Talk:Blackest Night: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:03, 28 January 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Comics: DC Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Osiris (DC Comics)#Amon Tomaz|Osiris]] The anchor (Amon Tomaz) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Elements that may need to be added, and on to watch.

Possible adds:

The triangle and 4 rays (Black power ring emblem) has also appeared in the eyes of the scarred Guardian and as the logo for the Hand family mortuary ("Secret Origins" arc).
The "Secret Origins" arc also gives an indication that Hand is the container or contact point for Black equivalent of Ion or Parallax.

And to watch...

The scarred Guardian... right now there have been multiple panels of her eyes containing one or more of the Lantern emblems, so far Black, Yellow, and Green. To this point, has there been any hard comments from Johns about her being connected to multiple, if not all of, the Corps?

- J Greb (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event vs Series

Does this article cover Blackest Night the nine issue mini-series or Blackest Night, the DC event it slowly morphed into? It'd probably be good to explicitly state it here for the record as I've also seen a little tug of war in the summary with stuff from the ancilliary issues (GL, GLC, BN minis and the boatload of tie-ins) being added and removed. I vote for just the 9 issue mini-series - it's just cleaner cut as to what should be covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.140.144 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series is my vote, at least for the time being. Until the event is over, we wont know how significant the various tie-ins are. Since there's already a problem with the length of the plot synopsis, I think that they should be excluded (at least for now) to keep that problem from getting out of control. -Hooliganb (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts...

For the "bulk" of the plot it seems reasonable to limit it to Blackest Night, Green Lantern, and Green Lantern Corps. Sorry, but it seems that the story is shifting tightly among those 3.
Plot, being what it is, should be kept minimal. If that means trimming what is there and limiting what get added over the nest 6 months, so be it.
It may be best to have very minimal sections for the 7 Blackest Night:... side minis. It's proper to give the bones of what those are. It's also better to have them here than to have the extended plot articles show up.
As for the issues shipping in November... aside from noting them I agree, they don't need to be incorporate until after it's shown how the fit in, and if they are anything more than foot notes to the plot.

- J Greb (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Blackest Night tie ins article is in order? It would be a good way to keep the plot here from ballooning into an out of control mess, and would also be a good way to keep us from having seven different plot only articles. AniMate^draw 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that would encourage the bloat.

Right now there isn't a good reason to split off those items. And having them here do create a situation where editors first look at reducing what is in the plot section then splitting if there's nothing that can be reasonable removed. But that's only when the article starts to exceed 50k in size. - J Greb (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, should the tie-ins be completely removed for now or should they be kept to a bare bones state? Personally, I don't think the article would suffer if they were removed because (like J Greb said) the bulk of the event's plot is going on in the Blackest Night series (in addition to the Green Lantern titles). If the latter of those two options is more appropriate though, how short should the synopsis of each tie-in be kept? Should that length be set for the entire plot within that story, or per issue released? -Hooliganb (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the mind that the 7 ancillary minis be "nutshelled" such as:

Blackest Night: Batman

Batman and Robin assess the damage done to Wayne graves and secure what is left of the remains. Deadman tries to stop his corpse from becoming a Black Lantern. Failing, he sets out for help from Batman. As the black power rings come to Gotham City, they reanimate a cadre of villains being transported to the Justice League as well as the parents of Dick Grayson and Time Drake.

Blackest Night: Superman

The Superman of Earth-Two is reanimated an goes to Smallville where multiple residents are then shown being killed. The Kents evening meal is interrupted by Krypto, Superman, and Superboy hearing something at the Smallville cemetery. Superman and Superboy are confronted and taunted by the Superman of Earth-Two. Martha Kent is attacked by the reanimated Lois Lane of Earth-Two to be used as a hostage when the two Black Lanterns confront Superman and Superboy in the center of a deserted Smallville. On New Krypton, Supergirl arrives in tome to witness Zor-El becoming a Black Lantern.

Simple and short, hit the high points and move on. A similar method could be applied to the 6 or 7 issues we're currently into the main story. - J Greb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me! -Hooliganb (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should create a Blackest Night mini-tie in plot section or a seperate article. I'll keep it updated with sources. This would include all the previously released/to-be-released storyline tie-ins (Batman, Superman, Titans, Flash, Wonder Woman, JSA). BRoberts13 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Brett Roberts BRoberts13 4:43 PM, 21 August 2009.[reply]

Until there is really a need to split them off from here, that really isn't a good idea. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that for the moment we should just mention the various miniseries in brief. Something along the lines of, "Concurrently with the main Blackest Night series, DC published [X number] of three-issue miniseries detailing the impact of the events of Blackest Night on various characters in the DC Universe. The first three miniseries - "Blackest Night: Batman", "Blackest Night: Superman" and "Blackest Night: Titans" - depicted characters from the Batman, Superman and Titans series fighting Black Lanterns. On [Date X], [Person Y or DC Comics] announced the release of three additional three-issue miniseries on [Date Z, likely a month or set of months] featuring Flash, Wonder Woman and the JSA." Something along the lines of that would be a good informative filler until we actually figure out what in the world is going on with the plot and just how relevant they are to the main story. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Giveaway rings?

