Marvel Database
Advertisement

Retcon

I put this out as a request, one that I don't have time to perform myself at this time:

Could we PLEASE update this Page to reflect the recent miniseries' massive ret-cons to the Eternals' hsitory?

For example, the (newly-retconned) fact that most of the Eternals are actually millions of years old, and that they were manipulated by Sprite into having false memories?? I mean, the info on this page, aside from the picture, is practically as old as the first OHOTMU.

When I get more time, I'll be back to contribute -in the meantime, one source for the ret-conned info is another page on "The Eternals" in Wikipedia proper (which I participated in writing).

Thanks in advance for anybody who can help out!!Thanos777 01:37, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think the retcon is? I'll admit, I'm mostly familiar with the Eternals as a group from Jack Kirby's Eternals comic in the 1970s, but everything in Gaiman's miniseries seems perfectly in-line with that. What the mini-series did do was explain where they've been since ~Onslaught, as they seem to have dropped off the face of the map at about that time. Sprite's illusion-made-real is proveably of quite recent vintage, because in his recreating of reality he ages in 'real time' (whatever that means in the Marvel universe), and he's pretty young when he's found out, so its been like a year or two of Marvel time since he rewrote reality. --Squirrelloid 02:10, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
There was a retcon in that they now have some sort of...body factory below Olympia, where they'd be reborn in if their bodies were dispersed too much for them to heal. And there are supposedly 100 Eternals on Earth (though it doesn't mention whether those are the 100 left over after the rest went into space in Avengers...was it 248? Or if there have ALWAYS just been 100. Also fails to explain where Zuras came from, since he was supposedly dead since Thor #300, an issue which saw the Eternals mourn him...but none seemed surprised when he returned).
--GrnMarvl14 02:58, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do you think the retcon is?

Very very briefly: the whole altered timeline (over a million years instead of the original 20,000); the fact that they are now bound to Earth and/or the Solar System; far fewer Eternals needed to make the Uni-Mind, and it doesn't have to be Zuras initiating it; They can no longer attack any of the Celestials; changes to the various Eternals' powers, such as Makkari's speed; and as mentioned, the sudden, unexplained 'reappearance' of Zuras. And that's just off the top of my head. Personally, I don't see why you think that the Gaiman effort *isn't* a ret-con.Thanos777 02:59, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to find evidence that things were different based on the Kirby originals, I've failed. All references to issues are Eternals Vol. 1.
'Instead of the original 20,000 years'? Um... to quote Eternals #1: "It all began with the coming of the gods to Earth when it was populated only by the beasts of the field!" Now, clearly that means the Eternals came sometime before Man evolved - what precisely that means depends on what you mean by 'man', but its at *least* 200,000, and probably 1+mya. The next page tells us they chose to evolve apes, which puts us back pre-hominids, which is sometime before 5mya. So most certainly not a retcon of the *original* material. The original material requires millions of years. See also: Eternals #3: "The celestials were here before man."
Eternals #1 also mentions the gods hid their secrets from the Eternals with mindblocks - presumably the mindblocks prevented them from remembering about the antarctic fortress. Thus they may truly have believed Zuras was dead, and thus mourned him.
Eternals #2 further says Eternals can't die, so Zuras being dead clearly was an impossibility. And again in Eternals 3 we're told Eternals can't die. As to being surprised at his return - Gaiman's miniseries results in the Eternals remembering who they are completely, so they would thus remember (1) the antarctic base and (2) Zuras couldn't possibly have died.
the Eternals in the original series reference a home in the 'Polar Mountains', which, since there are no mountains in the Arctic, must mean Antarctica - so maybe they remembered the base classically, just not the resurrection chambers.
Eternals #2 quotes a deviant on the title page spread: "Fools, they've been here before! --And in their wake they've always left destruction!" While not spelled out, this is where Gaiman is probably tying the deviants = food for the gods theme. He's expanding on what Jack left open to interpretation.
Eternals 2 - "I've made it known that our atoms are reassembled" - clearly the Eternals were aware they could be reconstituted from atoms. Eternals #18 - Ikarus is reassembled from atoms. Even the resurrection chambers being a mystery to them is looking less plausible. What's looking implausible is Thor 300.
Not sure which Eternals you think got power changes. Sersy (sic) in Eternals 4 does transmutation, so that's not new. Makkari is shown using Superspeed in Eternals 5 (1st appearance).
In the original series no Eternal ever tries to attack one of the Celestials, so i can neither confirm nor deny Gaiman's theory based on the original material. That said, none of them ever wants to disobey a Celestial either...
Nothing about the original formation of the unimind (Eternals #12) requires that Zuras be the one to initiate it. He happens to be the one to initiate it, but that doesn't make his participation a requirement. Nor does it specify a minimum number. Eternals #14 makes it clear that his command of the Uni-Mind is a matter of *tradition*, no implication of necessity.
Actual retcon - Eternals 2 claims the deviants once challenged the gods and lost - this doesn't perfectly match Gaiman's version, although as an outside allegorical description of what happened its a perfectly reasonable perspective for an Eternal to have.
Actual retcon - Arishem of the Fourth Host is supposed to stand and judge the world for *50 years*. Obviously, this isn't Gaiman's retcon - it was retconned long before Gaiman ever got to write it. Indeed, Gaiman is the first writer since Kirby to even mention the 4th host happening in recent history.
So, not seeing what's supposed to have been retconned based on the original Eternals stories. --Squirrelloid 04:21, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

