Jump to content

Talk:Doom Patrol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
J Greb (talk | contribs)
Workgroup
m X-Men: Correcting the quotation formatting, & adding my own, certain-to-be-unpopular-but-I-stand-by-it-until-refuted-rather-than-just-rejected, comment
Line 63: Line 63:
The quote from Arnold Drake at the end of this section is misleading. While he may have thought that the similarities were a coincidence, it is clear that he no longer does and is convinced that Stan Lee ultimately stole his concept as indicated by the following (quoted from the same Newsarama interview):
The quote from Arnold Drake at the end of this section is misleading. While he may have thought that the similarities were a coincidence, it is clear that he no longer does and is convinced that Stan Lee ultimately stole his concept as indicated by the following (quoted from the same Newsarama interview):


"Over the years I’ve became more and more convinced that he knowingly stole The X-Men from The Doom Patrol. I didn’t believe so in the beginning because the lead time was so short."
:''Over the years I’ve became more and more convinced that he knowingly stole The X-Men from The Doom Patrol. I didn’t believe so in the beginning because the lead time was so short.''


He goes on to say:
He goes on to say:


"Over the years I learned that an awful lot of writers and artists were working surreptitiously between the two offices [Marvel and DC]. Therefore from when I first brought the idea into the [DC editor] Murray Boltinoff’s office, it would’ve been easy for someone to walk over and hear that this guy Drake is working on a story about a bunch of reluctant superheroes who are led by a man in a wheelchair. So over the years I began to feel that Stan had more lead time than I realized. He may well have had four, five or even six months."
:''Over the years I learned that an awful lot of writers and artists were working surreptitiously between the two offices [Marvel and DC]. Therefore from when I first brought the idea into the [DC editor] Murray Boltinoff’s office, it would’ve been easy for someone to walk over and hear that this guy Drake is working on a story about a bunch of reluctant superheroes who are led by a man in a wheelchair. So over the years I began to feel that Stan had more lead time than I realized. He may well have had four, five or even six months.''


The information as presented in the article appears to be misleading and should be changed.[[User:24.163.208.79|24.163.208.79]] 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)RB
The information as presented in the article appears to be misleading and should be changed.[[User:24.163.208.79|24.163.208.79]] 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)RB
Line 77: Line 77:
I rewrote this section to more accurately represent the similarities of the two comics and Drake's feelings toward them. RB
I rewrote this section to more accurately represent the similarities of the two comics and Drake's feelings toward them. RB
[[User:24.163.208.79|24.163.208.79]] 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[[User:24.163.208.79|24.163.208.79]] 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::With all due respect to the concept of not speaking ill of the dead, I think Drake was being disingenuous, as I have '''always''' seen the DP as a rip-off of Marvel's ''Fantastic Four''. Robotman=The Thing, Negative Man=The Human Torch (admittedly, this parallel is not so exact, but it's pretty close), Rita is Sue with powers similar to Reed's (she even marries the very Reed-like—down to the hair!—Steve Dayton), their HQ is is a well-known big building in the middle of a city, and there are no secret/double identities (until Beast Boy comes along, but with his animal forms always being green-faced, that was absurd). Sure, the Chief/Professor X similarity is there, but there has never been any doubt in my mind that primary development of the DP was as a copy of the FF. [[User:Tbrittreid|Ted Watson]] ([[User talk:Tbrittreid|talk]]) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


==Pictures==
==Pictures==

Revision as of 20:23, 14 April 2008

WikiProject iconComics: DC Comics B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

Removed text regarding a "notable distinction"

I removed the following text as it is not correct.

"However, it enjoyed the distinction of being only the second DC title to start publication as a mainstream DCU series but then shift to the Vertigo imprint (the first being Saga of the Swamp Thing). "

When the Vertigo imprint was launched, Animal Man, Shade, the Changing Man, Hellblazer, Swamp Thing, Sandman and Doom Patrol were the comic books that shifted from publication by DC to publication by the new imprint, and that shift happened simutaneously. Whether this snippet above refers to publication order within that month of shifting is unclear, but even if it does I do not think that position is notable. Hiding 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the writer was referring to how old the title was at the time of the shift - IIRC, it had been running longer than anything else except Swamp Thing. It's just badly phrased, is all. Lokicarbis 02:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. However, it's not a notable distinction, is it? Hiding talk 10:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans animated series

User:Angie Y. added the following assertion: "In this version, Elasti-Girl and Mento are Beast Boy's real mother and father." I cannot find a source to verify this. Can anyone help? —Theo (Talk) 19:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supported. I watched all those episodes and that was never stated. I am going to edit that now. Chris Griswold 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Titans (animated) section says that TT defeated the Doom Patrol. Shouldn't that read Brotherhood? Having not seen the ep, I don't think I'm qualified to make the change. -- Ipstenu 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Chris Griswold 17:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny the Street??

A "sentient, transvestite boulevard (which was typically illustrated through the presence of pink curtains on, for example, hardware stores)." ????? What the HELL? You're telling me one of the members of the Doom Patrol was... a street? A street of buildings? THAT MAKES MY BRAIN HURT OMG WTF DOES THAT MEANS!!?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.230.154 (talkcontribs) 11:22, September 24, 2005 (UTC).: Please sign your posts!

That's not vandelism. One of the members of Doom Patrol was indeed a cross-dressing piece of real estate! A what a character he was! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.22.195 (talkcontribs) 20:47, September 24, 2005 (UTC).: Please sign your posts!

Brotherhood of Dada

The Teen Titans/Outsiders Secret Files & Origins Handbook bring the Brotherhood of Dada at least back in-continuity. The Secret Society of Supervillains are said to be in talks with said group. The implications of this are either that the Brotherhood of Dada existed without the DP (which I find extrememly hard to believe, with Mr. Morden/Mr. Nobody relying heavily on the group and other various plot points) or that Morrison's run on DP, at the very least, existed. The only complicating fact is the appearance of Byrne's DP at the end of OMAC, during the desert battle. Why they did that, I don't know, but it serves to just complicate things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoctorWorm7 (talkcontribs) 03:12, December 9, 2005 (UTC).: Please sign your posts!

Back in continuty

OK I've had a quick stab at trying to update the status of the doom patrol in regards to their history (as of the moment, it turns out that byrne's retcon is out of the windows and those are all the original - see Teen Titans 32 for more details). However the explaination given in the issue is not that easy to provide a summary for (because it's pretty vague). Someone else want to take a run at it and overwrite my stuff?

--Charlesknight 11:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF????? I haven't read Teen Titans #32 yet, but jeez! Elasti-Girl seemed like one character meant to stay dead. Robotman even found her oversized skeleton to stress the point. I know it's a comic book and, as they say, only Uncle Ben, Bucky, and Jason Todd stay dead in the comics . . . Well, Uncle Ben and, um . . . Okay, just Uncle Ben. But jeez! Wryspy 08:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break it to you... Chris Griswold 15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Just kidding.)[reply]

Kupperberg's Doom Patrol

The section on Morrison's Doom Patrol includes a very brief mention of Kupperberg's more superheroic Doom Patrol for the first 18 issues. Some characters were introduced during this run that were significant in the Morrison run (such as Rhea Jones, whose original superheroic name I can't recall). Also, a couple of other new Doom Patrol members were introduced and discarded by the end of Kupperberg's run. One of them died during the Invasion! crossover. The Doom Patrol was also based in Kansas City for awhile. I haven't read Kupperberg's run since they were published many years ago, so I don't remember much more, but the Kupperberg section could definitely be expanded upon. Also, I think the individual revivals could use their own (sub-)sections. The Legion of Super-Heroes article organizes everything very well and could serve as a design model for a revision of this article. Kaijan 15:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altered text regarding Superpunching continuity changes

I wanted to clarify that Superboy Prime's punching didn't overwrite history; it merely remixed it. Instead of a world where Jason Todd never died, Superboy created a world where Jason Todd died but was replaced by one who had lived. The fact that he died never changed.

However, things do get murky on the Doom Patrol. Nobody seems to remember them, although the effects they had on other people never changed or reversed. And during the Superboy-Prime fight, they regained memories of the adventures they had after the original line-up. So it may not be that those adventures never existed, once the original DP was back, only that no one remembered clearly until the Prime fight. (Beast Boy was having some nagging feelings in Teen Titans). Chris Griswold 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of that bit of Infinite Crisis was that everything happened — the original '60s stories, the Kupperberg, Morrison, Pollack and Arcudi runs, and the Byrne run. Just as Superboy-Prime brought Jason Todd back to life, he also restored Rita Farr, Larry Trainor, Cliff Steele and the Chief to (roughly) their Silver Age statuses and made everybody forget about their previous lives. Ironically, this creates a double-memory/multiple-life status for the Doom Patrol which is sort of similar to what Byrne did to Donna Troy.
I think we're saying the same thing here; I may just not have phrased it well in my first attempt. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men

I will be adding a section about the similarity to the X-Men. This is a widely held notion; the two teams, made up of a bunch of freaks led by a wheelchair-bound genius, were created only months apart, and their popularities both waned around the same time in the late 60s. Chris Griswold 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Arnold Drake at the end of this section is misleading. While he may have thought that the similarities were a coincidence, it is clear that he no longer does and is convinced that Stan Lee ultimately stole his concept as indicated by the following (quoted from the same Newsarama interview):

Over the years I’ve became more and more convinced that he knowingly stole The X-Men from The Doom Patrol. I didn’t believe so in the beginning because the lead time was so short.

He goes on to say:

Over the years I learned that an awful lot of writers and artists were working surreptitiously between the two offices [Marvel and DC]. Therefore from when I first brought the idea into the [DC editor] Murray Boltinoff’s office, it would’ve been easy for someone to walk over and hear that this guy Drake is working on a story about a bunch of reluctant superheroes who are led by a man in a wheelchair. So over the years I began to feel that Stan had more lead time than I realized. He may well have had four, five or even six months.

The information as presented in the article appears to be misleading and should be changed.24.163.208.79 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)RB[reply]

If you think the information is misleading, you should change it. That's the whole point of a wiki. Rray 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I was following protocol. Consider it changed. 24.163.208.79 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this section to more accurately represent the similarities of the two comics and Drake's feelings toward them. RB 24.163.208.79 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the concept of not speaking ill of the dead, I think Drake was being disingenuous, as I have always seen the DP as a rip-off of Marvel's Fantastic Four. Robotman=The Thing, Negative Man=The Human Torch (admittedly, this parallel is not so exact, but it's pretty close), Rita is Sue with powers similar to Reed's (she even marries the very Reed-like—down to the hair!—Steve Dayton), their HQ is is a well-known big building in the middle of a city, and there are no secret/double identities (until Beast Boy comes along, but with his animal forms always being green-faced, that was absurd). Sure, the Chief/Professor X similarity is there, but there has never been any doubt in my mind that primary development of the DP was as a copy of the FF. Ted Watson (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

For the ones who may want to include them in the article:

KetinPorta 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison-era villains

Much as I love Grant Morrison's run on Doom Patrol, I'm not sure that this article needs to list every villain the team encountered on his watch. Should this be removed, perhaps to a daughter article? Should there perhaps be a List of Doom Patrol villains, organized by era? I think that would be more in the spirit of WP:FICT than, say, an article on Animal-Vegetable-Mineral Man. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Disproportionately long in this entry but would work in a willains article. --Chris Griswold 08:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't know that much about the Silver Age DP, but I'll try to whip something together this week. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously never happened. If anyone else wants to take the lead on this, please feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Morrison Doom Patrol" or "Vertigo Doom Patrol"

An anonymous AOL editor recently changed the heading of the Grant Morrison-era DP to "Vertigo Doom Patrol". This isn't really accurate, though — although the Grant Morrison DP was certainly one of the titles that was responsible for early Vertigo (along with Sandman and Shade, the Changing Man), all of his Doom Patrol work was originally published under the DC label. The Vertigo label didn't come along until Rachel Pollack's first issue, IIRC. Although I quite like some of the things Rachel Pollack did with the title, it's Morrison's work that's best known, so I think we should change back to "Morrison Doom Patrol". (After all, we've also got "John Byrne's Doom Patrol", so it's consistent with the rest of the article too. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to revert that myself. --Chris Griswold 07:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit/impending potential snippage

I just gave the article a once-over, fixing grammar and whatnot and generally (hopefully) making it flow a little better, but I gotta say that it seems like there's a lot of extraenous stuff there, and the whole thing with, what, four or five different team rosters and lists of villains and whatnot just strikes me as confusing. Honestly, I think the article would benefit from a lot of cutting and reorganizing, but I don't quite want to do that without bringing it up here first. What do you guys think? -- Captain Disdain 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the notice above was up for about a week and no one objected, I got to work. I started out by cutting away the rogues' gallery list and the allies list, although I did add a summary about the Morrison villains (and Flex Mentallo is now mentioned under Danny the Street's entry). I also moved the trade paperback section way down, because right now it was just in a kind of confusing place.
I'm still thinking on how to deal with the team rosters, because they're just very long and unwieldy and unfortunately make reading the article a kind of a chore at best. (I think this is a prime example of a fairly common phenomenon on Wikipedia -- someone comes up with a certain way of organizing things, and when others continue along the same vein, it eventually snowballs into something that is no longer convenient.) As you can see, I ended up taking the entire team rosters away and putting them into one bigass "Members of Doom Patrol" section below everything else, but I don't think it's a terribly elegant solution, either (you can really see just how much stuff they take up in the article now, though!). Still, I do think it's a definite improvement, since it makes following the actual chronology a lot easier -- that kind of flow is very important to readability. Perhaps a separate article, along the lines of List of Avengers members, would be the best solution here? (I was going to make this into a table, as in the Avengers article, but frankly, the way Wikipedia does tables is such a pain in the ass that I couldn't find the energy to do it right now...)
If you guys disagree with me here, feel free to voice your concerns! -- Captain Disdain 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ages ago, I was going to try to create separate articles for the members and villains, but never got around to it. I still think it would be a good idea, and would streamline this entry considerably. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More pictures

Does anyone know where to find pictures of:

Coagula, Scissormen, Rhea Jones, Number None, the Toy, the Candlemaker, Nudge, Grunt, Vortex, The Bandage People, Charlie the Doll, Dorothy's imaginary friends, the Men from N.O.W.H.E.R.E., and the Decreator? New here and having difficulty with the upload link. From -- Cardsharp21 at 22:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Please add at details "who is who" referencing each member at the picture. 89.0.139.33 21:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of facts

Coming to this article late, but I’ve got a big question… Is there a factual reference to the statements that the intent of all of the subsequent teams was to catch the spirit of the original? If not the paragraph sounds, in part, like opinion. Should this be flagged, rewritten, or dropped? — J Greb 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Should this flag now be removed? — J Greb 15:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Arcudi's Doom Patrol Roster

I quote from the article as it is as of this post: "Rounding out the four new members and Cliff were Elongated Man, Doctor Light, and Beast Boy, another former Doom Patroler."

Excuse me, no. Those were the replacements that Jost tried to use when they got the copyright. While I haven't seen Kid Slick, Fever, Flash Forward/Negative Man and (the Indian woman's name escapes me at the moment) used since the title was cancelled, that was the Doom Patrol.

It becomes a quibbling point. Jost was the one behind the new version of the DP. His first strategy was was to use Slick, Fever, FF, and Freak as the team. When they, and the faux-Cliff walked he hired replacements, as he saw as his right.
The article needs the point clarified though, as written it makes it sound like all 9 were in from the start. The role the "replacements" played needs a few more lines. — J Greb 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cable

The page for Matthew Cable claims that he was a member of the Doom Patrol. If so, when (what issueS)? --Scottandrewhutchins 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Doompatrol1.JPG

Image:Doompatrol1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Showcase94.JPG

Image:Showcase94.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Complaint about the article

Hi, I came to this article to learn the origin of the Doom Patrol ... and that's the one part you didn't write! The description of the first series is interesting, historically, but doesn't actually explain who the characters are. Later on, in the article, you refer back to characters, like Niles Caulder, but there has never been any initial description of them. ThatGuamGuy 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

I suppose the problem is that the origin changes - not sure quite how many times they have been retconned, enough times to make attempting this a tad confusing. There are more details of the characters on List of Doom Patrol members and the character pages hold more details on their respective histories. (Emperor 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]