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 Atlanteans (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 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 Atlanteans (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 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 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 "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)
Advertisement