Talk:Carol Danvers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carol Danvers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] House of M

I missed most of the House of M series, but shouldn't there be a section about what happened to her duting that time?-Giant89 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur, she was featured on many covers and it seemed to have a big effect on her character.-Tuberculosisness 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image in the SHB

Dstorres changed the image and stated: "The image used is the newest and most recent image of the character".
So that means once we have covers for Ms. Marvel # 2 or 3 or 4, the image is gonna have to be replaced once again because we gonna have a newest and most recent image? Lesfer 03:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is room for everyone's image. Why is this an issue? (By the way, I like both for different visual reasons). Netkinetic 03:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New Arguement: The Turner images is a better character represantion (almost full figure) while the one by the series artist is not. Also the 2nd image in question was placed by the powers section because she was demonstrating her powers. Dstorres

I'm with Lesfer on this one. The Turner image is... abstractly... posed and hides her feet. And, if we're going by "current depictions", de la Torre is the ongoing artist, not Turner. - SoM 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why the Turner pic is ok:

  • 1) Shows more of the body than the current pic (legs missing from the knee down).
  • 2) I'd like to note the series artist does exactly show the pic of the characters feet.
  • 3) More dynamic look.
  • 4) Marvel & DC Comics do not always use images by the "series artist" for their Marvel Universe Handbooks/DC Secret Files so that arguement holds no bearing either.

Dstorres

[edit] Ms. Marvel

If the article is moved to Ms. Marvel again then include: = = Sharon Ventura Sharon Ventura, a relatively obscure member of the Fantastic Four later known as the She-Thing, had initially adoped the name Ms. Marvel. Sleigh 04:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gloria Steinem criticized "Avengers" #200

As explained in "Avengers" #200, Ms. Marvel is kidnapped, taked to limbo, brainwashed, raped, impregnated, released, goes through a full term pregnancy in about a week, gives birth, the son grows to adulthood in a matter of hours, and becomes his father, (the adult), Marcus. He then has to go back to limbo. Ms. Marvel wants to go into limbo with the parent/son Marcus. With the blessing of her fellow Avengers, Ms. Marvel accompanys Marcus back to limbo. After this comic book was published, Gloria Steinem, who founded "Ms. magazine", wrote a scathing magazine article blasting it. Marvel comics apologized for "Avengers #200", in "Avengers Annual #10", however, they do take a "forgive and forget" attitude as far as Rogue (comics) is concerned.24.195.241.149 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

What does "forgive and forget" mean in regard to Rogue? --Chris Griswold 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that Marvel prefers not to metion what Rogue did to Ms. Marvel. For example, Rogue was allowed to join the X-Men leaving Carol Danvers, (who had just become Binary), no reasonable option except to leave with the Starjammers. There is certainly no metion of Ms. Marvel in any of the X-Men movies. Marvel is aware that including the story of Rogue/Ms Marvel in the movies would probably hurt the sales of Rogue related merchandise. They also like the leave out the fact that Mystique beat Dr. Michael Burnett to death, (in 1980), in order to gain access to his files on Carol Danvers. Marvel has been accused of treating "criminals like the real victims of crime", and the victims of criminal behavior as though they were nothing. It seems to me that Rogue and Mystique are treated a lot better by Marvel than Ms. Marvel and Dr. Michael Burnett.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.80.61.10 (talk • contribs) 12:30 July 5, 2006 (UTC)204.80.61.10 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I don't understand why Carol Danvers would be mentioned in the X-Men movies. She's not an X-Men character.--Chris Griswold 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Superman, Batman, and Spiderman movies basically used the same orgin of the superheros as was told in the comic books. There was a slight difference between one Batman movie and another, in that the Joker murdered Batman's parents in one movie and Joe Chill killed them in another, (as he did in the orignal magazine). Carol Danvers is not an X-Men character, but, she is very important as far as the comic book Rogue was concerned, and Marvel did metion her in animated series. The X-Men movies were also different from the comic book because they did not use radiation as the source of X-Men's powers, (as it did in the magazine),instead it was caused by the X-factor genetic mutation. I think if the movies had adapted the Mystique/Rogue/Ms. Marvel connection from the comic book, Rogue would have been a lot less popular and not worth as much money as far as related merchandise is concerned. (The Hulk movie was different from the comic book, just the tv show was different, because the orgin of the Hulk in the original magazine is very similar to the movie: "The Amazing Colossal Man").204.80.61.10 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

OK, I see where we differ in opinion now. These are adaptations. Ms. Marvel is a footnote in Rogue's history. She was a plotpoint and a character motivator that has been used up in regard to that character. The reason she's not in the movies is not because they have something in for this fictional character, but because she's irrelevent and an unnecessary detail. Whereas the Batman and Superman movies have on protagonist to depict, the X-Men movies have a whole team; it's not reasonable to expect that the film detail all the minor aspects of the characters' lives. Besides, didn't the X-Men series mention Carol Danvers in some way? --Chris Griswold 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Other than an action figure or two, what Rogue merchandise are you seeing? --Chris Griswold 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Although, Rogue by herself, was only one, (or two), action figures; as part of the X-Men for many years, all of the X-Men merchandise from when she joined the team has to be taken into consideration. The books, the tv shows, the movies. I think Ms. Marvel, and Mystique, were very important as far as the comic book Rogue was concerned, and I believe, that is a part of her past that Marvel does not want to bring up. Having Rogue as bad/good crime fighter might not be as popular as Rogue the always good crime fighter. The animated series did once show Carol Danvers in a coma, in a hospital bed, but I do get the impression that is part of Rogue's past Marvel would just as soon forget, and I think they would like others to forget it as well. It's a lot easier to show the X-Men as an oppressed miniority group if a team member, such as Rogue, does not have a criminal past.204.80.61.10 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

My mistake--it was Carol Strickland, not Gloria Steinem who criticized "Avengers 200". Thank you for correcting my error and adding an external link for those who want to read the article she wrote.24.195.255.68 06:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

[edit] Inconsistency

The page is Carol Danvers but the box is Ms. Marvel. -- Beardo 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone ought to change that! --Chris Griswold 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Years

I reworded the section on Carol's early years. Some of the background information can be derived from a fan page that is linked by Wikipedia ([1]). Someone said that wasn't a reliable enough source, so for now I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether or not the link and the section I reworded is enough to remove the tag. --JamesB3 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is a mess. The writing is all over the place, there are a ton of insignificant details, and the publication history should be merged with the character history. For example, the pub history section mysteriously references a previously unmentioned Marcus storyline. I don't have a deep knowledge of this character, which is why I came here to read about her. But this thing is a mess. Oh, and it needs more references. I will help out where I can, but the only thing I know to do right now is to start throwing stuff out. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the section that says Avengers, the Marcus story is detailed. I guess putting the Marcus part in publication history was not a good idea; I'll change that (I'm not sure who did that originally, I hope they don't mind if I make the change). --JamesB3 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the publication history and incorporated most of those details in the fictional character section. What do you think?--JamesB3 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two unsourced statements, and I agree with JamesB3; I think the entry is OK now. It seems to me that the "poor quality" tag can be removed; if others agree, let's go ahead and delete it.--Galliaz 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In comparison to other comic entires, this one is actually pretty restrained in it's plot details and self-referentiality. Other opinions on this matter are always welcome, as are additional edits, of course.--Galliaz 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This entry is light years from copyright violation, and this IS an encyclopedia after all. 216.232.242.145 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)b8amack
Yes, it is. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarol_Danvers_afc5.html"