Comics are awesome.

[Dominic]

The question is who has a right, at a given time, to make the call about what is official.

TF has a good, and recently brought up, example of this. Remember that "Mosaic" story, "Hail and Farewell"? The basic premise is that a bonded Sunstreaker and Hunter visit/raid Hunter's childhood home. This of course wholly contradicts AHM, where the two are split in AHM shortly before being killed. Hunter makes reference to events that simply could not have happened in IDW's timeline.

When the story was published, Furman said it was, in fact, canonical. Furman is a writer, not an editor. As such, it was not his call to make, regardless of what he would have liked or intended. Ryall said, "nope, not in canon". Ryall, as publisher, has that right. Even if the story was cleared as canonical to IDW, (rather than simply official, which is a different standard), a later fiat could change that. It could be a capricious decision. It could be a business decision. In any case, when a property effectively outlasts its creators and stewards, allowances have to be made.

The net effect is the same, an old story is changed or over-written in some meaningful way. (Does it really make sense for Captain America to be musing about those wild beehive hair styles on the women after he wakes up in those early "Avengers" comics?) But, an editorial fiat solves the problem much more easily than a story.

Would anybody really want to have read an in-depth "this is what really happened" story post "Crisis on Infinite Earths"? Would any writer or editor really want to bother with such a project? Or would it not be better for the editors to simply issue a directive? (This is not a defense of sloppy/indecisive directives, such as those associated with Superman or Hawkman.)


Dom
-thinks a hard reboot every 10 years or so is a good thing.

[andersonh1]

Atom-Smasher arranges for Extant to switch places with his mom at the last minute, meaning Extant is killed in the plane crash.

Now, I'm sure that makes more sense in context, but on it's own that just seems odd. Mega-powered cosmic villain, had at least Hawk and Waverider's powers, somehow you'd think he'd survive a plane crash. Was he depowered at this point or something?

Also, Extant was still Hank Hall, right?

Yes, he was. In fact, they introduce Dawn to the story in an attempt to distract him for awhile, and she tries to reach him as "Hank".

I think Extant isn't exactly invulnerable, it's just that his control of time makes it hard to get the drop on him. He's no tougher than Hawk, which is to say stronger and faster than a normal human, but not Superman-level invulnerable by any means. So a plane crash should finish him off, provided he's got no time to get away, which appears to be the case. It does make sense in context of the story.

I agree... it's a strange way to finish off someone as powerful as Extant. I did a double-take myself, so to speak.

[Sparky Prime]

TF has a good, and recently brought up, example of this. Remember that "Mosaic" story, "Hail and Farewell"?

The Transformers Mosaics are not a good example... The Mosaics are a completely separate entity from IDW, mainly fan creations and were never intended to be taken as official in the first place. So of course Ryall would say "Hail and Farewell" wasn't canon, regardless of who wrote it or what its author said. You're right that it really wasn't Furman's call to make in that situation, but that does kind of prove my point about creative teams behind comics having differences of opinions which can cause problems.

At any rate, you can't just have an Editorial fiat to change/over-write some major event in a characters life with out something in the story itself to explain it. With no explanation in the story, how are readers expected to understand events in that story? Imagine if Marvel had done an Editorial fiat instead of the 'deal with the devil' to undo the marriage. Suddenly, Peter and MJ are single again. But how did that happen? Why? What changed? It raises too many questions and is something needs to be explained in the context of the story itself, not just 'Editorial said so'. MJ's pregnancy is no different. It was a huge factor for events during the "Clone Saga", undoing it with no explanation is like pulling a string out that causes the whole story to unravel. In that case, a editorial fiat would cause problems, not solve them.

And since you tend to pick on DC here, I should point out they actually have a rather unique situation given the "Crisis" stories involved a merging of realities. They have explained continuity problems as being issues with how the multiverse merged together.

[Dominic]

The "Mosaic" example is applicable because it touches on the question of who has the authority to make a decision about what is official and what is canon (counted in context to other stories). Furman over-stepped the range of his authority when he declared "Hail and Farewell" canon when it was published as a "Mosiac". (I forget, what that one of the "Mosaic" stories reprinted in a regular IDW book? And, was there a legal/licensing reason tIDW stopped printing the single page stories?)

How much various writers, artists and editors agree with each other is less important that how much power each of them has at any given time.

