remove it, the burden of evidence is upon you to find a citation directly contradicting Thomas' statement, and even then the wikipedia best practice would be to add both comments to describe conflicting stories regarding the characters creation.

That said, I *do* agree that this article has a history of accepting completely uncited associations of Squadron members with DC Comics characters, and I've already today removed a large section of these again. If an editor wants to add that Lady Lark seems kinda sorta like Black Canary, they need to back it up with a citation, or it doesn't belong here. I am totally with you on this, and I respect preventing uncited comments of that sort.

Just keep in mind the relevent guideline here is not POV, it is verifiability. The Roy Thomas quote is verifiable. Removing it is POV, not keeping it. -Markeer 12:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ??? The Sinister team have no page? I'll take care of that. Then will reintroduce the note about the differences into FCB. No page...unbelievable.

Asgardian 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK...we now have a Squadron Sinister page and more clarificaton, although all it did was open the door on some very messy entries on Hyperion, Nighthawk and Whizzer...

Asgardian 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really... unless someone goes overboard on trying to split the four articles more than they already are. At the moment the four affected characters should be stable.
 * Hyperion covers the "mainline" characters from 616 and 712. With the Ultimate versions having its own page.
 * Nighthawk covers the "mainline" characters from 616 and 712 as well as the Ultimate Defender. With the Ultimate Squadron versions having its own page.
 * Whizzer just covers the WWII 616 character and the 712 character. Both Spee Demon and Blur having their own pages.
 * Doctor Spectrum could use some work for clarity, but it covers the characters from all three parallel continuities.
 * None of the articles is really at a point where it needs to be split up, so there shouldn't be any problems.
 * Other issues...
 * Two items posted on the Sinister talk page...
 * Though both of them is valid here as well, and is the reason for the revert.
 * The article is about a team, not a single character, so "Fictional team history"
 * Unsourced, POV, editorial assumptions that have been poorly hidden as "references" have no business here.


 * - J Greb 03:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The FTH is no problem. I've written a few of these articles from scratch and went into "auto" mode, so thanks for the pick up. Formatting also retained. As for the differences between the teams...sorry, but that is sourced and is fact. That's what the Grandmaster did, the Avengers did mistake Supreme for Sinister and the two covers do feature an editorial mistake - there's one example at the bottom of the page. None of this is "hidden". Again, the sources are all there and I've even added an extra reference.

Asgardian 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So now we seem to go, er, underboard with DC connections? Surely the fact that the original characters were explicitly modeled on Justice Leaguers, and which ones, is directly relevant? 71.175.255.117 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Responding to the question by 71.175.255.117, as of the day you're asking this question (May 27, 2015) I'm seeing reference to the SS being based on DC characters in the second paragraph of the introduction, with a citation. Seems front and center to me -Markeer 02:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge
Given the relative sizes of this article and Squadron Supreme (Supreme Power), it makes a degree of sense to merge the two into on article.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the newer team be brought over in an "Alternate version" section, but as a full part of the article.

Any other thoughts? - J Greb 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense to fold it into the regular relaunch article, Supreme Power, which should probably be revised to focus on the entire 31916 universe, with sections for the various mini-series involved. To me, it seems we should be building two separate sets of articles, one for the 80's version, and one for the 00's version. We can crosslink them as needed, creating something almost like a ladder, with one side for the 712, one for the 31916, and the 'rungs' are the crosslinks. That's jsut my feeling. ThuranX 20:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, they're very different teams, with very different kinds of story-telling. The powers are the same, and most of the names are the same, but putting both of these together in the same entry would be like merging the Justice Society and Justice League entries (in spirit only - I realize that their lengths alone, if nothing else, would not really lend itself to merging).  The cross-linking seems to work pretty well.  Thanks.  Starmiter 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand both points. However, general pratice seems to be to try and keep the items that use the same name (hence the JSA/JLA comparison doesn't quite work) in the same article, unless the file size is a problem.
 * There is also the point that both articles need a "Publication history", and that those PHs would, or should, read as on piece. Thomas created the team for this reason. Marvel kept it around. Grunewald embellished it. Marvel still kept it around. Strazinski (sp) reworked. The property has a long history from 1971 to the present. This is a kin to Superman, the Flash, or Captain America, the PH covers a lot more than the "cannon" bio. - J Greb 21:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, there will be a blowout in length once more issues appear. Best to keep them separate, I think.

Asgardian 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Against a merge until there is at least some consistency applied across the board towards all articles that meet this criteria. Merging one version of character(s) while supporting the newer versions of the same remaining split off seems to cause a bit of a perceived double standard. However, I can see the logic of merging if such is evenly applied, although it stiffens the split articles from being expanded due to size. Netkinetic  (t / c / @) 05:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One question would you readd info on Supreme Power for backgroud info?--Brown Shoes22 06:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote yes to a merge. --Basique 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge--Brown Shoes22 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Squadron Supreme (Supreme Power) and Squadron Sinister
The three pages cover closely related material, and the articles are short enough that page length guidelines wouldn't be violated.Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Squadron Sinister came first and has a distinct enough history that I do not think it should be merged here. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that no one has opposed the Supreme Power merge in the nearly three months this has been up, I'm going ahead and merging that article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Squadron Sinister is an evil version of the Squadron Supreme and should be kept separate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Institute of Evil
This team is not independently notable, but some of the information could conceivably be added to the Earth-712 section Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also some of the character info could be added to List of Squadron Supreme members. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this merge happens, you should list their bios in the Institute of Evil section of the character page that you mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Overly detailed template
Hey,, what was your rationale for adding the overly detailed template to this article? I personally don't think there's an excessive amount of detail, but I'd be willing to hear out your reasoning. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)