Talk:Absorbing Man

70.60.85.126 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

The Absorbing Man was featured in the 2003 "Hulk" film. and it lacks that information.

Superhero box images

OK, found a good reason why a cover is the best way to go here:

---

"The WikiProject suggests the following factors be followed when choosing an appropriate image for the info box. It is felt that using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume, and using a noteworthy image, either well discussed or used in many other sources, or a promotional piece of artwork the copyright holders have released for promotional purposes fits this purpose best.

1. Follow the fair use criteria, especially the Images that cannot be fair use guidelines. These supersede all the following criteria. Also, source your images fully (including all applicable from issue/page/panel, scan source, web source) and give a fair use rationale.
2. Ensure that the picture clearly shows as much of the character as possible:
   • The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best.
   • If a full-body shot is unavailable, the picture must show the whole of the head and torso (or the equivalent for non-humanoid characters).
   • Visibly contorted poses should not be used under any circumstances.
   • Pictures which hide significant areas of the character in shadow should be avoided (exceptions apply only where the shadow is itself part of the character's look - e.g. Raven.), as should pictures where blur or distortion effects are applied.
   • Colouring should be neutral - pictures which have a heavy colour cast, or otherwise depict the character with false colours should not be uploaded unless the cast has been removed first.
   • Heavily stylised art should only be considered for use when the character is closely associated with the style to the exclusion of less extreme styles.
3. Pictures which have more characters and/or objects than the subject of the article should only be used if the subject is the most prominent object - editing the picture, by cropping, obscuring and/or painting out the other characters may help to ensure this.
4. If the character has a clearly-defined primary costume (e.g. Superman), a picture of this should be used. Otherwise, the most recent ongoing costume of the character should be used."

---

Actually, this does not in any way give preference towards using a cover image for the SHB. In fact, it indicates a preference for the image not to be cluttered by objects other than the subject. I have reverted it back to the previous image for this reason. --GentlemanGhost 09:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comment in History

as long as that silly list of materials appears, it gets reverted - CovenantD

Is this a mature response? Did you listen to what the moderator said? Why is this such a bone of contention? The list - with references no less - tells readers about the many properties that the character can absorb! This is what a new reader will want to know. Can he absorb water? Or what happens if he touches Mjolnir? The new passages are also much more succinct and less "tell the story", which is a major weakness of many comic entries. This can only help others. Please be reasonable.

Asgardian 09:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This list is nothing more than fancruft. Like your "Significant appearances" lists, it attempts to create a checklist for "new readers." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any references you provide can and should be worked into the text of the article.

But let's look at what else you are doing when you insert this stuff. You've removed the caption to the main pic. You've removed creator information from the lead section. You remove any mention of his trademark ball-and-chain from the Powers and abilities section. You change the headers away from Comics Project guidelines. You insert your own POV into descriptions of fights.

It is for all those reasons that I have, once again, reverted your edits. Why don't you address these shortcomings instead? CovenantD 18:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits getting much better, but the fact remains the text is much tighter and informative. The information is invaluble for new readers. Please, do not be so territorial.

Asgardian 10:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - the removal of the caption was an accident, and I wrote it in the first place. The ball and chain were always mentioned in Powers and Abilities, and I've mentioned them again to make it even clearer. It reads quite well, and the text is objective.

Asgardian 10:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is good that you reference your edits, Asgardian. That is an excellent practice which more editors (myself included) should follow. However, I feel that the information which you have referenced would be better presented as a single sentence, not as a list. Presenting this as a list gives it more weight than it duly deserves.

Also, I'm not sure if you've looked at the instructions for the Template:Superherobox, but the recommended maximum size for images is 250px.

For these and other reasons, I have reverted the article back to CovenantD's last edit. --GentlemanGhost 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After seemingly achieving some consensus and compromise on this, I am disappointed to see that it has devolved back into a edit war. --GentlemanGhost 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Vs. Creel

Since Rogue touched Creel, wouldn't he have absorbed Rogue's powers? In that case, if he touched Rogue, would he absorbe her powers, vice-versa, or both? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.77.163.232 (talk • contribs) .

Creel's ability is to absorb the properties of whatever material he touches, even of the material he touches has powers of it's own. However, Creel doesn't have the ability to absorb the superhuman powers of other beings. For instance, if Creel were to touch Thor's enchanted hammer Mjolnir, and will his body to, his bodily tissues would take on the appearance, strength, and durability of the the uru metal that it's composed of. Also, since the hammer is filled with magical energies, Creel would absorb those energies and use them as Thor would so long as he maintained contact with the hammer itself. Odin's Beard 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice Entry

With GG's technical suggestions and the tighter, sourced text, the entry is now looking very sharp and by the numbers!

Asgardian 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of absorbed items

In the list of things that he's absorbed the properties of, it states that uru (Creel's most powerful form to date). Was it a lump of uru metal or was it Mjolnir? Grey Shadow | Talk 13:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Creel touched Mjolnir and became an uru giant. Thor beat him by sending him through a dimensional portal. Thor was still suffering Hela's curse and in no shape to fight.

Asgardian 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it wasn't Uru, but absorbing Mjolnir's properties that made him so powerful. Grey Shadow | Talk 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New York City?

Is the fact that Creel was born in New York City relevant? Few very character entries cite the place of birth unless relevant. A good example would be Orion as he was born on Apokolips etc. etc. But surely not here. Doc? Anyone?

Asgardian 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a clue. If it has a source, I don't care if it's included or not. If someone else wants it here, fine. The source is the big issue. If the source in a Marvel Universe handbook, then we can't use it for two big reasons: (1) Wikipedia just flat says don't. One encyclopedia can't just lift information from another for copyright reasons. (2) Marvel and DC keep changing the information that's in those handbooks. Until something is mentioned in a story, it's not appropriate for inclusion here. If the source is a story, people can include or leave it out. I don't care where he's from. One can argue that its relevance to character history is questionable. Someone else can certainly argue that encyclopedia entries for real people will mention where they were born. New Yorkers might say it matters whether or not someone's a New Yorker. Doczilla 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, birthplace isn't usually relevant. I would argue that one's base of operations has more of an effect on the development of a character and the tone of a series. --GentlemanGhost 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Death?

On the Civil War page, the Absorbing Man is listed as having been melted by the Sentry. Is this accurate?

I know this is probaly late, but I don't know when you asked but The Absorbing Man and The Sentry flew into outer space and the Sentry gave all of his power to The Absorbing ,and Creel could not control the power and kind of "Melted" away. ManofSTEEL2772 June 19 2007

References

First off, I'd like a clear explanation as to why exactly a particular editor finds the references, as they show up in the page to be read, in this edit hard to read. I can understand it if the "source" (editable) text is trying to be read, but by that logic all the mark-up should go.

Second, the blind revert had reinserted drastic problems:

• Journey into Mystery ceased to exist with issue #125. With issue #126 the title and indencia was changed to Thor. To have a reference that states "Journey into Mystery #114-155" implies that the article is referencing non-existent sources.
• The Avengers: As pointed out to Asgardian repeatedly here, the indencia for the fist volume is The Avengers. This is the proper title and should be used in the reference.
• Multiple references to the same source: Since the <ref> tag has a function to link a reference to two or more points in the article text, there is no reason, short of different pages and/or panels being cited, for the reference to be listed more than one. And if different pages and/or panels are to be referenced, that information needs to be in the cite.
• Inconsistency of date usage: All or none. And if the dates are going to be there, then the full publication date needs to be there.

Last, there are still points that need to be addressed regarding what exactly is being referenced:

• The cite for the first paragraph of the FCB, in either format. As it stands the cite implies that the material covered in the paragraph was the sole focus of, and that the Absorbing Man appeared in, 42 issues over a period of 3 and a half years. Is this accurate? Or is there a way to actually pare down the scope of this cite?
• Earth X: The situation here is similar to the previous one. Did the Absorbing Man appear in all but one issue of the limited series, or is it one specific issue in which the information in the article occurred?
• "The Age of Apocalypse": Again, the cite implies that the Absorbing Man appeared through out the arc. Since this is not the case, the cite needs to be trimmed to the specific issue or issues in which he appeared.

- J Greb 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Before engaging in discussion, I suggest that both of you re-read the guideline: Wikipedia:Citing sources, as a refresher. It looks to me that this discussion/dispute needs just be framed by quoting relevant sections of the guideline which supports each person's view. - jc37 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the WP:CITE#HOW section, there may be an impasse here on the templates. The only caveat put forth is "...should not be added against consensus." under the templates section. As near as I can tell, there is no consensus, at any relevant level, blocking the template use.

Beyond that, the "Full citations" section states that full cites are requited. That pretty much covers the other problems I've listed. All are cases where the cite is incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect.

- J Greb 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the history of Template:Comic book reference, I see that User:Hiding is the main editor (and of course, I'm noting the name of the template itself). I think it's fair to say that the template was a variation created specifically for comics-related articles. That said, I welcome any concerns that other editors may have about its use on this specific article. - jc37 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see my name up there but I'm not clear on what I'm supposed to have done. Hiding Talk 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was in regard to the comic book ref template, placing you as the primary editor/creator of the template. - J Greb 16:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I get that. I also see a stab at my motives in creating the template, and I also assume it's important to some degree to the discussion here. So what's the issue? I have to get around to a rewrite of that template at some point to cover all comics. Hiding Talk 17:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the Ang Lee Hulk movie "appearance" of AM, as it seemed ridiculous not to at least mention it, regardless of nitpicking how much or little he is truly supposed to be AM. I think I've done this in a way that should be clear to all, without confusing or misleading. 70.71.14.86 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cocaine story

I had tried to discuss with Asgardian about the story details of this cocaine story. He didn't discuss it earlier, but maybe he will on this attempt. I think it belongs in the article, and he doesn't. What I really want is for other editors to weigh in on this issue. I think it's an important part of his bio, and it lengthens the article. This article is barely longer than a stub, so it should be in there. I removed the story details from the 'Powers and abilities' section because that's not where they go, but I'm waiting for this to be debated before replacing those details in the 'Fictional character biography' section. -Freak104 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sensational Spider-Man (vol. 2) says it's an unnamed drug, so that may be want we want to say. - Peregrine Fisher 08:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fact check needed

It looks like a third party editor or two with access to a copy of Wizard Magazine for August 2007 are needed to verify or nix this section:

In Ang Lee's Hulk Nick Nolte plays Bruce Banner's abusive father, who becomes a version of the Absorbing Man.<ref> 2007. Meet the New Hulk. Wizard, August 2007.</ref> However, this version's powers come from David Banner's attempts to duplicate the accident that created the Hulk rather than through magic, and he is eventually defeated when he is tricked into absorbing too much energy from the Hulk in their final fight.

