Talk:Armageddon 2001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The leak

Does anyone know where and how the Captain Atom "surprise" was leaked? Was it in a magazine? I can vaguely remember knowing about the leak at the time, but I don't recall how I found out about it. I always found it interesting that DC went to so much trouble to change the story because of this, and I wonder if anyone on the DC staff has elaborated on what happened behind-the-scenes during this point. I think I'll go Googling and see what I can turn up. --SHODAN 01:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single verifiable reference to the source of the actual leak, wish I could though. --Basique 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the latest Wizard actually mentions it briefly. I'll see if I can add it to the article (never mind, someone already did)-- SHODAN 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section

I find the writing for the "controversy" section to be extremely unprofessional and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and am disturbed that my edits to change this were flatly reversed. Perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere, but the current edit surely isn't it.

In response, the ending was changed at the last minute: contradicting all the clues in all the previous issues, Monarch was revealed to be, not Captain Atom, but rather Hawk - one of the only two characters who Monarch could not possibly be (while the various Superman annuals showed that any given character could have multiple different probable futures, and the Flash annual showed that Waverider's own actions could greatly alter these futures away from what he had foreseen, so that the absence of Monarch in a hero's future did not necessarily mean he or she would not become Monarch, the Hawk and Dove annual showed multiple futures in which Hawk and Dove fought against Monarch's dictatorship).

This is perhaps the longest run-on sentence I have ever seen.

could not possibly be

The extreme emphasis here reeks of someone emphasizing their opinion. If minor emphasis is needed on this point, italics are sufficient.

This revelation was extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons: not only did it make no narrative sense (either in the larger context or on its own), not only did it disregard all the clues given in the earlier issues, not only did it require Hawk to behave in ways that were massively out of character, but it completely ruined the characters of Hawk and Dove for well over a decade (as Karl Kesel said in the introduction to the Hawk and Dove compilation, "it was a love story. From the very beginning, it was always a love story. Then one day, Hawk went insane and murdered Dove").

Again, this is a lengthy, lengthy run-on sentence. The only breaks are in the quote, which technically makes a subset of the full sentence thanks to the parentheses.

not only did it make no narrative sense

I don't personally disagree, but this phrasing is pushing the edge of NPoV.

not only did it disregard all the clues given in the earlier issues, not only did it require Hawk to behave in ways that were massively out of character

This reads like an essay or opinion piece, not like an encyclopedia article.

it completely ruined the characters of Hawk and Dove for well over a decade

Flat-out violation of NPoV. In a purely logical sense, you can change characters and make certain stories possible/impossible, but you can't "ruin" them. Similarly, would Armageddon 2001 have "ruined" Captain Atom if he was Monarch? This is purely point-of-view, regardless of the popularity of the opinion.

Since no clear explanation was given for the previous change, I'm reverting the changes again. Please post a more detailed explanation/justification in the talk page if you choose to revert these again. Better yet, only edit it to make specific points that you feel must be made rather than simply erasing the previous changes. Roger McCoy 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, editing it works a lot better than erasing the section completely. I like the new version. --Basique 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess, but the new edit I made was identical to the first edit I had made. I didn't erase any section completely the first time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armageddon_2001&diff=68439522&oldid=66382472
As long as everyone's reasonably happy, I guess that's what matters.  ;-) --Roger McCoy 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kyle Rayner

In the Hawkworld annual, a black-haired Green Lantern who resembles Kyle Rayner appears in one scene-three years before Rayner debuted.

04:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

Retcon

"Many years later, the DC Comics editorial staff acknowledged that the original ending was poorly executed and in the Battle for Blüdhaven (a spinoff miniseries from the larger Infinite Crisis event), retconned Monarch's origin and depicted Captain Atom's transformation into the villain." This isn't quite true. Captain Atom did get an armor that looked like Monarchs and eventually used the same name in another series (and has recently stopped using both), however this can't be called a retcon since this didn't affect the older stories. Also there should be a source given where the DC editorial called the ending "poorly executed". IchiGhost (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Similarity to "What If?"

"What If?" didn't explore possible futures at all. It explored alternate histories. Although these alternate histories were called 'timelines', no time travel was involved, whereas "Armageddon 2001" was all about time travel.

"Days of Future Past" would compare better. Thetrellan (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armageddon_2001&oldid=1198904025"