First Appearance

Correcting the first appearance here. Since Makkari's first appearance has been retconned to Red Raven Comics #1, then that is technically the first appearance of the Eternals of Earth-616.

Nausiated (talk) 04:29, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Updated this a bit

Yeah the information in this article was bad.. Like lacking in detail and poor composition, no offence to the original writer, but where were the details? Yeesh. I've begun expanding it. As you can see I've cross referenced their entire history up until the modern age. It does not contain the retcon stuff from the newer Eternals series -- as I have not read any of that stuff yet. I wanted to add stuff about the Uranian Eternals since I'm doing 50s comics about them, so I did everything up until the "modern age" only so far. The way this page gets updated I'll probably be the one adding more a few years from now :P

Nausiated (talk) 05:52, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

Name

Changing the name of the article is dumb dumb dumb. Meteor (talk) 18:08, May 4, 2015 (UTC)Meteor

You lack pertinent arguments. Undoniel (talk) 20:02, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
The system of binomial nomenclature was created by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century. The Eternals race predates the 18th century. Ergo, Homo Immortalis is not the original name of the species, but a name that was later applied to them. The Eternals existed under that name for roughly a million years in the Marvel Universe and four decades in the real world. When dealing with similar situations involving characters, such as married names, the pages are listed by the original name of the character (Sue Storm, Jean Grey, Ben Reilly, etc), nut under the name that was later applied to them, even if that name is current. Same rule should apply to species. Monolith616 (talk) 02:25, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think your argument is pertinent in this way: Mutants, Atlanteans and humans (sapiens and neanderthals) predates the binomial nomenclature. It isn't for a million years, but still. The mutant term was presumably not used until the mid-20th century (before, including insults or demonic-related stuff, they were Killcrops, Changelings, Essex Men (by Essex, but he did call them also "the great mutation"), Over Men (by Hellfire Club)). But Selene is 17.000 years old.
Consequently, I don't think the characters naming conventions has anything to do here. The binomial nomenclature, with its goals of disambiguation, is in fact well more adapted, as we have many kind of Eternals, humans or mutants.
At most, I could agree on moving the pages to Homo mermanus, Eternals (Homo immortalis), Mutants (Homo superior), Humans (Homo sapiens) to mark the fact that each of those species has counterparts in other species and/or exist in other variants (Homo antecessor, Killcrop, etc.). But that doesn't seems worth, except for Eternals who are indeed less/not known as "Homo immortalis". Undoniel (talk) 06:03, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
The distinction with mutants is that it's still an unofficial term for Humans (Homo sapiens) with a particular genetic trait. It's an uncapitalized general reference term, not a Capitalized accepted species name like Kree, Shi'ar, or Eternals. Homo superior is the best, most official term for mutants, but Eternals is a better term for Homo Immortalis. If, for example, we discovered the Kree had a binomial nomenclature system for themselves, the Cotati, and other species on Hala, would you move their page to Kreevis Pamalis or whatever?
I would certainly say no, because my other argument would be for accessibility. Latin technical accuracy may satisfy the super-fan, but it hinders the casual fan's ability to use this site. Currently if one searches for Atlantean here, the drop-down search menu provides nothing. If you know what Homo Mermanus is, you're fine, but what about the people who don't? I think accessibility to new readers should be a goal/policy to be followed. I like the idea of Homo mermanus and Eternals (Homo immortalis). That fits more with the current search status for characters like Wolverine: if you search for "Wolverine", instead of just "James Howlett (Earth-616)", the top result is "Wolverine (James "Logan" Howlett)", which is more likely to help new visitors find what they're looking for. Monolith616 (talk) 13:34, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
How is it an unofficial term ? (It's something that should be in Mutants (Homo superior)#Naming (who should be removed from Alternate realities maybe)).
Honestly ? Maybe not, but in the end, I thing yes, like I proposed the change for Gamora.
The thing is that for Eternals, Deviants, Mutants, there are types that occurs in many species, and need to have something distinctive (and Atlantean is a citizenship before a species, who include 4 species, while Atlanteans (Homo mermanus) include two citizenships).
The example of Wolverine is kind of a concession to the naming conventions. And without feeling elitist, I think "dumb down" (I found this expression on a translating app, I hope it's not offensive) isn't the solution. And if "Atlanteans (Homo mermanus)" pops out when you type "Atlantean", it should be a good clue, and that clicking on it is a good way to find out.
I think we need to discuss conventions towards species, regarding the binomial name (also, concerning the Inhumans, it was discussed on Cxpulp that "Inhomo supremis" was presumably more of a "joke name"), but if we agree on the "Vernacular Name (Binomial name)", I think we can build something up.

