Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics)/Archive 1

message: I think the Ultimate vison section needs a little cleanup. Mostly becasue of this quote:
"Later, former Ultimates member Hank Pym created another robot, called the Vision II. It is shown as being identical to a robot named Ultron that Hank Pym had been working on, and is presumably just a copy bearing a different name for ease of identification. Pym took the robots to show Nick Fury in an attempt to rejoin the team. While exiting the building, the Vision II encountered the Scarlet Witch who began to flirt with him."
Him? In the Ultimate Universe things are different, including but not limited to: a female vision. The rest of the section is correct as I understand. However, I don't know what this person is citing. I can't think of where this information came from. It wasn't in the Galactus Trilogy, The vision #0, #1, or #2 which is all that is out right now. And I have read a lot of the other books in the Ultimate universe and can't seem to recall any such scene ever happening. 
If I don't see this cited soon I will delete it from the article, yet have left it up as I may be very wrong.Bhold1 09:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Vision 

message: Anyone else think that the Golden Age Vision should be split off into a seperate article? - SoM 13:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. --DrBat 11:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely.  The Timely Comics Vision is a completely different character from the Marvel Vision(s) (one an alien, the other synthezoids).  In fact there alreayd is an article specifically for the Timely Vision.  All information concering the Golden Age vision so go to that particular article.
Bhissong 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article? 

message: In the article I've didn't found the version of the Vision history that was given in the 2002 Avengers Icons story-arc composed by Yesterday and Tomorrow, Eye of the Beholder, Father of the Machine and Dog Fight, in which the Vision was stated as the Tomorrow Vision,   an android assembled by a very young Phineas T.Horton to show the media his best invention: a "Solar Gem", light powered, able to give every mechanical device that used it as a core the ability to think hundred times better than an human brain.
The misfire of the experimental robot, which circuitry burst in flame (a reference to the Human Torch?), led the reporters, called by Horton himself to flee. All but one, a Nazi spy who managed to stole one of the Solar Gems, thus creating the legendary Gremlin, in that case a mechanical construct capable to take control of every machinery, from cars to plane, bent on spreading fear between the American people. After losing all his memory to the Gremlin, the Vision managed to regain them with the help of a young boy, son of an USAF pilot, and Victoria Horton, the young niece of Phineas, holder of the third and the last Solar Gem.
It was Victoria who instructed the Vision on changing his molecular density to prevent the Gremlin on taking on his robotical body, and when the Vision destroyed the Gremlin's Solar Gem, she became the caretaker of the last gem, and part of the "family" of the Android. DrTofu83 18:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that series (well, besides the fact that it was crap - since that's a subjective matter), is that it gratiuitously contradicted anything and everything about the Vision's history. You either replace the Avengers Forever events with it - which twisted itself in knots to try and include anything and everything - or you ignore it. It's far simpler to ignore it, since even the weird phasing effect had gone by the time he was "killed." - SoM 21:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is a subjective matter, I disagree. Avengers Forever rekindled the connection between the Vision and the original Human Torch, and the Vision mini-series did a lot to cement and acknowledge that connection. Personally I think this should be played up more and include a reference to the Vision's pre-Avengers adventures being one-in-the-same as those of the Torch (prior to the Vision's creation). He may not remember them, but that seems to be what has happened again with "Vision II." This connection should be further acknowledged, at least by including Adam II, the Pyronano monstrosities, the Gremlin devices and Professor Phineas T. Horton as relatives (Horton going on the same line as Ultron and Hank Pym). Kevingarcia 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact at first I've thought of a paragraph on this alternate version between Other Media Appearances and Bibliography, but I understand your point... it would be only a matter of confusion about the real origins of the Vision. And I'll bet that Virginia Horton and her solar gem were alred removed from the continuity... DrTofu83 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johns & Reins Version of the story: could be used? 

message: Time to start talking about it. I've seen a lot of different edits overwriting each other. CovenantD 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: They're the same thing. I don't understand why they should be separate. --Chris Griswold 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not the same.  The old Vision's body was a copy of the synthezoid body of the original Human Torch altered by Ultron, and his mind and personality were based on the brain engrams of Wonder Man and Alex Lipton.  The current Vision (from Young Avengers) is Kang's 30th-century armor animated by the original Vision's core operating system, with a mind and personality based on those of Iron Lad, a young Kang.  Both their bodies and minds are different, so they're two distinct individuals. --TheCorpulent1 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the new version of the Vision being treated as a separate entity? 

message: Consensus over at the Editorial Guidelines talk page seems to be that we shouldn't have multiple superhero boxes in this way. Accordingly, I think we should delete one. --Mrph 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superheroboxes

message: It seems that this article needs to be edited into the present tense. That sounds simple enough. You'd think that anyone could do it; you wouldn't even need any special knowledge or sources about Vision. However, when I read the article and try to imagine how to say these same things in the present tense, I have no idea. For example:
:The Vision's body was thought to have been created from that of the original Human Torch, while the patterns of his synthetic brain were based on those of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams. It was later revealed that the time lord Immortus used the power of the Forever Crystal to split the original Human Torch into two separate entities: one remained the original Torch while the other was rebuilt as the Vision by Ultron
How can we say that in the present tense? It's talking about one thing happening after another and it seems that the only way to say such things is in the past tense. -- Lilwik 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vision's body is thought to have been created from that of the original Human Torch, while the patterns of his synthetic brain are based on those of the then-deceased Wonder Man, Simon Williams. It is later revealed that the time lord Immortus uses the power of the Forever Crystal to split the original Human Torch into two separate entities: one remains the original Torch while the other is rebuilt as the Vision by Ultron Maybe? Ugnut 07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a past version  of this article that carefully changes the tense of every verb to make it present tense just like this. Doing this changes the meaning of the words and makes it seem strange. There must be a better way to talk about a sequence of events without being forced to use the past tense. Wikipedia is right to ask us to use the present tense because all those older versions of Vision still exist today as much as the most recent Vision, if a fictional character can be said to exist at all. — Lilwik 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present Tense? 

message: Split them into separate articles for Vision (Timely Comics) and Vision (Marvel Comics). Doczilla 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, Phoenix. Didn't you express the opposite point of view yesterday?  --GentlemanGhost 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: To split or not to split 

message: So, what needs fixing? I'm trying to compare versions, but unfortunately, the profusion of changes makes them difficult to compare merely by using diffs. A few things have already caught my eye, though. --GentlemanGhost 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's what I meant. I have no issue with them being treated as separate characters, but then it seems odd to call Wonder/Vision the "modern" version. What does that make Iron/Vision? Post-modern? It's a minor point, but I thought it worth mentioning. --GentlemanGhost 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It seems that we still have an edit war going on between two different versions of this article. Naturally, the thing to do is to settle this in the talk page rather than talking through edit summaries. Who prefers which version and why? Can we merge the two versions somehow to make one version that is better than either of them? That is what I would like to see. Hopefully Asgardian would allow that. – Lilwik 08:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asgardian Edit War 

message: The article is now protected. 
Please resolve the differences here on the talk page rather than edit warring.
Consider this a final warning: continued incivility will result in being blocked. - jc37 10:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected