Jump to content

Talk:Fantastic Four/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Villain error

Immortus is listed among the Fantastic Four's villains on the bottom menu. Immortus is primarily an Avengers villain; how would one edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.232.14 (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers

I'm going to point out that Sue's powers aren't entirely correct. She can turn herself or other things invisible, and create solid force objects/fields, which she can manipulate mentally. I don't know where that "invisible power blasts" thing comes from.

Theme

The Fantastic Four 1994-95 theme song says "No need to fear, they're here", not "No need to hide, don't fear".--Roadrunner3000 6 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Fantastic 4 redirect

The Fantastic 4 now is an article for the video game so it no longer redirects to the article. • Thorpe • 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone please add the radio series. Ken Arromdee 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The real Fantastic Four

I might do the research and take care of it myself, but I'm just wondering if this article is ever going to address the fact that the Fantastic Four were based on real people.

I've never heard about this before. Could you elaborate? Also, please sign your posts. --Dayv 19:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think what you might be referring to, mistakenly, is the recent mini-series Unstable Molecules, which (mild spoilers) takes a "real" look at the people who "inspired" the "fictional" FF. This could actually be believed for an issue or two, as they don't get powers until later in the series. Don't know if this is what you're thinking of, but that's that. Slugabed 01:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh man. This is hilarious. Hey, is anyone ever going to create an article for long-lost Marvel artist Artie Rosen? [Note:The characters in Unstable Molecules do not get powers.] --Chris Griswold 20:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Please sign your posts;

Hear, Hear!

Also, just who were the Fantastic Four based on? That's a new one on me. Michael 20:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think their powers were largely based on old superheroes, though, such as Plastic Man. 85.226.122.205 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they were not based on older characters. The FF are based on the four elements of matter: Earth (The Thing), Air (Invisible Woman), Fire (Human Torch), and Water (Mr. Fantastic).

That's true for recent stories and the Ultimate FF, but was not the original intention. The way Kirby originally drew Thing, he was scaly like a dinosaur, not rocky.Argento Surfer (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Parodies and references

I have restored some content to this section that was lost in a previous edit. However, it is getting interminably long. Much of this section is simply trivia which should be excised or perhaps moved into a new article. I don't have the time right now to give this section the detailed attention that it needs, hopefully someone reading this does. Dayv 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Not necesarilly a parody, but in Slayers, a character named Zelgadis has rocky skin. It's blue, though, not orange."
If this isn't a parody, why was it added to the list? In any case, the wording is unprofessional. Control 22:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions and citations

The following phrase seems to be contradicted by the 1974 Lee quote below. Since it brings up contradictions that need to be reconciled, can anyone provide later Lee quotes, with citations/links, to address the discrepancies? Thanks:

Intending to leave after completing this assignment [FF#1] (one which, decades later, he claimed he did not take seriously), ...

Here's the Lee quote, from Origins of Marvel Comics p. 16:

"[My wife] Joan was commenting about the fact that after 20 years of producing comics I was still writing television material, advertising copy and newspaper features in my spare time. She wondered why I didn't put as much effort and creativity into the comics as I seemed to be putting into my other freelance endeavors. ...[H]er little dissertation made me suddenly realize that it was time to start concentrating on what I was doing — to carve a real career for myself in the nowhere world of comic books". - Tenebrae 05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And start cannibalizing existing concepts. I wish my cosuin would throw me a job. --Chris Griswold 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not a contradiction. I've read (Daniels' Marvel Comics, I think) Timely/Marvel sales were so bad, Goodman was going to get out of the biz & FF was wild throw, w nothing to lose if it bombed. And "trend follower Goodman" wasn't paying attention; JSA had been around since the '40s... Trekphiler 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Death in the Family

SPOILER! This one-shot shows Invisible Woman's death, followed by her being saved in an alternate timeline by Johnny of the first timeline. Does anybody know which one is the 616, default and so canon timeline/ universe. Basically, is she dead or not??? ChocolateRoses 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to wait 'til the next ish of FF to see... but, if she's not, the whole tale seemed kinda pointless. Dr Archeville 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's too bad that continuity nerds can't just enjoy a story on its own. No, it's not pointless. Johnny saves Sue, even if not for himself. The story is entirely about family, and perhaps was not something you would be interested it. No, Sue's not dead. --Chris Griswold 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote for FF Pic

Rather than have a revert war I propose we vote for what is to be the FF pic.

