The Energon Pub

by **Sarri** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:16 am

Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:20 am

Tramp wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Tramp wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
I still dont see how a definition of a word can be strictly referring to only one topic but since I'm not a litary scholar I wont debate it any further.
As for Batman SOTD they only took parts of that story and added it to their canon much like Beast Wars took parts of G1 Marvel stories and added them to the BW's pre-history.

Like I said, ask your priest, Reverand, English teacher, or College Professor. As for Son of the Demon, the fact remains that DC had specifically excluded it from their canon. They didn't remove it, they excluded it. which is something all together. Hasbro has not specifically excluded anything they have licensed to any of our knowledge. Thus, everything they and Takara has licensed, approved and sanctioned is officially canon. Whether we as idivuduals choose to incorporate any of those materials into our own personal "canons" is another matter and purely subjective. But to say that an offically licensed and sanctioned source is not officially canon, is blantanly false. We as fans do not have that authority. Therefore, unless Hasbro specifically states that a given work is non-canon, officially it is canon and cannot be discounted as a reliable source of evidence and information in any discussion or debate where canon sources are cited as evidence.

I dont have a Priest or a Reverand and I havent been to school in almost 16 years and I'm not going back just to find this out.Now some of these retcons do remove some aspects od what was canon before, how do you explaine that?????
They don't remove them entirely, but they do change them, which happens in fiction. Retconning Primus as the one true creator of the Transformers doesn't remove the Quintessan incvolvement in their development, nor remove Five Faces of Darkness from canon. It simply changes the interpretation of those past events and how they really played out in ancient Cybertronian history. Having Unicron actually created by The One along with Primus, and being a dark god who travels from reality to reality, does not completely eliminate the Primacron origin story for Unicron or Call of the Primitives from canon. It simply changes the interpretation of the events told to the characters. Primacron could very well have built the "Unicron" body, and the real Unicron, then posessed it. On the other hand, the story itself told to the Dinobots by Primacron could also be chalked up to the fanciful delusions of the storyteller himself. Remember, it is being told to the characters by another individual. Primacron himself could have fabricated the whole story that he had created Unicron. Simply put, the retcon esteblishing Primus and Unicron as opposed gods spanning the multiverse does not remove any stories from canon, it simply changes the meanings and interpretations of specific facts within them. To give you an example from Star Wars. Boboa Fett has had several conflicting origin stories given over the years from being Jaster Mereel, a former Jounreyman Protector of the planet Concord Dawn, to being a former Imperial Stormtrooper. All of these stories are canon. Yet, as of AotC, we now know his true origin is that he is an unaltered clone, son of Jango Fett. The retcon given to reconsile this is that his other stories are misinformation and rumor which adds to Fett's mystery. Jaster Mereel was the man who raised Jango, Bob used that identity for a time. All of his conflicting "origin" stories add to his mystery, though we, the audience, now know his true origins.
Another example is the age of the Old Republic. In A New Hope Obi-Wan tells Luke that, "for a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace and Justice in the Old Republic". Yet, in Attack fo the Clones Palpatine states that the Republic has stood for only 1000 years. HEre we have a conflict between two movies. Which is the true age of the Old Republic? 1000 generations (25000 years) or only 1000 years? That answer is both. According to The New Essential Chronology, the Old Republic went through a reformation 1000 years before the events in the prequels after the thousand year war versus the Sith Brotherhood of Darkness. This retcon reconciled two conflictinfg statements from two G-level canon (the highest level canon in SW) sources.

If it dosnt change the facts of those episodes it surely changes the tone of them.Because if what you suggest is fact then Primacron's assitant's eyewitness account of the creation of Unicron is a lie.....and I didnt get the feeling that he was a lier.Same thing go's for Unicron's statement that he was willing to let Cybertron survive........his charactor didnt strike we as one who would be bothered with lie's.

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:24 am

Sarri wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

HaHa! shes got you there Tramp
According to what YOU have stated before, it would be Disney calling the shots, not Weisman. Just like the writter who made the Quints the Tfs creator had Hasbro come in and say it was really Primus. And according to You, Hasbro an come in and tell Furman to screw off as wellif they wanted to

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:26 am

OptimusN1701 wrote:
Sarri wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

HaHa! shes got you there Tramp
According to what YOU have stated before, it would be Disney calling the shots, not Weisman. Just like the writter who made the Quints the Tfs creator had Hasbro come in and say it was really Primus. And according to You, Hasbro an come in and tell Furman to screw off as wellif they wanted to

He'll work his way out of this one too !!!!!!!you'll see.