Undoniel (talk) 19:05, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Strength Class

Can someone specify their strength class a bit more? From what I have managed to gather from their pages, it seems that most eternals are around strength class 25, but many don't have their abilities really detailed. Does someone know for sure? Maiovez (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it varies from eternal to eternal, since they can all augment their powers through training and their cosmic energy control, so going off 25tons seems just to be the baseline to be safe. Invincibleprime (talk)InvincibleprimeInvincibleprime (talk)
Done! I hope it's better.| Pedronog (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A Little Page Clean Up

The Death of Kronos part should be moved to before The Second Host, cause it has been established that the Host took place around 18,000B.C. 2019's History of the Marvel Universe (Vol. 2) #1 and Kronos arc about 500,000 years ago Eternals: Thanos Rises #1. And that the What If? Vol 1 24 link should not be used as an official source, cause it's a What If story and not cannon. Also, some of the stuff under the Titan Schism part, like 200,000 years ago war erupted stuff should be moved up to before the Second Host given it's timeline.ThadMB (talk) 1:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to see why the second host isn’t placed around 20 thousand years ago, you can check the notes and this conversation: [1] | Pedronog (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm not looking to get in between you and DonACampbell, but he is kinda right, and as for the 20,000 years Second Host thing that caused the sinking of Atlantis and Lemuria has been established in recent years. I went over the whole Handbook error thing before with an Admin like yourself, but the Handbook we were dealing with came out at the same time as the story was and had wrong bits we all agreed to ignore. Also, the Second Host thing not only is established, but is reflected on other pages too as being 18.000 B.C.. Going by the comics and Handbooks of the last 20 years. A Celestial crashed on Earth 4 Billion years ago, the First Host came to Earth 1 Million years ago, the Second Host caused the Great Cataclysm 20,000 years ago. Plus, the whole Kronos 500,000yrs ago thing and the Titan Schism 200,000yrs ago stuff should be placed before Second Host/Great Cataclysm do to the years given from the comics and the page itself.ThadMB (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course DonACampbell's right. I said so myself. We simply disagree on how we should proceed. I think we should wait for confirmation on the date, considering other dates have been retconned. DonACampbell thinks we should go with the 18000BC date. If you think so as well, we'll just wait to see if someone has something else to say. In case no one does, it's 2 against 1, so we'll change it. | Pedronog (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I said I kinda agree, I said nothing about whether you also agreed? Yes, things are retconned all the time, but given that since Comics and Handbooks from 2007, 2009, 2010, 2019, 2021 to now places it at 18,000 BC it's more than safe to make the changes to the page. The 1989 date is no longer cannon, given that for almost 20 years it has been changed. If you wanna wait cool, but again it's been almost 20 years?ThadMB (talk) 1:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents, I prefer to get my information about the Marvel Universe from primary sources (published stories) instead of from secondary sources (handbooks). Don't misunderstand me, I absolutely LOVE the Official Handbooks and I think they are a very valuable resource but the writers are just as human (and as fallible) as any other writers. So, while published stories can contain continuity errors, so can handbook entries and, although the Official Handbooks can sometimes resolve continuity problems created by flawed stories, some information that has been written for them has been just as flawed.
The chronology of the Eternals has always been somewhat problematic and attempts by the Official Handbooks to "fix" the problems have often not been that successful, at least from a continuity standpoint. Furthermore, since the current Eternals series is MASSIVELY overhauling the entire history of that race, it seems more prudent to not take Handbook data and combine it with incompletely-retconned data from the new series to update any histories. In the case of when the Second Host visited Earth, I would accept published stories that showed that they arrived in 18000 B.C. and the retconned stories that claim that the Ascension of Kronos occurred 500,000 years ago as accurate. However, I would NOT use Handbook data that claims that Kronos ascended in c. 3000 B.C. (or about 15,000 years after the Great Cataclysm) to push the Second Host back to 15,000 years before Kronos ascended half a million years ago, especially since those handbook entries contain data (like the "fact" that Kronos fathered both Zuras and A'Lars) that, due to the retcon, is now completely inaccurate.
However, as I said, this is just my opinion. DonACampbell (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree Handbooks are not always spot on, and if confusing enough than a vote to use are not use some parts of that confusion should be made. But on a similar note, it's not up to us to decide what's canon or not, whether we like it or not.
Now why they choose to make the Second Host the cause of the Great Cataclysm that sank Atlantis the same as Lemuria I don't know. I'm not into the Eternals, is why I've jumped in on this Talk page. But from what I've found is the old 1976 Eternals comics to ones from 2006 to now, make mention of Celestials coming to Earth million or so years ago. The sinking of Atlantis, took place 20,000 years ago, thanks to the Deviants making the Celestials made. This from a 1985 Handbook. Again, I wish they didn't connect the 2 events, (keep the Deviant attack, but the SH thing long before) but from the 70's to now they have connected the 2 and have given it a date. I haven't read the latest Eternals in a bit, but I didn't find them confusing or do I think any massively overhauling is being done, I may have to re-read them again. But from what I've seen, the Great Cataclysm of Atlantis and Lemuria are still connected, the 20,000 years ago is still intact. As for Kronos, I wasn't aware of the 3000 B.C. thing or that it was from a 2010 Handbook. But, since the 2021 Etrnals: Thanos Rises its been recanted to 500,000 years ago and with the Great Cataclysm still being at 20,000, the Kronos thing is no longer after GC but now long long before it.
So for me, I don't think the whole page needs an overhaul, just the placing of Second Host, Death of Kronos and Titan Schism. Also, whoever is using info from those What If comics should be removed. They are What If stories, like What If Hulk was a Barbarian or Deadpool kills the Marvel Universe. They may use a character from the main 616 but they are non-canon to the main 616.ThadMB (talk) 9:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I haven't been keeping up with the rest of this, but I have to note because you keep repeating it. Just because it's in What If? does not always make it non 616 see What If? #4. So you cannot simultaneously say "we can't say what is canon" and "What If? shouldn't be treated as canon because I don't believe it is". The MCP, the Appendix and the Handbooks (iirc) count the back-up stories as 616, so we won't be ignoring them. As for the rest of this, since a lot of the Eternals stuff is in flux, it might better to wait to see if it resolves before we go changing much, if we have to change it back later. Copeinator123 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, since you choose to weigh in, it is not something I choose to believe, its even stated on this Fandom that What If? featurs stories taking place in alternate realities where significant moments in Marvel history occurred differently. So, unless it says otherwise in a Handbook or a comic from the main 616, I'll keep saying it a 100 times over NON-CANON. As for your What If 4 from 1977 or What If 24 1988, going by the info from this Fandom and what I've seen are both non-canon. If I'm wrong than cool I'll own it, but the info I'm going by is from what I've read and this Fandom, and not something I personally feel. So before taking jabs at someone, fully read what they have said and ask before jumping the gun there chief. As for making changes, I don't think the whole page should be changed just the 3 ones I have pointed out to be moved. I don't see what flux or confusion with those 3 are, the Atlantis/Great Cataclysm date came out almost 20 years old, the 500,000 Kronos thing is over 10 years old, and the 200,000 Titan Schism stuff come out like what 3 to 4 years ago. Like I said, given how many years this info has been around, I don't see why Death of Kronos and Titan Schism shouldn't be moved up before Second Host/Great Cataclysm. Sure, this could be changed in the next year or even the next 10, and we'll have to update the pages. But, that's just the name of the game. I have given factual info, not made up stuff or what I think it should be. If the group disagrees than fine, I just wanted to discuss it and help the page. I didn't come here to argue or have off handed little digs thrown at me, whether intended or not. So I wash my hands of this.ThadMB 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The following paragraphs were something I had been working on for over an hour when I tried to post them and was informed that there was an Edit Conflict. So, I cut them out, then pasted them back in, and am posting them now. I hope they are not now too off topic.