Currently the pic is the cover to FF #509 (see gallery images). If anyone would like to post more suggestions feel free. Dstorres

Mike Wieringo It's clearer, and not only are all of the characters facing forward, they're moving. Plus, there recently has been a rash of herobox images being replaced with ones by Michael Turner. --Chris Griswold 14:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, neither. I'd try to get one from Steve McNiven's run. Exvicious 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
McNiven Put a McNiven picture above this so my vote makes sense. --Chris Griswold 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Wieringo. I don't think the pic needs to be changed. I've added a McNiven pic by your request, anyway. —Lesfer (talk/@) 05:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
McNiven A good representation of the FF.
Wieringo—I like the McNiven piece, but 'Ringo's cover delivers the clearest image of the team. Ragdoll 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
McNiven. Wieringo pic is nice, but doesn't show IW using her powers, like the other two. It's a clearer picture, but is there another ringo out there where she's actually turning invisible? --CPitt76 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)CPitt76
She is using her power, you just can't see it...cuz it's invisible. Ragdoll 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
She's using a force field in that picture. --Chris Griswold 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Clever. Walked right into those...--CPitt76 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't blame yourself; Sue made them invisible. --Chris Griswold 06:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jack Kirby image instead — To have this article's lead illustration not be by Jack Kirby, the FF's co-creator in one of his two or three major showcases, would be just wrong. In addition to every other reason why, it goes against the nature of an encylopedia, in which the illustrations are a part of the whole of each article. The most significant artist for one of comics' most significant series should be the most prominent artist in the article. -- Tenebrae 18:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
For a lot of people, John Byrne (pre-crazy) is the most promintent artist for FF. --Chris Griswold 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an article on Jack Kirby that documents his contributions. This is a FF article. I don't necessarily disagree with you Tenebrae, but the lead pic should be one that illustrates the FF so that someone who is unfamiliar with them gets a good idea of what they look like, not just pay homage to Jack Kirby. Maybe you could provide a Kirby pic that does both?--CPitt76 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd pretty much say Kirby gave a good idea of what they looked like! :- )
Chris, you're one of my favorite colleagues, and I know you'll weigh what follows with a collegian's sense. Byrne may be the most prominent FF artist for some fans, but then, M. Night Shyamalan is the most prominent filmmaker for some movie fans. That doesn't mean, in historical reality, they're more prominent than Jack Kirby or Orson Welles, who occupy roughly the same position of creative breakthrough in their respective fields. -- Tenebrae 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I know; he's not my FF artist. I was just playing Devil's Advocate. And I love you too. --Chris Griswold 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Gawrsh! (LOL!) -- Tenebrae 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree with Chris, the Byrne stuff, around the 250s, have the clearest, most iconic representations of the team. --Neil Fein 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Parodies and refrences

If noone puts any major protests up in about 12 hours, i will cleanse this section of all non-comic book examples. Cnriaczoy42 02:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it falls under WP:TRIV & WP:Trivia. Besides, if people keep writing every onr of the F4 refrences that they see, the section will be half the length of the article. That is also part of the reason i nomminated it for Comic Collaberation of the month. Cnriaczoy42 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
But it also highlights the comic's impact on popular culture, so it isn't exactly trivia. If we were to remove this informaiton based on it being trivial, then everythign would have to go, including the parodies and references in comics. WesleyDodds 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If people keep adding information, it will be split into its own article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New Fantastic Four

http://previews.diamondcomics.com/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=23&s=213&ai=35682

I don't know how to use spoiler tags or cite references, so if anyone could do this for the New FF I'd be much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.26.219 (talk • contribs)

I got it. Also, you'll find directions on cites and references at WP:CITE and related links. Thanks for the information. --Tenebrae 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Odd Posting

Hey everyone. Just wanted to let you know that in the "Antagonists" section of the F4 Page, after the antagonists, a little text blurb read "The Fantastic Four will strike again." It was kinda creepy, and seemed to have no point, so I deleted it. I don't think it has any significance, but if it does, I deeply apologise. And I also just wanted to bring it to all of your attentions. Thanks for reading. Skilanky64 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Fantasti-Car

Somebody tagged Fantasti-Car for merging with this last month. I'm just completing the tagging and setting up the discussion. I have no opinion either way. CovenantD 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am adding it with other similar stubs to List of vehicles in Marvel Comics. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess the tag can go away then. CovenantD 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Media

I've just made an addition to the other media section, the "Fred and Barney Meet the Thing" bit. I thought about inserting it into the Animated Series section, but this is not a Fantastic Four animated series. The Thing was the only character from the team on the program, so I put it in Other Media instead.