At any rate, you can't just have an Editorial fiat to change/over-write some major event in a characters life with out something in the story itself to explain it. With no explanation in the story, how are readers expected to understand events in that story?

Why not? It has happened before. Post "Crisis on Infinite Earths", DC had a few examples of editorial fiats. According to Mark Waid, Superman's status changed frequently for a year or so after CoIE, sometimes as often as every week. "Legion of Superheroes" had similar issues. These changes only became problematic when they became frequent and capricious.

The survival of Powergirl and others post CoIE was by editorial decree, and was only reconciled much later. And, those explanations were at times inconsistent.

DC just whole-hog rebooted the Flash and Green Lantern. (Granted, context was much more fluid and less defined at the time.)

Marvel had a fair amount of editorial decrees in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Chunks of various titles were decrees apocryphal in various source-books. Marvel initially ignored Captain America appearances from the 1950s. And, there was really no compelling reason for them to go back and reconcile those stories with what became 616 Marvel. The explanations came years after the fact. And, few enough fans were worried before that.

I would much rather have an editorial decree solve a problem than have to read and pay for a tedious "set everything just so" comic.


Dom
-and, sometimes, the decrees themselves are canonical......oi.

[andersonh1]

Dom, have you read the Mosaic by Roche and Roberts? http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transform ... boots.html

Now it's no more canon than Furman's story was, but at least it's backstory to the just finished Wreckers mini-series. As such, it's less likely to be overwritten in future since it focuses on the past, not continuity two years out like Furman's story.

[Sparky Prime]

The "Mosaic" example is applicable because it touches on the question of who has the authority to make a decision about what is official and what is canon (counted in context to other stories).

No, it is not applicable. Again, the Mosaics come from an unofficial source separate from IDW/Hasbro. It doesn't matter who has the authority in this situation, since they are not a part of IDW, IDW cannot claim them to be canon, regardless of the circumstances. The few they printed had the disclaimer that the Mosaics are "non-profit-making, independently produced stories by Transformers enthusiasts" and are "not affiliated with Hasbro or IDW Publishing". Essentially it's fan art.

Why not? It has happened before. Post "Crisis on Infinite Earths", DC had a few examples of editorial fiats. According to Mark Waid, Superman's status changed frequently for a year or so after CoIE, sometimes as often as every week. "Legion of Superheroes" had similar issues. These changes only became problematic when they became frequent and capricious.

The survival of Powergirl and others post CoIE was by editorial decree, and was only reconciled much later. And, those explanations were at times inconsistent.

I'm getting the impression you mean something different than I do in terms of what an 'editorial fiat/decree' is. Your examples here seems, to me, to be more the result of a lack of the editorial control/direction required to keep the stories straight and consistent, with how rapidly those stories changed. An editorial decree, however, (again, to me) is when editorial sets up a specific story idea and has everyone actually adhere to it on the same page, thus it prevents such inconsistencies and rapid changes of said idea (although that doesn't mean the idea itself wont cause inconsistencies in the story or that the decree automatically becomes part of the canon).

I would much rather have an editorial decree solve a problem than have to read and pay for a tedious "set everything just so" comic.

I'd rather have a story I could follow rather than a garbled mess thanks to some editorial decree that was in no way reflected in the story, making it impossible to figure out what happened to get to that point.

and, sometimes, the decrees themselves are canonical......

I've yet to see any evidence of that, assuming the decree isn't reflected in the actual story in some way, shape or form....

[Dominic]

Now it's no more canon than Furman's story was, but at least it's backstory to the just finished Wreckers mini-series. As such, it's less likely to be overwritten in future since it focuses on the past, not continuity two years out like Furman's story.

That was actually what prompted me to use the example. There is actually a call to make it canonical. But, thus far, the words has been "no".

In theory, Ryall could bring it to Hasbro and through editorial fiat, declare the 2 Wreckers submissions official. (I have to admit to not liking the format on the Impactor/Overlord story as much.)

But, Furman does not have that right at all, which is what I was going for when I brought up "Hail and Farewell". Furman cannot declare something as canonical, or even official. The kinds of decrees I am talking about could only be made by certain parties at the editorial level, not every random hack.

I would say that the "Mosaic" submissions are a bit more than fan art. If nothing else, they are arguably submissions submissions to IDW and a fantastic way to build a portfolio.

