Talk:Power Pack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Elan

Elan child who was nicknamed "Marty". Do we know enough about Elan and Marty to expand this a bit? RJFJR 04:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

According to the recent "Nova Corps Files" within ANNIHILATION #2; 'Marty' the Elan has returned and has been identified as the "Infant Terrible" who made his first appearance within FANTASTIC FOUR [VOL I] #24.....but {unfortunately} he's now one of Annihilus' Elite Guard...

So, it's up to those if you wished to include him not only within the Power Pack entry, but also within the ANNIHILATION entry as well {if this hasn't already been done}....PaxHouse 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate futures

I'm fairly certain that an issue of New Mutants set in an alternate future featured an appearance by a 75-year-old Kate Power, who outlived her siblings and took their powers. And wasn't there an X-Force annual or something, in the Arize/Spiral arc, that was set in a future that included a Justine Power? Should those be mentioned, y'think? DS 12:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's X-Force Annual #1, in which was a crossover of the Four part Shattershot Saga that tie-in with the other X-title annuals and introduced FRANCINE "Frankie" POWER in the story, in which it's best presumed to be the future daughter of Alex Power; given the fact that the tale was written by Fabian Nicieza, who also written the first New Warriors' series.....--PaxHouse 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 27, 2006

Sorry if it's a pain but when I read comics articles I tend to edit the language as I go. I did the following.

  • Added the history section
  • Added a spoilerbar, although it needs a concluding bar
  • Edited for language and grammar
  • Began making history present tense (part of grammar)
  • Moved a large chunk of the team definition down, created a "members" section and put all the old information into a table.
  • Made Codename History a subgroup of the new members section. I want to incorporate this into the table but I just didn't have the time.

Any problems or concerns please let me know, because I plan on finishing these edits soon! --Torourkeus 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity...

I can't figure out the continuity of the recent Power Pack mini-series. On the one-hand you have Julie who apparently quit the team to join Excelsior, and on the other hand you have her on the Power Pack team, with their parents apparently not knowing of their identities again. Not to mention the art, which makes telling their ages difficult (it seems to me they should be older by now, but I may be wrong). Now I'll be the first to argue that the mini-series could be a prelude to her leaving to join Excelsior, but those issues of Runaways take place prior to New Avengers continuity, in which case the new Power Pack: Assemble can't take place. That is... unless Julie returned to Power Pack after those issues of Runaways starring Excelsior.

Then there's the fact that Katie appeared in her current incarnation in the recent G.L.A.: Misassembled limited series, couple that with the fact that the Marvel handbooks consider it all continuity. Also, Julie once again appears alongside Excelsior in a recent Marvel Team-Up story-arc. The continuity issues are just so... obvious. From what I can tell all of the new PP limited series take place after recent Excelsior events. That's the best continuity solution I can come up with. --Venomaru 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I have read, the 2005 miniseries and the related books are an alternative universe. There isn't any continuity at all. Marvel is pretty much ignoring just about everything from all the past series (original + 2000 miniseries + Alex/New Warriors + Julie/Excelsior) and using the characters from scratch. Mademoiselle Sabina 15:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. It appears to be an alternate universe, but the feeling I'm getting from Marvel is that it's supposed to be in-continuity. For all the reasons I said above, not to mention things like pairing them with the New Avengers. If it was truely an alternate universe they could have paired them with just about anybody, why pick the NEW Avengers (a book and team I happen to love, but that's besides the point). Bottom line, I think Marvel does consider it to be in 616 continuity, but that they more-or-less disregarded alot of the previous history to do so (although I'm sure with enough thought a writer could explain the continuity holes). --Venomaru 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Marvel's official bio on the team (here: http://www.marvel.com/universe/Power_Pack) gives a blow-by-blow history but ignores any and all mention of the new miniseries, and leaves the team off with the old continuity. I've also read an interview with one of the neew miniseries writers who basically said "if the Pack meets another team, we're going to act as though it's the first time they have met, we're not looking at any of the old history." So it doesn't add up at all, and IMHO the alter-verse argument is stronger. It's open to interpretation though. Mademoiselle Sabina 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

Is it worth noting that the gravity power as shown violates several major laws of physics including Enistein's equivalence principle and the first (and second) law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy and hence the law of entropy)? RJFJR 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Um....it's a comic book. Laws of science are broken on a regular basis. - Pennyforth 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed section or possible new article: Power Pack's powers

I've noticed that between this article and those for the individual Power siblings, there are fragments here and there of the basics of the four Power Pack abilities, but there is no comprehensive description of the powers and their parameters--i.e., "the Mass power could do this and this, and later this was developed by ____, and then this was discovered when ____ had the power...." Ultimately, most of it is there in the various articles, but you have hop back and forth to, say, figure out that the Mass ability began as a gaseous form, then Jack developed the "Jack Hammer", then Julie figured out how to do limited growth and the density field, then Alex took the density field a step further with density blasts, etc. Would a section describing the parameters of each power be a worthwhile addition to this article? I bring the possibility of a separate article up only for completeness' sake--perhaps necessary if it's determined that this article is already too long (and it's starting to get up there). - Pennyforth 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not necessary to establish the progression of their powers during the Pack's power exchanges; since most of their individual entries has already dealt with those changes.