I'll be the first to admit that the cartoon of The Thing was an abomination, but then so was the 1978 animated series and the 1994 movie. Like it or not, it's a part of FF history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.171.82 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Flame Brain

The article says Johnny can "surround himself with flames and fly." IIRC, he turns to plasma; he's not solid underneath, like whatsherface from Elementals (whose name I should know, dammit, I read them all...). Trekphiler 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the actual source of Johnny's powers have never been described in detail, I don't think his body is transformed into plasma. Various analysis have shown him to have a solid form underneath and whenever he gets hit or doused with water he's immediately reverted back to normal. I do agree that it's a plasma-base fire though, especially as described in "X-4" when Nightcrawler gets purple fire in a plasma form and whenever he teleports it creates an explosion. I could be completely making this up, but I think I read somewhere that Johnny's flame is created by a chemical secretion that ignites in contact with the air. Syrgri 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four

Why is the Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four mini-series listed under alternate versions? They've made it pretty clear in the solicits that the book takes place in the past of current continuity, much like the Spider-Man/Human Torch mini-series that preceded this one. --156.34.65.117 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm/Panther

Why do the above characters recieve so much attention in the opening section? They are no more important to the FF than She-Hulk, Luke Cage or any other fill-in members. This seems like recentism to me. Paul730 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ff358.jpg

Image:Ff358.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 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 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive

This article is the current focus of the Comics Project Improvement Drive. The aim is to focus the eyes of the project here and help bring the article up in quality.

The first step is to run through the article and throw and see if there are any minor fixes that can be done and then throw in thoughts on areas to address. There is also a sub-section below for people to add useful resources that can be added to the article to help flesh out the real world aspects. (Emperor 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Resources

If you know of any useful articles, interviews, studies, etc. then add then in here and we can work on integrating them into this entry. NB if they aren't easily accessible then drop in a note if you have it and a precis of the important and relevant bits would be a great help. It'd also be best if the references are templated before being put in the article. (Emperor 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Superhero toy template

I'm with User:WesleyDodds — if that collector-checklist template belongs on Wikipedia at all, and I don't believe it does, then at best it'd be at some toy article, and not cluttering dozens and dozens of comic-book character article.

So a character was adapted into a toy? That's happened since the turn of last century. Are we going to list hundreds of toys in a template for every Felix the Cat, Casper the Friendly Ghost, Dana Scully from The X-Files, etc.? There have been Babe Ruth toys and dolls. This is too general and limitless.--Tenebrae 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marvel2-in-1n.20.jpg

Image:Marvel2-in-1n.20.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uniform colour?

Does anyone know what shade of blue was used in the original FF uniforms? Mleivo (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate rosters

The Fantastic Four were not always the four listed here. For example, there was a three issue arc that consisted of Spider-Man, The Hulk, Wolverine, and Ghost Rider. Should we include examples of these alternate rosters? Perhaps just have a list of members of alternate rosters with references to the issues it occurred in? Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A single story arc among almost 600 issues isn't that notable. Futher, that was more of a replacement team while the main team was lostin space or something, and not marketed as a real 'New FF' but a gimmick. I think that noting the real replacement members, like She Hulk is worthwhile , but wouldn't waste space o nthe otherThuranX (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

new supporting character

shouldn´t Bruiser (former "human" doombot made by Doom) be added as a supporting character? --85.207.210.115 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

This looks like a pretty good article to me right about now, and I'm looking at it to see what else we can do with it now to get it there. It stikes me as odd that this one has never been nominated for a GA review before, nor ever had a peer review, or anything like that; well, first time for everything, I suppose! This is too vital of an article for the comics industry to be languishing at B-class forever. BOZ (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I think an article of this size is generally expected to have four paragraphs for the lead. It could probably stand to say more about the development and publication history sections. The second paragraph could probably stand to be broken up into two paragraphs; one just about the four characters, and then the last two sentences could form a new paragraph which would also mention other characters such as Franklin, Namor, Doctor Doom, Galactus, and the Inhumans, for example. Just some thoughts, this is a place for discussion. BOZ (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead; feel free to discuss here, or if you agree, keep as-is. :) BOZ (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Publication history

Like with Spider-Man, I think the publication history here is one of the most well-done that I've seen. If I have one criticism, it's the mismatched headers. Origins; Early years; John Byrne; 1990s; "Heroes Reborn" and renumbered; Spinoffs (The Human Torch solo; The Thing solo). Some describe events, some describe time periods, some are years... it's all over the place, and could stand some consistency. I don't see why John Byrne's run ("celebrated run"? this section needs a tone-down) needs its own section (no one else has their own section, except arguably the Lee/Kirby era, which technically has two sections), and that could probably be comined with the 1990s era; I would argue that one specific decade doesn't need its own section either, as this is an arbitrary qualifier. I think a single section for these parts, bookended by the Lee/Kirby era and Heroes Reborn, however, makes for a good section.