I'm getting the impression you mean something different than I do in terms of what an 'editorial fiat/decree' is. Your examples here seems, to me, to be more the result of a lack of the editorial control/direction required to keep the stories straight and consistent, with how rapidly those stories changed. An editorial decree, however, (again, to me) is when editorial sets up a specific story idea and has everyone actually adhere to it on the same page, thus it prevents such inconsistencies and rapid changes of said idea (although that doesn't mean the idea itself wont cause inconsistencies in the story or that the decree automatically becomes part of the canon).

The apparent lack of direction post CoIE was more about the direction changing frequently. I really wish I had recorded that conversation with Mark Waid a few years back. Him characterizing the year after CoIE as "a time when Action Comics weekly was ruining lives" is too good not to immortalize and share. (I am not a huge fan of Waid's work. But, he is a first rate guy.) Editorial decrees about Superman and other characters would change frequently, and the official/canonical status quo that writers had to work with would change with it.

The last page of CoIE is explicit in saying that *only* Roger Hayden knew what really happened in terms of history being altered. A month or so later, Superman (still pre-Byrne) apparently remembered and was interviewed on a talk show....alongside Harbinger, Pariah and Lady Quark. Some characters were stated as being remembered in issue 12 of CoIE, (albeit before the final changes caused by the Anti-Monitor's death and last page), but were clearly forgotten (owing to them never existing) soon after. Writers did not know what they were supposed to/allowed to use at any given time owing to changing decrees.

What I am saying is that a decree should stick, and that we should not waste time trying to reconcile each and every story if they can be removed by decree.

Johns arguably got away with a decree when he said "Parallax was always there, along with the rainbow of skittles Lantersn". He used the idea in a story. But, presentation of the other Corps colors always being there was a decree.

I'd rather have a story I could follow rather than a garbled mess thanks to some editorial decree that was in no way reflected in the story, making it impossible to figure out what happened to get to that point.

A correctly issued and adhered to decree is very clear. After about a year of dithering, DC was quite direct about Superman's origins and status quo. There was no time-travel epic to reconcile CoIE and the many inconsistencies since then. Editorial decree established that "Man of Steel" was the origin, and that Clark Kent was only living in Metropolis for about a year or so in the main books. Batman was active not much longer. Any and all changes to other books caused by this were assumed to be ignored, and the old stories were tossed out.

I've yet to see any evidence of that, assuming the decree isn't reflected in the actual story in some way, shape or form....

Morrison has done this a few times. Superboy's retcon punch is arguably an example of this. Marvel's Time Variance Authority is also a variant of this idea.


Dom
-the decrees should be a tool, not a goal unto themselves as they seem to be now.

[Onslaught Six]

One theory on the "616" that had me going for a minute was that the number had to do with the publication date that each universe appeared in. So, say, if Fantastic Four #1 came out in June of 1961...

This theory does hold up for many of the other universes, actually, if not the original. One of the recent character guides had a Death's Head profile and gave the Marvel UK TF universe a number based on when Man of Iron was published.

Dom, where did you see this Overlord/Impactor mosaic? I missed it.

The thing with Hail And Farewell (and the recent Wreckers ones) is...it's all authorial intent. It's a question of where fanart begins and official art begins. If Frank Miller draws a picture of Batman, is it official or fanart?

[Dominic]

The Overlord/Impactor story is linked somewhere in the "Walk in a Dead Man's Boots" thread on IDW's boards.

The thing with Hail And Farewell (and the recent Wreckers ones) is...it's all authorial intent. It's a question of where fanart begins and official art begins. If Frank Miller draws a picture of Batman, is it official or fanart?

Normally, I would agree that author intent trumps all. But, in a case like this, where the author is not the owner, that cannot be the deciding standard. The authors are acting on behalf of the (often corporate) owners, and can only meaningfully decide matters that they have been given the right to decide.

Frank Miller cannot simply draw an official piece of "Batman" art unless DC gives him license to do so. Granted, unofficial Miller Bat-art will still command money. But, it is not official unless DC commissions or licenses it. "Mosaic" submissions are in a weird sort of place, as they are not commissioned or licensed by Hasbro or any agents of Hasbro. But, they come out with the consent and (slightly more than tacit) support of Hasbro and IDW.


Dom
-still needs to network with an artist.

[Shockwave]

Well one could argue that since IDW prints Mosaics, that they are acting as a licensed agent for Hasbro.