Scan barcode
cecerachel's review against another edition
funny
informative
relaxing
medium-paced
5.0
I really like that even the smallest characters have a part in this encyclopedia. It’s also a great way to understand some of the characters’ origins and backgrounds better.
The art is also amazingly well-made. I love all the different variations, especially the ones that are shown beside each other. I appreciate that they kept the older/original art versions as well.
The art is also amazingly well-made. I love all the different variations, especially the ones that are shown beside each other. I appreciate that they kept the older/original art versions as well.
herm333s's review against another edition
5.0
I'd never thought I'd find such a perfect book. Every illustration, every story, every freaking hero and villain. All here.
lunchlander's review against another edition
3.0
Back at my previous site (*cough*don’t mind the link, fellas!*cough*), I had written a glowing review of DK Publishing’s DC Comics Encylopedia. Then, a couple months back, I wrote another glowing review of their Guide to Conan. I had every reason to expect greatness from their new Marvel Encyclopedia. Maybe those heightened expectations help explain my disappointment. Maybe it’s the involvement of current Marvel editorial in this edition, as contrasted with DC’s freelancer-driven version. Maybe it’s that there are major glaring character omissions, as opposed to the minor ones that first struck me with the DC Encyclopedia. Whatever the case, though, while the Marvel Encyclopedia is hardly a disaster, it’s certainly a big letdown after seeing what DK Publishing is capable of previously.
I should start by saying that, aside from the Essential Official Handbooks Marvel has produced, this is still the best game in town. It’s got gorgeous production values, is obviously the product of a lot of hard work and features more characters than your average fan will encounter in their comic-book reading lifetime. The basics of the Marvel Encyclopedia are exactly the same as the DC Encyclopedia. An alphabetical listing of characters, as comprehensive as possible, with art selected from throughout Marvel’s history. And in terms of basic structure, the book is still a treasure, especially for those with only a mild knowledge of the Marvel Universe. If you’ve never put your hands on an Official Handbook, if you’ve only been reading for a few years, if you’re a young reader who just wants to read about a ton of characters, the Encyclopedia will do you just fine. But if you’re one of those longtime fans who just loves these character and universe guides, who grew up on the Official Handbooks and were hoping this would be a long-overdue update… well, get ready for some disappointment.
The mistakes in this Encyclopedia are relatively minor, but they’re systemic. You can’t flip more than a page or two without hitting something that seems wrong. Maybe Marvel just had more of a flood of bad art in the ’90s and the ’00s than DC, but it seems like some really weird artistic decisions were made here. The Encyclopedia is more the place for definitive looks, rather than experimental takes. Why use Joe Madeureira’s version of Magneto, or the godawful ’90s version of the West Coast Avengers or the Clayton Henry version of Alpha Flight, when a Jim Lee Magneto, John Byrne West Coast Avengers and Alpha Flight are all easily available and far more definitive? I’m not saying that only old art should be used, as the Encyclopedia makes good use of modern work by Adi Granov (for Iron Man) and Tim Sale (for Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane), but for God’s sake, why is Elektra done by Mike Deodato (from the forgettable ’90s series) instead of Frank Miller? Yes, it’s nitpicking, but this kind of project deserves that kind of scrutiny. Especially when the DC Volume placed the bar so high.
To be fair, the Encyclopedia really does cover the obscure, and in some cases the best left forgotten. You’ll find all sorts of relics of the ’90s here, from Sugar Man to Terror, as well as recent questionable characters like Chuck Austen’s Azazel. The focus in a lot of ways seems to be on obscure characters who have premiered since the last Official Handbook, which is probably wise on the surface, except that so many of those characters are so bad, and they get full write-ups where more interesting obscura from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s are lightly touched upon. One also can’t help but notice that co-writer Tom DeFalco’s Spider-Girl universe and Clone Saga stories are unusually well-represented, disproportionate to their popularity. The character write-ups are inconsistent, sometimes featuring up-to-date continuity but oftentimes out of date or just plain wrong. Emma Frost leaves off with Generation X, with no mention of her New or Astonishing X-Men doings. Bucky’s entry mentions that he is the Winter Soldier, but there’s no indication of what that means, and no entry for the Winter Soldier. Meanwhile, the Runaways are nowhere to be found, except for a mention in Swarm’s entry. Given that they’re probably the most enduring new characters created for Marvel in the past few years, this seems like a pretty notable error. Sadly, it’s but one of many.
If you’re a fan who bought the DC Encyclopedia to read with your kids, then the Marvel Encyclopedia will not disappoint. There are thousands of colorful characters and write-ups, complete with power listings, height, weight, all that good stuff. It’s all very well organized, with a spiffy index in the back, and while a lot of the art seems miscast, there are certainly some good choices in there as well. The book looks terrific at a casual glance. But it seems like it was put together with the same care for continuity with which Marvel puts together all of its books these days, which is to say that it’s sloppy and inconsistent.
Where the DC Encyclopedia surprised me with its loving tribute to all characters, the Marvel Encyclopedia seems to show favoritism towards pet characters of the writers and the characters in modern use, with the others given a bare minimum of attention. What impressed me about the DC Encyclopedia was its all-encompassing, something-for-everyone approach, and that approach is not to be found here. If someone puts this under your Christmas tree, thank them, because any comics fan will probably get a kick out of the book… but I can’t quite give the “rush out and buy this” recommendation I gave the DC Encyclopedia two years ago.
I should start by saying that, aside from the Essential Official Handbooks Marvel has produced, this is still the best game in town. It’s got gorgeous production values, is obviously the product of a lot of hard work and features more characters than your average fan will encounter in their comic-book reading lifetime. The basics of the Marvel Encyclopedia are exactly the same as the DC Encyclopedia. An alphabetical listing of characters, as comprehensive as possible, with art selected from throughout Marvel’s history. And in terms of basic structure, the book is still a treasure, especially for those with only a mild knowledge of the Marvel Universe. If you’ve never put your hands on an Official Handbook, if you’ve only been reading for a few years, if you’re a young reader who just wants to read about a ton of characters, the Encyclopedia will do you just fine. But if you’re one of those longtime fans who just loves these character and universe guides, who grew up on the Official Handbooks and were hoping this would be a long-overdue update… well, get ready for some disappointment.
The mistakes in this Encyclopedia are relatively minor, but they’re systemic. You can’t flip more than a page or two without hitting something that seems wrong. Maybe Marvel just had more of a flood of bad art in the ’90s and the ’00s than DC, but it seems like some really weird artistic decisions were made here. The Encyclopedia is more the place for definitive looks, rather than experimental takes. Why use Joe Madeureira’s version of Magneto, or the godawful ’90s version of the West Coast Avengers or the Clayton Henry version of Alpha Flight, when a Jim Lee Magneto, John Byrne West Coast Avengers and Alpha Flight are all easily available and far more definitive? I’m not saying that only old art should be used, as the Encyclopedia makes good use of modern work by Adi Granov (for Iron Man) and Tim Sale (for Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane), but for God’s sake, why is Elektra done by Mike Deodato (from the forgettable ’90s series) instead of Frank Miller? Yes, it’s nitpicking, but this kind of project deserves that kind of scrutiny. Especially when the DC Volume placed the bar so high.
To be fair, the Encyclopedia really does cover the obscure, and in some cases the best left forgotten. You’ll find all sorts of relics of the ’90s here, from Sugar Man to Terror, as well as recent questionable characters like Chuck Austen’s Azazel. The focus in a lot of ways seems to be on obscure characters who have premiered since the last Official Handbook, which is probably wise on the surface, except that so many of those characters are so bad, and they get full write-ups where more interesting obscura from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s are lightly touched upon. One also can’t help but notice that co-writer Tom DeFalco’s Spider-Girl universe and Clone Saga stories are unusually well-represented, disproportionate to their popularity. The character write-ups are inconsistent, sometimes featuring up-to-date continuity but oftentimes out of date or just plain wrong. Emma Frost leaves off with Generation X, with no mention of her New or Astonishing X-Men doings. Bucky’s entry mentions that he is the Winter Soldier, but there’s no indication of what that means, and no entry for the Winter Soldier. Meanwhile, the Runaways are nowhere to be found, except for a mention in Swarm’s entry. Given that they’re probably the most enduring new characters created for Marvel in the past few years, this seems like a pretty notable error. Sadly, it’s but one of many.
If you’re a fan who bought the DC Encyclopedia to read with your kids, then the Marvel Encyclopedia will not disappoint. There are thousands of colorful characters and write-ups, complete with power listings, height, weight, all that good stuff. It’s all very well organized, with a spiffy index in the back, and while a lot of the art seems miscast, there are certainly some good choices in there as well. The book looks terrific at a casual glance. But it seems like it was put together with the same care for continuity with which Marvel puts together all of its books these days, which is to say that it’s sloppy and inconsistent.
Where the DC Encyclopedia surprised me with its loving tribute to all characters, the Marvel Encyclopedia seems to show favoritism towards pet characters of the writers and the characters in modern use, with the others given a bare minimum of attention. What impressed me about the DC Encyclopedia was its all-encompassing, something-for-everyone approach, and that approach is not to be found here. If someone puts this under your Christmas tree, thank them, because any comics fan will probably get a kick out of the book… but I can’t quite give the “rush out and buy this” recommendation I gave the DC Encyclopedia two years ago.
sitnstew's review against another edition
5.0
Although some of the character details are incorrect in this encyclopedia, it is a must-have for any comic geek. The art work is beautiful, the information is interesting and it is a huge compilation of some of the greatest characters ever created!
jordandeanbaker's review against another edition
5.0
Holy cow... I feel like I just read a 400+ page encyclopedia.