Heroes Reborn does make sense for starting its own section, since after all that marked a major change for most major Marvel characters, who did not appear in normal continuity for a whole year. However, as this section encompasses a 12-year span now, the current section title is not properly descriptive.

The spinoffs section is fine, as it does as it is intended. :) BOZ (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Character development" might not be the best name for a merger of the "John Byrne" and "1990s" sections, but I think this is better than what we had. I'm sure someone can come up with a better idea. :) BOZ (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of this section... the whole PH could use a few more refs here and there, especially this section. I've added {{fact}} tags to items that especially need references, if we can find them. BOZ (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The recently added "Post Civil War" header does break up the ""Heroes Reborn" and renumbered" section a bit, although this may not be the perfect way to do it. I'll leave it alone, though. :) BOZ (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sections

The team. This article seems to be doing fine without a detailed plot history, and at least the origin story is located here. Could use a couple more issue citations in that first paragraph though. Otherwise, basically looks good though. I'm wondering, if we're including a history of their headquarters in that final paragraph, do we want to describe their technologies somewhere (Fantasti-Car, Pogo Plane, etc)?

Supporting characters. Ugh, a list? We may want to convert this to prose. A number of these characters are described above in the publication history, so maybe a quick run-down of the rest in a couple of paragraphs would be sufficient?

In other media. This section is pretty hefty, though not as big as what is seen on some articles. Which would be better: trimming down on the extra details, or splitting into its own article and just giving a quick summary here on this article of their most notable media appearances?

Bibliography. Do we really need this? Is there any info here that the publication history can't handle? BOZ (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I turned the listy sections into prose; these can use sources and other work, but hopefully I did the right thing for a start. :) BOZ (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I killed the biblio for reasons already stated; undo if ya don't like. Any thoughts on the Other media section? BOZ (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Just realized that we really have nothing for this article in the way of a critical review/cultural impact section! Any ideas on how we can find content for this section? For examples of the sorts of thing we can use to start this up, see Spider-Man#Cultural impact, Batman#Cultural impact, and Superman#Cultural impact. BOZ (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I had a look around:
Some of these (towards the end - the turning point is round about the Silver Surfer section) are more general and may be more specific for other articles and only mention the FF in passing (but would be worth getting our hands on for those articles). I'd suggest the MA thesis might be worth the effort of digging out (might not be that much effort as most thesis are being put online if you have access) as they'll have, hopefully, done a lot of the digging for us.
Some random things I found (which do mention the FF but probably aren't that useful to us, we can move them over to better articles where they may come in handy):
As should also be obvious - the Journal of Popular Culture is pretty useful for adding a little depth to quite a few topics. Anyway a bit of research regurgitation - see what you can sift out of that. (Emperor (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Oh wow, that's a lot! :) I'll see what I can do, when I have the time... meanwhile, it's bedtime. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into this a bit. Nice research. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I should add that it isn't necessary to go through all those for GA but if we can get a comprehensive list of resources and work through them (either incorporating them or crossing them off the list because they don't add anything) then by the time a full list has been dealt with the article should be ready for FA. If we can cover the more obviously important ones that are reasonably easy to access (and quite a few of those can be largely read online, which is handy) then it should be in a good position for a GA assessment. I think the main theme that crops up in analysis is the FF as an unusual, and sometimes dysfunctional, family unit - which also touches on the portrayal of gender roles. (Emperor (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Here is something else that might be of use: SDCC '06: Marvel to Publish "Lost" Lee/Kirby FF Issue, Newsarama, July 22, 2006 (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
I actually printed out the list, so I can finally begin going over it at my leisure. ;) I can tell you that I have already looked at "The Doom-Defying, Two-Fisted Marketing of Fantastic Four" so there's probably not much else to be gained from that. I'll update you on my progress as I go, although my time may be limited at first. BOZ (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I also added some cites to Our Gods Wear Spandex, noted above, and Peregrine Fisher took care of Comic Book Nation and The Creation of the Fantastic Four. As for the rest, I either didn't see anything I wanted to use (not the same as there not being anything useable) in them, or I wasn't sure how to access them. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, some looked like they would be much more useful for the individual character articles than for the team article, so keep track of these links. BOZ (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Got an issue with the following: Lee said he created a synopsis for the first Fantastic Four story that he gave to penciller Jack Kirby, who then drew the entire story. Kirby turned in his penciled art pages to Lee, who added dialogue and captions. This approach to creating comics, which became known as the "Marvel Method", worked so well for Lee and Kirby that they utilized it from then on; the Marvel Method became standard for the company within a year. Evanier indicates in his book King of Comics that the Marvel Method was in place before the FF launched. He points to Rawhide Kid and Two-Gun Kid as examples of good comics produced under it. It was his rash cancellation of Two-Gun Kid that led to FF, in a roundabout way, according to Evanier. Now Evanier has Jack and Lee coming up with the thing together. I'll have to read through my Journal interviews with Kirby and see if I can assimilate this into what we have, because ultimately we've got another Spider-Man on our hands. I think we've probably got to accept that every major character created before about 1980 is likely going to have about six people claiming all the credit for it. Hiding T 14:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but at least they keep it interesting. :) It makes sense to have conflicting accounts in there, as long as everything is sourced. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've done this. I've got a few bits on cultural impact, especially in the sixties, and there's also some great stuff on Kirby's inspirations and his conceptions that I need to work out how to add in. Hiding T 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! I wanted to see if I could find some time to work on this article today... BOZ (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm off for the day, so you can feel free to take up the reins... ;) Hiding T 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, that's quite an add! BOZ (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Why thank you. I think it pretty much covers every viewpoint over who did what, and finishes with what really is the consensus position. I'm trying to work out where to put Kirby's thoughts on each of the characters. Would that go in the "The team" section? Hiding T 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Might as well, and/or the individual character articles (which probably need it even moreso). Cameron Scott has promised a good source that he can add when he finds the time. :) BOZ (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Great ref

