The Eternals !!

[hondobrode]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes !!!!!

Neil Gaiman is going to be doing The Eternals !

This is probably *** the *** most neglected set of characters that either of the Big Two has that Kirby created.

The Eternals, the Celestials, etc., all awesome.

I can't stand the wait to see who will be doing the art. I hope to God somehow they loop Ladronn into doing it.

THIS is the type of stuff that makes my heart skip a beat. THIS, to me, is Marvel.

They're also collecting the entire original series in a hardbound edition. That's a great read.

Woo hoo !

[Babylon23]

I'm happy to see Kirby's original series getting the HC treatment. It's an excellent dook. I wish DC would do the same with New Gods.

As for the new series, I'll wait and see. I'm a big fan of Gaiman, but I didn't think much of 1602. I'll probably pick up the first issue and take it from there.

[berk]

I'm sceptical. Marvel's track record with the Eternals is even worse than DC's with the New Gods. I've never seen one scrap of evidence that anyone at Marvel has ever appreciated anything about Kirby's epic, not even the simplest and most apparent aspects of its surface narrative and characterization, let alone the deeply-felt and masterfully developed thematic subtext that permeates it.

Just writing this is making me depressed.

On the other hand, although I haven't read much Gaiman, his reputation leads me to believe that at least he'll try to think about what Kirby was doing in the original series. And the reprint of the original is long overdue.

[Jake V]

I fear I'm showing my cluelessness here, but I've never heard of the Eternals. What/who are they? What was the original Kirby series about? How has Marvel misused these characters in the years following the series?

[overcomebyfumes]

When does this come out? I'm pretty psyched for all this - both the new series and the HC reprints.

[cosmicspidey]

Eternals? I can honestly say that in my 10 years reading comics, I have never read a story where the Eternals appeared. Other than the Earth X trilogy, I'm not even sure if I've heard them mentioned outside of the trading cards. This doesn't have me excited in the least.

Who is an Eternal anyway? Isn't Sersi one? And Cannonball?

[mattbib]

Who is an Eternal anyway? Isn't Sersi one? And Cannonball?Yes, Sersi is an Eternal of Earth, as are Thena, Ikaris, Makkari, and others.

Starfox (Eros), Mentor, and Thanos are all Eternals of Titan.

The best Eternals resource on the web is Sersi's Loft (http://www.geocities.com/brenni_au/).


Cannonball is NOT an Eternal. He was believed to have been an External, but Selene told X-Force (of which he was a member at the time) that that was a lie Cable had told them. Whether Selene was being truthful isn't known.

[cosmicspidey]

Yes, Sersi is an Eternal of Earth, as are Thena, Ikaris, Makkari, and others.

Starfox (Eros), Mentor, and Thanos are all Eternals of Titan.

The best Eternals resource on the web is Sersi's Loft (http://www.geocities.com/brenni_au/).


Cannonball is NOT an Eternal. He was believed to have been an External, but Selene told X-Force (of which he was a member at the time) that that was a lie Cable had told them. Whether Selene was being truthful isn't known.

So is Gaiman writing a book about Sersi, Thena, etc. or Starfox and Thanos? The latter might be worth giving a shot. The former, not so much.

[Will.S]

So is Gaiman writing a book about Sersi, Thena, etc. or Starfox and Thanos? The latter might be worth giving a shot. The former, not so much.
Nah he's not writing specifically about them (at least I think). Mattbib was just telling us the people who are Eternals that we know.

I guess the point of releasing the original series in hardcover is so that we would have the chance to know what their story is.

I've known of them and have seen the superheroes mattbib mentioned in action but I've never really had the opportunity to track down the old issues. Neil Gaiman writing makes it a near purchase for me, I just want to know who the artist is. And yes Jose Ladronn would be awesome but who knows whats up with him and Marvel these days?

[mattbib]

Hopefully it's not about the characters in Austen's Eternal mini-series....although that was a decent enough title. I'm more interested in Kirby's characters.

I'd love for Gaiman to return Thena to her role as leader. Should be interesting no matter what, though.

[Cayman]

Wasn't there a one-shot back in the Harras years by some hack where he killed off Karkas and Ransak the Reject? I hope they ignore that. Eternals rock. Deviants rock.

Cay

[mattbib]

Wasn't there a one-shot back in the Harras years by some hack where he killed off Karkas and Ransak the Reject? I hope they ignore that. Eternals rock. Deviants rock. Kind of. Karkas was supposedly killed in New Eternals: Apocalypse Now. He had been mutated into a monster by a bomb that Apocalypse launched at Lemuria. The Reject, who had also been mutated, but not as bad, was forced to battle and kill him IIRC.