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:27 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
OptimusN1701 wrote:
Sarri wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

HaHa! shes got you there Tramp
According to what YOU have stated before, it would be Disney calling the shots, not Weisman. Just like the writter who made the Quints the Tfs creator had Hasbro come in and say it was really Primus. And according to You, Hasbro an come in and tell Furman to screw off as wellif they wanted to

He'll work his way out of this one too !!!!!!!you'll see.

Maybe he'll retcon his previous posts :???:

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:31 am

OptimusN1701 wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
OptimusN1701 wrote:
Sarri wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

HaHa! shes got you there Tramp
According to what YOU have stated before, it would be Disney calling the shots, not Weisman. Just like the writter who made the Quints the Tfs creator had Hasbro come in and say it was really Primus. And according to You, Hasbro an come in and tell Furman to screw off as wellif they wanted to

He'll work his way out of this one too !!!!!!!you'll see.

He's done that with me before. He calls it editing his post.It's the closest thing he's ever come to saying he was wrong or that he made a mistake

Maybe he'll retcon his previous posts

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:33 am

No wonder he supports retconning. Its the only way he can stay right :lol:

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:34 am

OptimusN1701 wrote:No wonder he supports retconning. Its the only way he can stay right

Thats the funniest thing I heard all night :lol:

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:37 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
OptimusN1701 wrote:No wonder he supports retconning. Its the only way he can stay right

Thats the funniest thing I heard all night

Why thank you, I try

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:41 am

I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:47 am

Sarri wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Sarri wrote:Hmm, that has Gargoyles in an interesting state.
Disney had the third season made, but it isn't considered canon by the mastermind behind Gargoyles and the vast majority of fans. Disney now liscenced a comic written by the mastermind behind Gargoyles which works on the premise that the third season isn't canon and never happened.
Since the Gargoyles canon doesn't know a multiverse a bunch of other officially liscenced products as non-canon, too.
The key factor there is that this third season was not sanctioned by the creator, and, to my knowedge, was never released either. The fact that the creator of the series does not acknowledge the "third Season" is what makes it non-canon. He is the "authority". He determines canon for Gargoyles. IF he does not acknowledge that "third season" that third season is non-canon. It's that simple.

The third season was sanctioned by Disney, who own Gargoyles just as Hasbro owns Transformers. For the third season, they just swapped the production teams. Btw, the thrid season production team even used ideas fromt eh creator himself. The majority of those stories would have happened, just not like that.
And the third season was released (it gets schown on TV). An DVD release isn't conclusive evidence for canonincality, since then the second part of Gargoyles' second season would be uncanonical, too.
And that's the crux, Greg Weisman may have fired of Gargoyles, but ultimately it is Disney who make the descission of what oges on in the Gargoyles universe. If Disney suddenly decicdes to create a spin-off from the third season and totally disregard the new comics, they can do that, but what would be canon then? The thing the fans consider canon or the thing Disney officially sanctioned as canon?

The point is that It is still the Owner's and creator's call. Be that Disney or Greg Weisman. Based upon what you have previously stated, it's Greg Weisman who called the shots as to what was or was not canon. And, given that Disney als chose to go with that determination in creating the new comic, this appears to validate that. Regardless, it is still the governong authority, be that Disney, or Greg Weisman who determines what is canon for that series, just as it is Hasbro who determines what is canon for Transformers, Paramount who determines what is canon for Star Trek and Lucas Licensing who determines what is canon for Star Wars. In all cases, it is the owners and/or creators of the properties who determines canon or is not for a given series, not the fans. And, unless that authority specifically excludes a source from canon—as Greg Wiesman and Disney did with the third season fof Gargoys, Paramound does with anything not part of the live-action series or movies for Star Trek, or as in the case of DC with Son of the Demon—then it is canon. In the case of Transformers, that means that everything officially licensed and approved by Hasbro and/or Takara; everything released with their official sanction, is canon.

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:48 am

Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?

If you were to define canon as the rules that govern the continuity, then i would say yes b/c Vol 3 would be like its own little offshoot universe

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:49 am

Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?

IF something s non-canon, it is non-canon, period. Officially it never happened.

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:51 am

OptimusN1701 wrote:
Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?

If you were to define canon as the rules that govern the continuity, then i would say yes b/c Vol 3 would be like its own little offshoot universe

So, in your view, there would be separate comic canons. Mirage Studio's own canon (Volumes 1, 2 and 4), Image Comics' canon (Volume 3), Archie Comics' canon and Dreamwave's (although Dreamwave's seem to be just stills from the cartoon with text bubbles).

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:52 am

Tramp wrote:
Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?
IF something s non-canon, it is non-canon, period. Officially it never happened.

So, if Volume #3 was to be continued, there would be no canon to govern it?

by **OptimusN1701** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:57 am

Leonardo wrote:
OptimusN1701 wrote:
Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?

If you were to define canon as the rules that govern the continuity, then i would say yes b/c Vol 3 would be like its own little offshoot universe

So, in your view, there would be separate comic canons. Mirage Studio's own canon (Volumes 1, 2 and 4), Image Comics' canon (Volume 3), Archie Comics' canon and Dreamwave's (although Dreamwave's seem to be just stills from the cartoon with text bubbles).

in MY view yes there would be. I would treat each one as its own thing

by **Tramp** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:57 am

Leonardo wrote:
Tramp wrote:
Leonardo wrote:I've got a question. If a continuity exists, does its very existence automatically mean that there is a canon to govern it?

The reason I ask is, by Tramp's definition, canon is anything sanctioned by the governing body (in this case, Hasbro or Takara) unless otherwise excluded by that body, normally on public record.

If the authority excludes a text from their canon, but the text still exists, is there still a canon specific to that text?

Let me give you an example: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the TMNT comic books, Volume 3 (issues # 1 - 23 plus peripherals) was produced by Image Comics. Since that time, Mirage Studios (the creators and owners of the TMNT property) have since dismissed Image Comics' Volume #3 as non-canon. Clearly, by Tramp's definition, Volume #3 is not canon, which makes sense, but is there not a canon that specifically governs Volume #3? Is there a "TMNT Volume #3 canon"?
IF something s non-canon, it is non-canon, period. Officially it never happened.

So, if Volume #3 was to be continued, there would be no canon to govern it?

If you are talking about a canon as in "a fundamental principle or general rule", then yes, there would be a "governing canon". If, on the other hand you are referring to the story, or anything susequent to it, being canon, as in sanctioned by the owners and licensing authority, then no. it wouldn't. In that case you are talking about two completely different meanings of the word "canon" that have no relation to one another.

by **AxiomScion** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:35 am

Continuity error... error...

:-?

so which multiverse universe are canon :BLACKEYE:

Tramp may beat us all into submission :HEADHURTS:

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:39 am

AxiomScion wrote::BANG_HEAD: Continuity error... error...

so which multiverse universe are canon

Tramp may beat us all into submission

What are you saying here? Are you being sarcastic? Would you please explain it to us, Sparkle?

News Credits: 2 · by **Insurgent** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:40 am

Not reading anything between pages 7-12 due to somewhat aggressive posts, I would like you to address this Tramp:

Tramp wrote: It doesn't preclude specific discussions of a particular continuity. Also, the retcons that Hasbro did input don't wipe out any stories. All they do is modify the specific interpretations of TF ancient history, just like a new archeological find shines new light on our own past, thus forcing us to reinterpret the events. The same is true of the retcons. They reitnerpret stories as a result of new knowledge of the Transformers ancient origins, It don't wipe out the stories themselves. certain parts of the stories just need to be reinterpreted. They do not wipe out any of the stories.

You clearly state here that the retcons do not remove anything that has been stated. Nothing in these stories get removed, we simply get new light shone on them.

In another thread, I asked you to explain the statement about Quints giving AI to the TF's.

You told me this line was retconned out completely. Now you are saying these retcons do not remove anything from the stories, they just give them a new history.

How the hell does that work? You are stating contradictory things here.

Either

A) The retcons shine new light on what is told and series 3 of TF is full of BS.

B) The Retcons completely re-write what has been said previously and series 3 is non existant. It can't be both ways.

by **AxiomScion** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:14 pm

Leonardo wrote:
AxiomScion wrote::BANG_HEAD: Continuity error... error...

so which multi-verse universe are canon

Tramp may beat us all into submission

What are you saying here? Are you being sarcastic? Would you please explain it to us, Sparkle?

If Hasbro is taking DCs fabled stance of "it's all true" and accrediting it to a "multi-verse" With Unicron and Primus as there fundamental conical constants, then the question remains which G1 Optimus Prime is the main G1 Optimus Prime?

:-?

It's like the question which Superman is the main Superman Kal-L, Kal-El, or Kal-El? That's not even touching the different movie, cartoon, videogame, and coloring book Supermen :shock:

Apply this same concept back to OptimusPrime, whose 1st earth alt was a cobra hiss tank, and you'll see my problem.

Are there many uni-verses in this multi-verse, and even micro-verses for the one shot stories with no defined or plausible continuation (see the beast within), Are all G1 continuities diverging universes in one canon?

Even still there is a main Superman (the one most comics with him are following) so that would make IDW's the Main G1 Optimus Prime. right?

wiki canon wrote:When the body of work nominally set in the same fictional universe becomes large enough, it can happen that new material, such as might be found in spin-off television shows, prequels and books, contradicts earlier material. Such contradictions may be a result of bad research, or an attempt to revise, correct or retcon a perceived error in earlier material. The question is which material to favour and which to ignore when attempting to resolve all the material into a consistent whole. Two simple approaches are the "principle of first mention" in which information in the original work provides a foundation which later material must respect, and the revisionist model in which the latest work always supersedes earlier material. However, the situation can be much more complicated.

and it is... and it is...

News Credits: 2 · by **Moonbase2** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:20 pm

Why don't we just enjoy these big stupid robots for the joy they bring us? Does this minutiae really matter this much? It's really hard to tell what is really right here, because it's a big jumbled mess.

Ah, who am I kidding? I argued for three or four pages over whether Tracks was a triple changer.

News Credits: 6 · by **City Commander** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:26 pm

Screw canon. All it does is cause problems.

As far as I'm concerned:

The One -> Primus & Unicron; interdimensional gods of order and chaos repsectively.

Primus- bodys in all universes, one consciousnous that travels between them.

Unicron- One body; can travel freely between universes.

Prime succedes Sentinel, etc etc

Original 13, The Fallen, blah blah blah

DEATH'S HEAD :grin:

And it's all G1! There is no other universe I'd rather have

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:51 pm

AxiomScion wrote:Apply this same concept back to OptimusPrime, whose 1st earth alt was a cobra hiss tank, and you'll see my problem.

Was this suppose to be a joke?I dont meen the story...I have the books but your calling it the first earth alt mode.....is that a joke because its not his firse earth alt mode.

by **Ramrider** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:51 pm

Sorry, I'd mostly agree with Tramp. But there seem to be two main definitions of the word 'canon' that seem to be getting mashed up together and interchanged.

Whether a story is 'canon' is based simply on whether it's officially authorised by the owner of the property. Therefore any TF comic, cartoon, toy bio, movie or whatever that has been licensed by Hasbro or Takara is canon, whether it contradicts itself or not.

The other meaning of 'canon' that could apply (and seems to be getting mashed up with the previous meaning) regards the 'rules' of the respective universes (grabbed from dictionary.com, "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding"). But since Hasbro doesn't seem to have ever set up any such immutable rules, then they're entirely open to interpretation.

There is, by my reckoning, only one "Transformers canon". But within it there are a ton of different continuities, including, but not limited to, Marvel comics, Sunbow cartoon, Dreamwave comics, IDW comics, toy bios, various Japanese media, and what have you. They're all canon, and no one of these single sources is more right or wrong than any other, even if they are contradictory (and let's face it, every one of 'em contradicts every other one).

In the case of the Leo's Turtles example, I'd say that no, Volume #3 would not be canon, because Mirage have actively excluded it. More could be written within that continuity, but it still wouldn't be canon, and nor would anything written to continue Mirage's current continuity, unless they themselves licenced or otherwise approved it.

And with the Gargoyles stuff, as owners of the property, Disney have the final call, so Season 3 would be canon, even if the creator himself didn't like it.

The Energon Pub

Canon- Your definition.

Who is online

Forums

Transformers News

Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store

Featured Products on Amazon.com

The Ultimate Caption Contest