Don't know if this is mentioned above, but this book has a bunch of scholarly analysis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I see, and no I don't think it was referenced above! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
More pure gold.[2][3][4]
OK, so I added some stuff to the "Character development" section. I've made each addition its own paragraph, instead of tacking it onto the end of other paragraphs where it should be, because I don't want to confuse what info come from what ref. At some point, we should create inline refs for the issues (like Spider-Man), so then sentences can be moved around willy nilly as we see fit and still have their associated ref. I wonder if we should ask User:Asgardian? They seem to have a nack for knowing info about the various issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What's with the reference style?

Why are there both in-text Harvard page refs and footnotes? This is rather bizarre; I've never seen referencing like this. When I cited stuff in this article a while ago, I just when with the standard "Wright, p. xxxx" footnotes, so it's rather odd to see this strange new style. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it got changed. I used harvard for one of my refs because I saw that it was being done that way. Looking at Template:rp I guess its discouraged unless there are really a ton of refs from one book, which this article doesn't have. We'll probably change it back, I'd guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be standardized; I'm sure any sources I added were probably done incorrectly... BOZ (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up! WesleyDodds (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Push on to GA

This article has been improved significantly over the past month or so. We need better work with sourcing, and I'll point out where it is weakest. The Publication history is pretty well sourced and developed in the Origins and Early years sections, Character development section has been improved and the Post Civil War section looks OK although both could use some work, but the "Heroes Reborn" and renumbered and Spinoffs sections are pretty bare. The next section, "The team", is pretty good. Supporting characters doesn't have too many citations, and could use more. Cultural impact is well cited enough, but could use some more development; particularly in the 40 or so year gap between the book's debut and the first movie. :) And, In other media is a big section with almost no refs. So, if there's anywhere you can jump in and get some sourcing done, any little bit will help. :)