A "Tales of Atlantis" back-up feature in Sub-Mariner #62 established that Atlantis sank 20,000 years ago and Eternals #2 revealed that it was a Celestial weapon that sank Lemuria and its sister continents and caused the Great Flood. Those two stories were not really connected until the "Atlantis" entry in Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe (Vol. 2) #1.
As for the those What If? stories, they were "Untold Tales of the Marvel Universe" that were narrated by the Watcher and were meant to be 100% canon. I was really impressed by how Mark Gruenwald was able to take the back-story that Jim Starlin wrote for Thanos and tweak it so that the the Mad Titan was descended from the Eternals instead of the Titans of Olympus. Those Untold Tales also provided the first-ever origin for the Uranians who had appeared in those Marvel Boy stories from the 1950s. However, for better or for worse, many of the "facts" revealed in those stories are now being retconned out of continuity by the ongoing series. With that in mind, it seems odd that those Untold Tales were reprinted twice as TPBs in the past few years. It's almost as if Marvel Comics was more interested in making money by selling product than they were in publishing in-continuity material.
Finally, the massive overhauling that I mentioned was as much about the neture of the Eternals as it was about changes being made to their history. Specifically, that they are all one million years old and that they are essentially organic machines that can be recreated if something manages to destroy them. Ever since that revelation, I've found myself thinking of them more as "things" than as "people."
Anyway, I agree that things should be left as they were unless/until they are specifically retconned by the current series. Hopefully, future issues will fill in the blanks more completely than they have so far. DonACampbell (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, it turns out that the idea that the accident that transformed Kronos into a disembodied cosmic being took place circa 3000 B.C. was not something created by the Handbook staff. Instead, a caption on the first page of Quasar #19 states that that accident occurred "five thousand years ago." Don't get me wrong, I still think that that date was FAR too recent and I'm glad that the current Eternals series has retconned it but I am relieved that it was a poor creative choice made by Mark Gruenwald and that the Handbook staff only recorded it officially instead of making it up themselves. DonACampbell (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think enough time has passed. Since no one else has said anything, you can change the order of the sections. Just be sure to change the references and notes accordingly. | Pedronog (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I would have said something sooner, but give may points were being ignored, and was insulted, I wasn't sure if I should bother? Either way, I just wanted to add this and done. I was unaware that Untold Tales of the Marvel Universe were meant to be canon, cause What If's are by in large 100% non canon. Given how the Eternals came about, and everything revealed over the years, I don't see them as organic machines. I do not agree with a massive overhaul, just the moving of Death of Kronos (500,000 years ago) and Titan Schism (200,000 years ago, unless it was mentioned then needs rewording) to be moved before the Second Host and the sinking of Lemuria/Atlantis. The sinking of Atlantis was stated at 20,000 and has been and continues to be canon for more than 20+ years. The Kronos and Titan Schism stuff has been changed and made canon for 3 or 4 years now, so I think it's safe to make those changes. Though I read 2019 History of the Marvel Universe Vol 2 1 that mentions Kronos' death after the sinking of Atlantis (500,000yrs ago) confusing. I could have sworn I read a 2021 comic/handbook placing Atlantis back to its original 20,000 year mark, I have to keep looking for it. But, either way, should we count this one comic as a slip up and ignore 20 to 30 some odd years of established canon? Handbooks aren't perfect, nor are all comics, but when there are clear mistakes we can and have before put it to a vote.ThadMB 3:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement