back-writes in G1

The originals... ok, not exactly, but the original named "The TransFormers" anyway. Take THAT, Diaclone!
Generation 1, Generation 2 - Removable fists? Check. Unlicensed vehicle modes? Check. Kickass tape deck robot with transforming cassette minions? DOUBLE CHECK!!!
Post Reply
User avatar
Dominic
Supreme-Class
Posts: 9331
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

back-writes in G1

Post by Dominic »

Hookay, first up, I need to define terms here. By a "back-write" I am talking about a plot element that exists purely to undo an previously published story. The plot elements can be something like revealing that "it was all a dream" or "it was really a clone that died in the fiery explosion". Or, it can be a question of a dead character be raised/restored or some other old staus quo just sort of coming back. (Remember the Kree in the late 90s?)

I am not talking about hard resets such as when "Transformers" jumps between license holders or when a company decides to update and streamline a product line (DC's "Flashpoint" being a prominent example). Similarly, a writer or editor coming out and saying "ignore a given run of comics" (such as Furman's statements about the old UK or G2 runs relative to "Re-Generation One") are a different matter entirely.


And, with that out of the way....

Thus far, my biggest complaint about "Dark Cybertron" is that it is going to be a series of back-writes and other reversals that will functionally work out to being a soft-reset for "Transformers". Objectively, as a long time comics fan, I should be fine with this. Comics get soft-resets all the time. (Hell, the run of "Iron Man" that I am currently enjoying so much is a direct result of a soft-reset.)

But, "Transformers" has (at least up until now) been quantifiably unique in having relatively few back-writes and resets. The original Marvel series ran for 80s issues (along with some side-series) and only had two significant back-writes. (And, given the standards of the 80s and 90s, two significant back-writes in ~7 years is pretty impressive.)

The first was Megatron's survival. That was necessary in order for Furman to reconcile a significant amount of UK comics with the US run. It was not seamless, and a fair number of UK stories simply cannot be reconciled. But, the attempt had to be made.

The second back-write involved the Matrix, and that had more to do with keeping the brand consistent than with editorial or creative fecklessness.

Even at its worst (the middle run between issue #20 or so to #60-odd), "Transformers" could always coast by at the shallow level of being an event driven book. There were some bad comics in that run. (There were some *really* bad comics in that run.) But, for the most part, those comics could still be presented without some kind of qualifier ("Well, this happened, but....). Even allowing for the fact that death was established early on as being flexible, TF had a linear story that changed over time. The status quo in issue 4 did not carry over to issue 20. It changed further by issue 40 or so and....right up to issue 75 and then the book's final 5 issues.

On the UK side, even allowing for (many) discrepancies between the US and UK comics, the series followed a linear structure. (The same can also be said of the cartoon, if one forgives animation mistakes.)


My biggest worry about "Dark Cybertron" is that it is going to be the event that makes TF like every other book published by the big two. For everything that changes, two other things will be changed back until eventually nothing is going to stick. While that won't make "Transformers" worse than 99% of what the big two publish, it will make TF less unique relative to most other comics. And, that will bother me.
Post Reply