At the moment it has been put in in two parts. The first sentence, with the cite, as what should be taken as a good faith edit by Hardrockin006. And the second which is added explanation, NPOV and not really hitting the threshold of OR.

I'm asking for this since I don't have access to the issue of Wizard cited, and need something more than Asgardian's last statement on the matter.

This is keeping in mind the following:

• Asgardian has removed this section repeatedly stating it needs a citation to be included.
• When it was included, the editor removed it with the edit summary "No more Hulk mentions - only speculation and will get pulled everytime."

Thanks - J Greb 09:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that a modified version of the AM was in the Hulk film. A quick google search turns up refs like: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Some of them say he was an homage, some that he was the AM, it's not totally clear. I would trust the Wizard ref and put the info back, myself. - Peregrine Fisher 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over those:

• Comicom is a moderator's opinion;
• Film Asylum feels like a wiki;
• Oafe like a fan site;
• IGN is a professional review that equates the two characters; and
• Efavata and Yahoo are presenting rumor info.

The IGN is good support, and likely could be used to include a version of the comment.

The problem with the Wizard cite is, as I stated above, I don't have access to it and AGF about its insertion. The only negative voiced was in the edit summary with the second removal, and that after the same editor pulled it with the blunt never quoted above. - J Greb 06:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the film asylum one is reputable, looking at this page [7]. It's the one that says it's an homage to AM. The IGN site says they turned David Banner into AM. We combine those two with the Wizard ref and we would actually have some nice out of universe info for this page. I don't think the removal of the wizard ref was really saying they didn't think it was in Wizard, but just that they don't agree with what was said in Wizard. Could be wrong though. Maybe we should just use the 1 or 2 refs that we know are good for sure. - Peregrine Fisher 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the IGN article is pretty solid but it says the film makers gave David Banner the powers of the Absorbing Man, not specifically that he is the Absorbing Man (or even a version of him). It would suggest to me that we'd need to know the exact wording of the Wizard piece. Just going by IGN article I think the best we can do is add a mention in the Hulk film along the lines of "David Banner gained similar powers to the Absorbing Man" with a reference to that. Without Ang Lee saying the intent was for him to actually be AM then I am unsure if we can justify a mention here. (Emperor 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm actually going to have to go with Asgardian on this one, for a change. The assertions made in that section sound like speculation/OR, even if they are sourced. BOZ 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Given all evidence above, it seems like a gaping oversight to not retain the mention of the movie character gaining similar abilities. It's not original research to say the two have distinct similarities, even if they're not the same person. That still makes Ang Lee's "David Banner" character a version of the comics' "Absorbing Man" character, and a legitimate footnote in the section about appearances in other media.

Actually, would that appease people? Making it an ACTUAL footnote? Just a reference at the bottom of the page that the powers (if not the specific named character) were adapted to the movie? 68.38.200.195 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Creel as AM - is he still truly mortal?

The article states that AM is mortal. If the man is no longer bound to normal flesh and blood... then perhaps he is not quite mortal any longer. He no longer has to face disease or normal degeneration that comes with age. He can heal from any wound. He is, in a sense, immortal, although this is not to say that he cannot be destroyed.70.71.14.86 18:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Creel does not use magic (he is a creation of magic); nor is he immortal (he's mortal); a mutate (human empowered by potion) or a true shapeshifter (it is always visibly him - just with different composition), hence these links were removed. Asgardian (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

who mucked about with the earth x section

it is obviousy someone that has probibly not even read earth x or any of trillogy. i can tell because they have miss referenced. absorbing man of earh x appears is only refferenced in one of the apendex of earth x. he makes his appearance in universe x when he is reassembled. he is latter persuaded by loki to transform himself into vibranium thus correcting the worlds graviational axis. so please research what you are editing"! he also makes appearances in his stone form in paradice x but they are only cameos and dont count —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr noire (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Absorbing Man. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/08/jeph-loeb-confirms-daredevils-connection-to-an-agents-of-shield-villain
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015052834/http://screenwriting.ugo.com/film/incrediblehulkbyhayter.php to http://screenwriting.ugo.com/film/incrediblehulkbyhayter.php

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) 15:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Absorbing Man in film

Dear friends. Please stop the reverting. Absorbing Man was planned for the 2003 feature film but the character was merged with Brian Banner and Zzzax. Please stop this ridiculous apology "non-trivial appereance".--2800:484:7380:AAB0:BD17:AC1E:86D3:6F9F (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)