Just bought Blackest Night 1 and it came free with a black lantern ring. The local comic store said that all other colors will be available once they hit the states (I live in the Philippines) and I was wondering when will they be available there? And if so will each ring be bundled with each issue or will they be sold separately? I prefer the latter option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.244.136 (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since DC has announced the promotion of these rings and now appear on offical checklists ( i can't access dc .com so cannot provide the link)it seems like good information to add. and in response to the earlier comment. the rings come with selected issues in the arc, but i know of some retialers who sell spare rings at there discretion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstan (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently though it's only the biggest comic book stores that will actually have the rings. My local shop won't be because they'd need to order massive amounts of some of the tie-ins in order to get the rings, and they know that they'll never sell. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough my retialers are sort of the only ones in the area so they natuallry order enough for the promotion. still would you agree the promotion requires mention even as a note in a sales section?

now the fulls et have been released should this be mentioned ( i'd add a section my self but dont know how eiditing works well enough so fear the effect i would have on the page) i emna it could be mentioned in a similar capapcity to mentioning the blakc armband which were given out during the death of superman arc ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstan (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also want to appologise for awful typing , previous post was a quick addition while at work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstan (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore comment

Is it worth nothing that 20-30 years ago when Mr Moore wrote the stories he claims Geoff Johns based Blackest nights off of, Mr Johns was somewhere between 6 and 16 years old? Not that I'm saying Moore could be wrong, just that there is a huge gap in time there that kind of leaves Johns some leeway for writing newer stories. It might just be worth mentioning the age difference as a statement of fact to contrast Moore's statements. BurnHavoc (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it worth noting, but I do think the quote is given far too much prominence. One negative quote doesn't qualify as an overview of "reception". More critical reception should likely be added. AniMate^draw 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it isn't work specing on Moore either being bitter or playing Kanye. That isn't the function of the article here.

However, it is the reaction of a someone whose work is in part the "kick off" point for Johns' work. It is worth noting his view. It would be nice though if his wan't the only view presented.

- J Greb (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps the quote from Atrocitus in the latest issue of Green Lantern would be appropriate, since it succinctly lists most of the relevant elements that weren't in Moore's original story, and was written before the above interview. Moore's comments aren't irrelevant in this light (much of the last several years' run of GL is based heavily on Moore's work), but gives a context including the new material. San Diablo (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore admits in the interview to not having actually read the comics themselves. Doesn't that make his "reaction" irrelevant to the article? Or a footnote at best?

- Billy Arrowsmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.163.105 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He never says that specifically, but I agree that the quote doesn't make much sense to keep. It's not even especially noteworthy to begin with, so I'm just going to remove the section. Friginator (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About newest tie-ins

I posted these on the website as, according to www.comicbookresources.com, DC will be releasing said issues instead of the regular tie-ins & the monthly book. These are all cancelled titles that will be getting one more issue that will tie into Blackest Night. Now, whether this is the complete list is unknown. Have to wait to see. Either CBR or DC will reveal the final list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvibert (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll reiterate: If you are adding it, add the reference as well. And do it in the text, not back here. - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackest Night Tie-In Plot

I know these plots have been put in one some articles but it just does not seem appropriate with having it there and not here.

What I am thinking about the tie-in plots is having these titles on it:

Blackest Night: Tales Of the Corps #1-3

Blackest Night: Batman #1-3

Blackest Night: Superman #1-3

Blackest Night: Titans #1-3

Blackest Night: Flash #1-3

Blackest Night: JSA #1-3

Blackest Night: Wonder Woman #1-3

Most likely these titles because they have Blackest in front of them and the other titles seem to tell their own story such as Atrocitus wanting Larleeze's power battery and Kyle Rayner sacrificing himself. --Schmeater (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackest Night 6

Some retailers have opted into DC's "Green Christmas" program that allows them to start selling BN #6 on 12/30/09 as an early release street date. Stores that have not opted for the program will put it on stands a week later. Do you think the plotline of issue #6 should be revelealed here on 12/30/09 or should it wait until it is available everywhere? (Spoiler alerts aplenty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.20.210 (talk • contribs) 17:22, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Well... the page is currently locked because, for it to be released on Dec 30, DC and Diamond had to ship it with the books that wen on shelf on Dec 23. One or more of those copies wound up getting leaked. At leas 10 articles here saw information and at least 1 image uploaded from the link or a pirate torrent.