So, once the numerous sourcing concerns are fixed, this one should be good to go. :) This one is a big topic, so it requires more work than some, and I will do what little I can when I can, even if that takes a good long time. BOZ (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't need an extensive supporting characters section, if one at all. Most of the supporting characters have specific ties to individual team members (Alicia Master, the Richards children) and their relationship can be addressed in those articles. I say take it out for now and put it back once you have source material to properly fill it out in the ramp up to FAC. Elements of "Cultural impact" can probably be merged into other sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, regarding the spinoffs: the solo features can be addressed as part of a separate section, but titles that star the entire team be they "in continuity" or not (Ultimate FF, Marvel Knights 4, and the Marvel Adventures title) need to be addressed in the main publishing history section, because they are ultimately still publications that star the characters, and are not "spinoffs". WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can move or remove things like that. We were actually trying to increase the Cultural impact section, so if we remove stuff from there, then we need more with which to fill it back up. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that the material could remain in the article, but there would not a distinct "Cultural impact" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be best practices to include a cultural impact on these important superhero articles. Superman, and FA, has six(!) sections of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Superman is a major exception. Superman is one of the most important fictional characters of all time; there's at least a dozen books about his cultural impact at my library alone. Few other fictional character articles will look like the Superman one, much less comic book character-specific ones. While the Fantastic Four are important for the comics medium, they don't have the same cultural impact. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll let other people decide if we should keep that section. Maybe take it up at the comics project. If you're worried that they only effected comics and not the whole culutre, we could name it something else. The FF and Spiderman are to comics in the last 40 years as Superman and Batman were to the first forty, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted levels (3 sections)

Since the PH is presented chronologically, having "Spinoffs" appear after "Late 2000s" doesn't really follow logically -- the spinoffs appeared before then. Accordingly, I moved "Spinoffs" up a level, and adjusted its two subsections to coincide.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Central City, CA

When did the FF move to NYC permanently? I always thought their original base of operations was Central City, CA (which was later changed to Stockton, CA in..... FF300???) DFS (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four or The Fantastic Four?

The article name is Fantastic Four, info box is Fantastic Four, cover #1 is The Fantastic Four, text is the Fantastic Four. I doubt if the last is an option, just as the Beatles would be wrong or, more appropriately, the Archies.

Input also appreciated here and here. Spicemix (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

2099?

Just like to point out that there is no info in this entry nor in the whole wikipedia on the Fantastic Four 2099. Maybe someone would care to provide some info?

Per WP:TPYES, Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) 98.206.34.148 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

radio show?

No mention of the 1975 Marvel Comics radio show the FF starred in? Even with Bill Murray as the Human Torch? Info at this page: http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/interview/pblewis.shtml

Per WP:TPYES, Please sign your posts with four tildes (~) 98.206.34.148 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been nearly two weeks with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hidden editorial comments

Moving this here from the article. It was hidden inside HTML comment tags. This is not an appropriate way to raise an issue with the text. Such issues should be raised on the talk page.

Following needs cite, but also is written in questionable [{WP:TONE]] with WP:NPOV concerns as well: The film was made on a shoestring budget and is largely mocked by fans of the comic book foursome for what they see as poor acting and disappointing special effects (at one point, The Human Torch — played by a human actor — turns into an obvious cartoon upon "flaming-on").


The film was made because the studio that owned the movie rights would have lost them if it did not begin production by a certain deadline (a tactic known as creating an ashcan copy). According to producer Bernd Eichinger, Avi Arad had Marvel purchase the film for a few million dollars.[1]"and subsequently ordered all prints destroyed" -- according to cited source, no one knows what became of film, and some even suggest in the cited source that it was not destroyed.

I have removed the comment tags and added NPOV and tone templates to the section, and flagged the passage with a fact template. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kirby for FF pic?

File:Fantastic Four Marvelmania poster.jpg

How about we use the great Marvelmania poster image by the FFs co-creator Jack Kirby? Randolph Hoppe (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC) →Well, that was a failure, now the image's been deleted because I didn't want to change it without getting some comments. I still think that the Marvelmania image by the artistic creator is a better choice. Randolph Hoppe (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GCD template

The Grand Comics Database template works OK for simple entries, but it doesn't work with complicated ones involving volume numbers of years, and creates overlinkage when there's more than one instance in an EL list. You can see the overlinkages in this example below, and also, "vol. 2" etc. is not an italicized, proper-noun part of a series title. I've cleaned this up (also removing the unnecessary boldface) in the article, and added a couple of explanatory notes where GCD and UHMCC disagree on volume numbering.

--Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Extreme thanks for a great article

Saw the 2015 movie last evening; thanks for a great article. I'll be 'watching' here. -- AstroU (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wham/Smash and Pow!

Under the United Kingdom section shouldn't the 1960s UK reprints of Fantastic Four material in Odham Press Power Comics titles Wham,Smash and Pow! be mentioned?86.5.134.132 (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fantastic Four. 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) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantastic Four. 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) 18:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Realism"?

A guy who stretches his body like a rubber band, and invisible girl, a kid who bursts into flames without burning up, an animated man-shaped stack of orange rocks, "helped to usher in a new level of realism in the medium"? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Brady, Terrence J. "The Fantastic Four-Gotten".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fantastic_Four/Archive_1&oldid=845339385"