And besides, doing so would also means that ALL of the Pack's members entries would need to be included....and yes, that would also means adding the FRANKLIN RICHARDS/TATTLETALE entry as well. PaxHouse 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and emphatically do not think a separate article is warranted. Ford MF 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; as I said above, the idea of a separate article was pretty much a lark anyway.
As for having to include Franklin's powers, too (OY, what a headache THAT would be), that could be solved by narrowing the focus to the Kymellian-derived powers. I know that the various power descriptions are available in the individual entries and such--my point is that the information is piecemeal, and a section detailing them in the Power Pack main article would be a simpler "quick reference" than, say, hopping from Jack's to Julie's to Alex's entries to get the full dope on the Mass power. Say, an OHOTMU-type overview of each power's parameters; the details of which character developed each separate "power stunt" can stand in the individual entries. - Pennyforth 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upon the AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE Miniseries

By now, most of you have already seen the Images {by Classified & Declassified} of the cover of AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE #1.....So here's the question...

Would anybody want to wait for the actual mini to be released before updating the Power Pack {and their related entries} or just go ahead, based on the images shown...?? PaxHouse 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ages

How old are the Power kids supposed to be, anyway? There are a lot of different accounts; It's a little confusing.

It is confusing! In the original series and continuity, they start out as being 12 (Alex), 10 (Julie), 8 (Jack) and 5 (Katie). When the original series was canceled, they'd all aged one year, which left them at 13, 11, 9 and 6, respectively. During Alex's time with the New Warriors the age continuity was kept, so by the time they got to the 2000 series, Alex was 16, Julie was 14, Jack was 12 and Katie was 9.
After that, though, it all gets somewhat ambiguous. The Powers are appearing in several alternate universes in Marvel right now--Marvel Zombies, the All-Ages miniseries, and Avengers Next all have them at wildly different ages. But Excelsior/Runaways with Julie is supposed to be in normal Marvel continuity, and she's between 16-17 years old there. If that's the case, the other kids would be 18-19 (Alex), 14-15 (Jack) and 11-12 (Katie). It's all speculation, though, and if Marvel does return the team to the regular Marvel Universe it remains to be seen how old they'll be, I think. DanielEng 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for those that haven't read THE LONERS Miniseries; Issue Four {in which focused on Julie Power AKA Lightspeed} have already revealed Julie's current age to be 17, meaning that Alex is 19, Jack's 15 and Katie's 12.PaxHouse (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date for first issue

I noticed my changes for this were reverted in the article, so I thought I'd offer an explanation here. I've been into Power Pack since it first came out, so I know my data on this is correct.

The cover date for Power Pack #1 was indeed August 1984. However, the issue was available for sale to the public, on newsstands and in comic shops, on May 1 of that year. I don't know Marvel's rationale for bumping the dates ahead, but they did it on all of their books. The dates on the cover never jive with the actual release. If you look at reviews for Marvel issues from the 80s, they'll frequently say "cover dated 198--" because of this. Example: [1] For instance, the Fall of the Mutants storyline hit Power Pack in issue #35, which was the "February 1988" issue, but it was out in stores in the fall of 1987.