But...both Ransak and Karkas were seen fully recovered in Priest's Black Panther #27 as aides to Kro.

[Cayman]

Kind of. Karkas was supposedly killed in New Eternals: Apocalypse Now. He had been mutated into a monster by a bomb that Apocalypse launched at Lemuria. The Reject, who had also been mutated, but not as bad, was forced to battle and kill him IIRC.

But...both Ransak and Karkas were seen fully recovered in Priest's Black Panther #27 as aides to Kro.

Sweet, thank you Christopher Priest!

I love those characters.

Cay

[DDM]

I fear I'm showing my cluelessness here, but I've never heard of the Eternals. What/who are they? What was the original Kirby series about? How has Marvel misused these characters in the years following the series?

Eternals are a genetic offshoot of humanity. Eternals have extremely long lives, control their molecules down to subatomic level, possess superhuman strength, etc. Eternals usually focus on a particular talent. For instance, Sersi can rearrange matter at will.

Eternals & Devients were created by the Celestials. There is also the Eternals of Titan such as Eros (Starfox), Mentor, & Thanos. Moondragon was raised by the Eternals of Titan in which she achieved to tap into her human potential for psionic powers.

[Indigo Al]

OH MY GOD. Fantastic. I cannot wait for this. I loved 1602 and Gaiman will surely hit this out of the park (if he can crank up the sci-fi and not make it too magicky fantasy)

Eternals are the perfect blend of Kirby's awesome raw imagination and 1970's UFO pseudoscience (which clearly illustrates that then, and now, we still need myth).

Where did you see this announcement, hondobrode?

[Zero Hunter]

I love the Eternals. They are just such a cool group of characters. I do hope that the Titan Eternals are featured also.

[berk]

Love 'em or hate 'em, the fact is that the Titan "Eternals" have absolutley nothing to do with Kirby's original creation. They were tacked on afterwards when various writers and editors were looking for ways to integrate Kirby's Eternals into the familiar MU. Mentor, Starfox, Moondragon and all the rest were created by Jim Starlin in conection with his Captian Marvel and Thanos epics. They're perfectly good characters in their own rights, but don't fit in with Kirby's grand scheme at all IMO. I think Kirby's Eternals series was something very special and unique, and the attempt to tie them to Starlin's vastly different mythos was one of the many fundamental errors Marvel made in handling them over the years.

[hondobrode]

OH MY GOD. Fantastic. I cannot wait for this. I loved 1602 and Gaiman will surely hit this out of the park (if he can crank up the sci-fi and not make it too magicky fantasy)

Eternals are the perfect blend of Kirby's awesome raw imagination and 1970's UFO pseudoscience (which clearly illustrates that then, and now, we still need myth).

Where did you see this announcement, hondobrode?

Newsarama, Indigo Al.

I'm still trembling with anticipation.

[hondobrode]

Love 'em or hate 'em, the fact is that the Titan "Eternals" have absolutley nothing to do with Kirby's original creation. They were tacked on afterwards when various writers and editors were looking for ways to integrate Kirby's Eternals into the familiar MU. Mentor, Starfox, Moondragon and all the rest were created by Jim Starlin in conection with his Captian Marvel and Thanos epics. They're perfectly good characters in their own rights, but don't fit in with Kirby's grand scheme at all IMO. I think Kirby's Eternals series was something very special and unique, and the attempt to tie them to Starlin's vastly different mythos was one of the many fundamental errors Marvel made in handling them over the years.

I agree, Berk. I like the characters, but it was really Marvel trying to do DC"s New Gods. Good and all, and Starlin really did a great job, but tying them to the Externals was a bad call, I think.

I would love to see the Gods of Titan, Titan Externals, whatever you want to call them, again in a book of their own.

[berk]

I agree, Berk. I like the characters, but it was really Marvel trying to do DC"s New Gods. Good and all, and Starlin really did a great job, but tying them to the Externals was a bad call, I think.

I would love to see the Gods of Titan, Titan Externals, whatever you want to call them, again in a book of their own. Yeah. I'm a big fan of Starlin's early work, especially the Warlock and Captain Marvel stuff in which the Titanians were introduced. But it's just an entirely different kettle of fish from Kirby's Eternals, with its own distinct themes and concerns. The two concepts don't match well stylistically either, IMO. No sense at all in trying to force them together.

[Zero Hunter]

There are not that many Eternals left on Earth anymore anyways are there? Didn't most of them take off into space in the form of the Uni-Mind a long time back. Who all is still on Earth?

[berk]

There are not that many Eternals left on Earth anymore anyways are there? Didn't most of them take off into space in the form of the Uni-Mind a long time back. Who all is still on Earth? No idea. I think the best thing Gaiman could do would be to completely ignore anything and everything that has ever been done with them since Kirby's series ended. None of it made any sense with the original concept.

[dazzler_slave]

No idea. I think the best thing Gaiman could do would be to completely ignore anything and everything that has ever been done with them since Kirby's series ended. None of it made any sense with the original concept.

Yeah cuz that won't make us all hypocrites! Everyone complains when writers ignore the continuity we like so really, I don't think they should ignore any of it.

Personally, I liked the Eternals of Titan and the formation of the Uni-Mind, so I hope Gaiman doesn't retcon it

[Bicycle-Repairman]

There was also a small Eternal colony on Uranus. The 1950s hero Marvel Boy was raised among the Uranian Eternals. The Uranian Eternals lived in a domed city to protect them from Uranus' inhospitable environment and were all killed when the dome was destroyed.

[berk]

Yeah cuz that won't make us all hypocrites! Everyone complains when writers ignore the continuity we like so really, I don't think they should ignore any of it.

Personally, I liked the Eternals of Titan and the formation of the Uni-Mind, so I hope Gaiman doesn't retcon it Well, I can only speak for myself, but I think continuity is a lost cause. There is just too much past history, much of it mutually contradictory, to warrant any sort of serious effort towards maintining its integrity. In 1975 it was possible, but 30 years worth of stories later? Forget it.

So I think writers should be given carte blanche to write their personal takes on the characters, with minimal attention paid to "continuity". What does the term mean anymore anyway? Continuity with what? Continuity with which particular version or story? Cause you can't be in tune with all of 'em.

This is basically what happens now much of the time anyway. Does the current Defenders mini maintain continuity with past versions of, say, Doramammu or Umar or Bruce Banner or the Sub-Mariner? Not really. In fact, not at all. Did Frank Miller's Daredevil maintain continuity with the Lee/Colan or RoyThomas versions? No, he's an entirely different character apart from name and costume (the two key elements to brand name recognition, surpise, surprise). So let's drop the pretense.

Getting back to the Eternals, if Gaiman is given the sort of freedom I advocate above, I think the best thing he could do, based on the inherent characteristics of Kirby's original concept as I see them, is to ignore everything done with it by anyone other than Kirby. But I'm not in charge, so no one has to take my advice on the matter.

[Darkoth]

I'm there if Ladronn is on the book.

[Zero Hunter]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I think continuity is a lost cause. There is just too much past history, much of it mutually contradictory, to warrant any sort of serious effort towards maintining its integrity. In 1975 it was possible, but 30 years worth of stories later? Forget it.

So I think writers should be given carte blanche to write their personal takes on the characters, with minimal attention paid to "continuity". What does the term mean anymore anyway? Continuity with what? Continuity with which particular version or story? Cause you can't be in tune with all of 'em.




See that is just lazy thinking. Especially with something like the Eternals that really doesn't have a mountain of continutiy behind them. When writer just ignore waht has been done previous we get crap like Ghost Rider: Hammer Lane or the new Black Panther. To me a good writer can use the past too make better stories. A lazy writer is one that just chucks everything out because it is easier.

[dazzler_slave]

See that is just lazy thinking. Especially with something like the Eternals that really doesn't have a mountain of continutiy behind them. When writer just ignore waht has been done previous we get crap like Ghost Rider: Hammer Lane or the new Black Panther. To me a good writer can use the past too make better stories. A lazy writer is one that just chucks everything out because it is easier.

You are exactly right! I am so sick of this carte blanche crap. So a writer has to do a little more research, boo hoo! Yes, sometimes, there have been writers in the past who have gone way off of continuity. Well, then a good writer goes with the majority of stories and ignores the odd one. Or, sometimes a writer is skilled enough to include them all and make it all work (like Geoff Johns did with Hawkman, or Alan Moore did with Swamp Thing)

[StoneGold]

You are exactly right! I am so sick of this carte blanche crap. So a writer has to do a little more research, boo hoo! Yes, sometimes, there have been writers in the past who have gone way off of continuity. Well, then a good writer goes with the majority of stories and ignores the odd one. Or, sometimes a writer is skilled enough to include them all and make it all work (like Geoff Johns did with Hawkman, or Alan Moore did with Swamp Thing)
Ummm... half of what Geoff Johns did with Hawkman was basically just say ignore the Zero Hour stuff.