Based on the available info, I'd say the shelf date for the issue is Dec 30. DC and Diamond gave retailers the ability to opt to have the issue on hand (early shipped) or wait for the first shipment of 2010 (late shipped).

With that, standard practices would say the info is fair game to add in as of today. (Personally I'd like to see us a day in general - there are no brownie points for getting the info in as soon as the book hits the shelf.) Right now, since the lock is up until Friday, we've got a little latitude to discuss this. - J Greb (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the importance of all of this. No one should feel that it's up to them to add the plot summary as quickly as possible. I'm looking at a copy of issue six as I'm typing this, but officially, it still hasn't been released, putting this under WP:CRYSTAL. It's just like a similar issue with Nekron being added a couple months ago. He had appeared in solicitations and Geoff Johns had confirmed he was in the story behind-the-scenes, but his presence hadn't been revealed in the comic yet. Because of this, all the article could do was report on Geoff Johns' statements. Friginator (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I think semi-protection would have been more appropriate for all of these pages. Scarecrow (comics) is still unprotected, so I'm going to remove all info from it as well. Friginator (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the "street date" was today. Not next week. See DC's listing.

Second, the lock was thrown on because of over re-adding of material from either over-eager store employees and/or pirated copies. With Scarecrow it showed up once, without a ref, and didn't pop back up after it was removed. Here, Mera, Atom, Flash, Lex, WW, and the other 4, it was a recurring problem.

That said, I tend to agree - plot adds can really wait. We ain't a news site and we ain't a review site. We should be lagging behind them, not trying to beat 'em.

- J Greb (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize it was this week. Where I live it's usually a week late around the holidays. I'll restore the info to the Scarecrow article then. Friginator (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't why edit "Blackest Night"

I have new info for the limited series, so why couldn't I update the page?

Because it's been protected until January 1st. Only administrators can edit it now. Seems a bit harsh, but adding in that info isn't a life-or-death situation. Friginator (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brightest Day

Not sure what the problem is (thanks to lack of edit summaries) [1] - it is perfectly in line with WP:CRYSTALBALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - it is sourced, it will be a long series (in the manner of the previous ones like 52 and Countdown to Final Crisis) leading out of a major storyline, written by one of the companies top writers. So it satisfies the guidelines and, while I think it might be too early to start an article on it (although some for major "events" have started much earlier) I don't think it is unreasonable to mention it here. In fact, it seems a good idea as we can direct eager editors with more information to the section, so when it comes time to start the article we will have accumulated sources to help flesh it out. So I'm only seeing good reasons to do this and little to see why not, but we are now in the D of WP:BRD so..... (Emperor (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. I was the one who put it there. I don't understand either why it was removed. I even stated where the source came from. I'm sorry that I don't know how to link to the source, but I figured they could check out the website for themselves & see the info. Not notable? Its deals with the aftermath of the biggest event to hit DC Comics in a long time. So whatever. I'll leave it & then let them decide when to put it on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvibert (talk • contribs)

first off dont leave comments unless you can sign. second off not enough details have been announced about brightest day and as of now its irrelevant to the article. It has to be consensus.LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove unsigned comments from talk pages. I've reintroduced the section with references. An announced sequel to an ongoing work is relevant, even if there aren't a lot of details. AniMate 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly relevant to the Blackest Night - DC say so in the source I gave (and so does the teaser image). The publicity machine is now rolling for this and DC have made more announcements and Geoff Johns has done and interview [2]. Take a look at all the other recent DC events which also looked at the aftermath (usually before the main story had finished, because of the lead time in comics): Final Crisis, Batman RIP and Battle for the Cowl. (Emperor (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

And we now have Brightest Day. (Emperor (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Bibliography

Why is issue zero mentioned but not issues 1-8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboncha (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

main characters

Im beginning to think that the emotional spectrum should be listed as the main characters, since they're in this as major characters, and the storyline is based around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.194 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color corps

I removed the following text during my requested copy-edit because it should be in the article Emotional spectrum and is unreferenced:

The colors are depicted in bold. For more details, see the emotional spectrum.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackest Night. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackest Night. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]