I can't dig out the ads from other Marvel comics I have announcing the May 1 Power Pack release right now, but for another example, here's a scan I just did from issue #1, the cover-dated August 1984 one. If you'll notice on the left, the ad for Marvel subscriptions is datd April 1984 on the bottom right and it expires on July 31, 1984. [2] It also appears in PP #2, and I believe #3 as well, which makes sense (May-June-July). Knowing how much Marvel liked their subscription audience back then, they would not have had expired ads running for three months straight. Nor would they have run ads stating "on sale May 1" or had Power Pack on an April subscription form if the title wasn't going to to be out for three more months. If there's more proof of the May 1 release date needed, I'll be happy to see what I can pull from my archives.DanielEng 15:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasoning behind it, and corroborating evidence that this indeed occured, check out Periodical cover date. Wandering Ghost 12:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware that this happened frequently, as a matter of course, but despite that nowhere else on Wikipedia is a magazine or periodical listed as having a release date based on the actual time of release. Cover dates are what's used. Even if the June 1989 issue of Playboy comes out May 1, it's still the June 1989 issue of Playboy. And, as you say, nearly every publication has partaken of this at one time or another, it's highly dubious to include this discrepancy in every single instance it occurred (unless the discrepancy is germane to the article, which it is not here.) Ford MF 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, the discrepancy IS in fact germane to the article. We're talking about the debut of a series and a set of characters. Nobody's saying that issue #1 was not the "August 1" edition, we're only saying that it was released in May. There's a difference there. Saying "the comic premiered in August" and that these characters appeared three months later than they actually did is simply incorrect. Many other articles on comics simply use the release year instead of specifying the month, perhaps to avoid this debate. Since the month is definitively known in this case, I can't see why anyone would fight its omission, or would advocate that we include completely inaccurate information in the article instead.
Also, in other articles on Wiki it certainly is common practice to use release dates instead of production dates in certain special cases. For instance, in the aforementioned article for Fall of the Mutants, the opening paragraph states that the crossover event happened during the fall of 1987, which coincides with the actual release dates of those issues, not the cover dates. In the publication you cited, Playboy, the data for the first issue does use the actual calendar release date as opposed to a cover date. This also holds true for other types of media: Queen of the Damned (film), as a totally random example, is listed as a 2002 film although filming was complete a year earlier. DanielEng 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that I disagree that the comic appeared earlier than scheduled, but by "definitively known" I imagine you are referring solely to the OR assessment of the subscription advertisement you referred to previously? Not exactly a textbook case of verifiability. Ford MF 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, most references I could dig up for Playboy's first issue were "December 1953", most of them asserting that Dec. 10 was the date of first publication. As far as I know, the issue was also cover dated December, but I'm not positive about that. If I'm not mistaken, I wonder what you're referring to? Ford MF 08:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, Queen of the Damned (film) is a specious example, since no one, least of all myself, is arguing that the date of production should be taken into consideration. Also, films and periodicals are apples and oranges. Ford MF 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally, to take an example at random, Cloak and Dagger first appearance is listed on Wikipedia as "March 1982", and while it does occur in the issue cover dated March 1982, I'm pretty sure it appeared before that. I was fairly young at the time, and only just embarking on my comic-collecting career, but if my memory isn't faulty, the cover date on that is also, in a literal sense, "incorrect". My point is that there is little, if anything, gained by asserting actual release dates (particularly, as in this case, when no real citation of release date has been provided) rather than simple, easily verifiable cover dates. No encyclopedic sense or context is lost in this case by asserting the comic's cover date, so I'm not entirely certain why this is an issue. Ford MF 08:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, as I said in my initial post about this issue, the May 1 release date was NOT pulled out of the air, nor was it solely based on the subscription form/ads in the issue. I pulled that because it was the easiest bit for me to access at the time, and I clearly offered to provide other sources. If you don't request said sources, you can't just claim they don't exist. If you've ever seen any of the other work I've done on Wiki, you'd know that I'm well familiar with WP:CITE, I'm not an ignorant newbie, and I wouldn't think of adding unsourced information to a page for the fun of it. Nor do I engage in original research. I fail to see how providing legitimate proof of a conflicting date in a published source qualifies as such. If the date on the cover is considered a legit source; the dates in the issue should be given the same consideration.
This is what was cited in my original footnote: Image:Powerpackad.jpg Notice the text at the bottom? I'd say an original industry advertisement from the publisher is a reliable source, and that the fact that it is known and confirmed that Marvel had a three-month lead adds credibility.
For Playboy, take a look at the Wiki article (which is what I did). There wasn't a cover date on the original issue at all. As to other media on Wiki being "apples and oranges," perhaps this is true, but you made a very sweeping generalization about the use of release dates vs. cover dates across Wiki, which I was able to disprove. I've also given you several places to check within the Wiki Comics Project and other comic references that confirm that it is not unheard of to use a release date instead of a cover date.
"No encyclopedic sense or context is lost in this case by asserting the comic's cover date, so I'm not entirely certain why this is an issue." As I've said in every one of my responses, the information in the article is inaccurate as written. Incorrect information detracts from the quality of the article. Anything that can be added to the article to refine its accuracy should be welcomed, not protested.
If you can find an official Wikipedia policy that states that cover dates must be used to the exclusion of cited release dates, I'd be happy to look at that information, but what you're saying goes against both Wiki policy (i.e., information must be correct and sourced) and what is in effect on many other Wiki Comics Project pages. This seems like more of a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. The only editor who has taken issue with the May 1 release date has been you. The others who have put in considerable amounts of time on this page, who are well versed in Wiki policy, and know their comics and this series in particular, have not objected. Considering that efforts have been made in this and other Power Pack articles to cite information line by line, your claims of OR and unsourced information here are particularly unfounded. DanielEng 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. If the article wanted to say that the cover date was August, that's fine. But if it just says debut, it behooves us to actually state the release date as closely as we can get it. If any other articles do it the other way, then they should likewise be changed. Now, I'm neutral on the issue about whether, when choosing between two appropriately labelled bits of information, an article should choose to point out a book's "Cover Date" (easy to verify in most cases as it's printed on the cover), or the "Release Date" (more accurate but harder to get information on and verify), or just include both (as there may be books which, due to delays, have discrepancies which don't follow the normal pattern), but when you're talking about the time something debuted, you should be using the release date unless you're willing to state otherwise (By including the words 'Cover date'). Wandering Ghost 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see the merits of both points; what I really do think is needed is a comprehensive policy on cover dates. What resource is available for actual release dates, as opposed to cover dates? mordicai. 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Which is apparently ongoing at WikiProject Comics. I direct everyone interested there.

[edit] Themes

I think the Themes section should be incorporated into the typical Fictional Biography section and references to the real world charities, of course, added. More emphasis should be placed on their parents, who play a HUGE and heroic role in the series. Also, it just wasn't a 'roomfull of dead mutants'. It was hundreds, in a huge chamber. I haven't read the issue but I think that, at least, some of the Pack actually didn't see the dead bodies. This should be very important and noted. Wolverine seeing the dead bodies is not as drastic as Katie Power seeing them. Lots42 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The themes are separate because they play a different role than the 'fictional biography'--they show what the creators were trying to do with the series outside of the normal "superhero storylines." Also, the references to the real world charities didn't occur within the storylines, they were supplemental (another reason why it's a separate section).
For Power Pack # 27, which is the Mutant Massacre issue--not to be rude, but if you didn't read the issue, you can't really comment on this or claim that the cited research is incorrect, can you? For reference, the "roomful of mutants" was just that--the Pack was looking for the Morlock AnnaLee, and when they reached her home, she and her entire family of adopted children were dead on the floor in the room. It was just the family; it wasn't hundreds, and it was in AnnaLee's room, not the huge chamber where everyone else died. Also, the entire Pack, including Katie and Frank, certainly did see the corpses. There's a panel where Julie tells them to look away, but that's after they've already had a full look at the carnage and they're in tears. DanielEng 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly comment on that the situation should be clarified (because they aren't used to such horror). So I goofed up on the location. It's not the end of the world. Sheesh. Lots42 01:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not the end of the world, and suggestions on how to make an article better are always welcomed. And I'm not trying to bite a newbie here. All the same, it's a bit off-putting to come onto a Talk Page and say "hey, I haven't even read the issue, but I'm sure all the information about it is wrong!" and then give completely incorrect information. You weren't just wrong on the location, but all the data you gave there. Saying "they aren't used to such horror" again shows you don't know much about the original series. The newest versions of Power Pack have been very sugarcoated, but the old one was not. By the time the kids got to to the Mutant Massacre, the atrocities they'd endured included the full carnage of the Snark Wars, pretty ugly battles with Kurse during Secret Wars, and rescuing a possessed Katie from gargoyles moving Manhattan to Limbo. Every kid on the team had almost died twice or three times by then, too. So they certainly were "used to such horror." And after the Massacre, they went through quite a number of equally horrific events, including Inferno, Fall of the Mutants, etc. The point of bringing up specific examples within the Themes section was to show that the writers did not keep the team away from horrific events and gave them real situations, in spite of the fact that they were children, and the incident during the Mutant Massacre was a very simple one to cite. DanielEng 07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the charities bit can be references in the plot biography...editors certainly reference (or should) enough real world material. In Iron Dude #44 etc. Lots42 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not seeing the issue here. Referencing "real world material" isn't the same as what we're talking about in the Themes section. Themes are a completely different subject than storyline. If you compare the original Power Pack to other Marvel and DC comics of the era (or even now), you'd see that the creators made a concerted effort to bring issues into the series that were above and beyond what was normally done in comics, particularly a line dealing with a child cast. The only other book I can think of that had similar emphasis on social issues was X-Men, and if you will look at their page you will notice they also have a separate section for themes. They also used the characters to deal with social issues outside of the Power Pack comic--the issues on sexual abuse and runaways, for instance, were standalone and had no bearing on what happened in the storyline of the series itself.
Discussion of these themes deserves a separate section, is perfectly appropriate, and is well in line what is done in other articles (check X-Men, Garfield, A Series of Unfortunate Events or Revolutionary Girl Utena for precedent and other examples of themes in separate sections). This is especially so considering that the later creative teams of Power Pack, notably the 2000 and current lines, haven't kept up with this. DanielEng 07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned?

Can Spidey truely be considered orphaned? He still has his in-all-but-genes Mom with him. In fact, for a long time, he struggled with telling her his secret I.D. just like the Pack does/did. Lots42 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too up on Spiderman to be honest...if you think the reference to him doesn't work, taking it out would be fine, IMHO. DanielEng 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Spider-Man is totally an orphan! User:Fordmadoxfraud
Try telling Aunt May that. She'll kick your butt from here to Neptune. Lots42 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)