[illusion]

I would of been very sceptical about an Eternals release in the current comic market, but with Gaiman writing I am very excited. he has the skill to make these charecters work.
Continuity wise there are only a few major events that featue the Eternals so I think they should remain as they are.

[berk]

I promise to stop repeating myself after this but I'll say it one more time: everything done with the Eternals since Kirby has completely screwed what Kirby was doing in the original. So if a writer decides to retain all that nonsense, he/she isn't writing the ternals anymore; They're writing some other thing by the same name. A slavish adherence to "continuity" is meaningless when you're trying to be "continuous" with something that's already ignored its own source.

OK, I promise not to keep harping on this any more.

[Babylon23]

I agree that everything post-Kirby has completely missed the point. Unfortunately, neither DC nor Marvel seems to be able to handle Kirby's "Gods". I sometimes wonder if Kirby's methods and thinking are just beyond them.

I also doubt that Gaiman will do a continuation of Kirby's work. It's not really Marvel's way of handling things anymore. I'm assuming we'll see something along the lines of Supreme Power, where existing characters are "re-imagined" for a new audience.

[hugh45]

I agree that everything post-Kirby has completely missed the point. Unfortunately, neither DC nor Marvel seems to be able to handle Kirby's "Gods". I sometimes wonder if Kirby's methods and thinking are just beyond them.

I also doubt that Gaiman will do a continuation of Kirby's work. It's not really Marvel's way of handling things anymore. I'm assuming we'll see something along the lines of Supreme Power, where existing characters are "re-imagined" for a new audience.

That's my question,are they going to be a U-Eternals or N.G. going back to
the beginning when the stories were almost X-Files type??

[mattbib]

I promise to stop repeating myself after this but I'll say it one more time: everything done with the Eternals since Kirby has completely screwed what Kirby was doing in the original. So if a writer decides to retain all that nonsense, he/she isn't writing the ternals anymore; They're writing some other thing by the same name. A slavish adherence to "continuity" is meaningless when you're trying to be "continuous" with something that's already ignored its own source.

OK, I promise not to keep harping on this any more.I agree, but things change. The fact is that the Eternals are no longer Kirby's Eternals. What you're a fan of no longer exists except in back issues.


Unless, of course, Gaiman DOES ignore most of the interim stuff. I have to imagine it'd be very easy to write the Eternals of old while taking into consideration much of the changes and add-ons.

[berk]

The fact is that the Eternals are no longer Kirby's Eternals. What you're a fan of no longer exists except in back issues. Exactly. Which is why I think Marvel and Gaman have an opportunity here to revive a unique and powerfully imagined concept that is still ahead of its time 30 years later, rather than revisit the tired unimaginative mess Marvel later made of it.

But I'd add the qualifier "Marvel's" before your first use of the word "Eternals". What the Eternals are, for any individual reader, is up to that individual reader. For me, the term always denotes Kirby's creation. For others, who might actually prefer the later, more conventional Marvel version, the term indicates the Mark Guenwald/Roy Thomas/whoever version(s) or some combination of all of them.

But for people who do like Kirby's original concept to accept Marvel's revisions as their own definition indicates to me an abject subservience to Marvel's terms of engagement with the concept. Marvel might own the legal entity which is the characters and story concept known as The Eternals, but they don't own your brain. Yet the majority of mainstream comics fans simply accept without consideration that whatever version this corporation has decided is their "canon" is how the reader must think of the concept. Free your minds. Marvel can do what it likes with its property, but that doesn't mean the individual reader has to frame his/her own thoughts in terms dictated by that corporation. You might not be able to read a new Eternals story which reflects your personal view of the concept, but that doesn't mean you have to reject that personal view and mentally prostrate yourself before the Master of the (Marvel) Universe .

[Lightbend]

Exactly. Which is why I think Marvel and Gaman have an opportunity here to revive a unique and powerfully imagined concept that is still ahead of its time 30 years later, rather than revisit the tired unimaginative mess Marvel later made of it.

But I'd add the qualifier "Marvel's" before your first use of the word "Eternals". What the Eternals are, for any individual reader, is up to that individual reader. For me, the term always denotes Kirby's creation. For others, who might actually prefer the later, more conventional Marvel version, the term indicates the Mark Guenwald/Roy Thomas/whoever version(s) or some combination of all of them.

But for people who do like Kirby's original concept to accept Marvel's revisions as their own definition indicates to me an abject subservience to Marvel's terms of engagement with the concept. Marvel might own the legal entity which is the characters and story concept known as The Eternals, but they don't own your brain. Yet the majority of mainstream comics fans simply accept without consideration that whatever version this corporation has decided is their "canon" is how the reader must think of the concept. Free your minds. Marvel can do what it likes with its property, but that doesn't mean the individual reader has to frame his/her own thoughts in terms dictated by that corporation. You might not be able to read a new Eternals story which reflects your personal view of the concept, but that doesn't mean you have to reject that personal view and mentally prostrate yourself before the Master of the (Marvel) Universe .


So, I'm not sure. Since I actually liked Gruenwald's take on the Eternals, thought Austin's were fun in a non-continuity/odd take on Genesis sort of way, and generally have had trouble finding Kirby's work, is he calling me an idiot, a mindless zombie, or a marvel-whore?

[Indigo Al]

There's room for all of it, folks. Even if Gaiman decides to deal only with Kirby's characters and concepts, he can do that without screwing up any sort of continuity. Remember, he used superheroes in Sandman sparingly, with good effect, and without stepping on anyone or anything.

(although i do hope he doesn't deal with Austen's tacky and gross ideas)

[berk]

So, I'm not sure. Since I actually liked Gruenwald's take on the Eternals, thought Austin's were fun in a non-continuity/odd take on Genesis sort of way, and generally have had trouble finding Kirby's work, is he calling me an idiot, a mindless zombie, or a marvel-whore? None of the above. What I was trying to say was that we're all entitled to our own tastes whether we're talking about the Eternals or anything else.

All the rest of it was just saying that if someone does happen to like Kirby's originals and dislike Marvel's later revisions, then they shouldn't feel they have to accept those revisions as their own personal definition of "The Eternals," as many people unfortunately seem to do

To spell it out, if you like Gruenwald's version, then I have no argument with you; your tastes simply differ from mine. On the other hand, if you tried to assert that that version actually was in tune with Kirby's original then we could have some grounds for disagreement, although I probably wouldn't get into an argument about it.

[StoneGold]

Of course, keep in mind what happened last time Gaiman got his hands on an obscure Jack Kirby property...

[berk]

Of course, keep in mind what happened last time Gaiman got his hands on an obscure Jack Kirby property... Yeah, I agree. Like Babylon23 said, most likely Gaiman will come up with something inspired by Kirby's ideas but that doesn't bear much obvious resemblance to them.

I do give Marvel credit for reprinting the original series. It's a great way to amke it available to people who have only heard about it. I think it was one of Kirby's greatest experiments and one of his most successful, although it tailed off in quality over the last few issues IMO. I think it has a lot to offer and much could be learnt from it by comics creators even today.

[Lightbend]

None of the above. What I was trying to say was that we're all entitled to our own tastes whether we're talking about the Eternals or anything else.

All the rest of it was just saying that if someone does happen to like Kirby's originals and dislike Marvel's later revisions, then they shouldn't feel they have to accept those revisions as their own personal definition of "The Eternals," as many people unfortunately seem to do

To spell it out, if you like Gruenwald's version, then I have no argument with you; your tastes simply differ from mine. On the other hand, if you tried to assert that that version actually was in tune with Kirby's original then we could have some grounds for disagreement, although I probably wouldn't get into an argument about it.

Okay, just checking.

I think it comes from the fact that I didn't really get into comics until the 90's-back then, we did have a good deal of crap, but at the same time a Jim Starlin writing in his prime. Then, we'd get the Eternals in the context of Gruenwald's epics, the Infinity Trilogy, and the seemingly best-loved of the Eternals, Thanos.

[Babylon23]

I think it was one of Kirby's greatest experiments and one of his most successful, although it tailed off in quality over the last few issues IMO. I think it has a lot to offer and much could be learnt from it by comics creators even today.

I agree with you entirely. I think the first year of the book is excellent, and some of Kirby's finest epic storytelling (I'm more of a NEw Gods fan, but that's mainly because I encountered that book first). After that first year, the stories faltered a little, and there was more of an effort to incorporate it into the Marvel U.

Still, even when Kirby wasn't producing his best work, it's still better than most. :D