TF Views

A soft reboot is a jumping on point, and also it's usually very out-of-the-way and subtle. Retcons usually involve a story element to them. Batman goes back in time and stops Jason Todd from ever dying so that in the present he's alive. That's a retcon. (That also wasn't what happened, but whatever.)

For example, when the Transformers discovered Primus in Primal Scream, and were told the origin of him, that's a retcon--because in-story, things are changing. We are given an explanation in-story for Why Things In The Past Were Different. All Hail Megatron just has a bunch of them in different designs and suddenly Devastator is there with pretty much no explanation and all the Decepticons want to attack Earth. Skywatch and the Machination shit are kind of glossed over and not given two shits about, but it's not like anyone 'explains' that.

In DC's new books, there's a 'lot' of question over what specific events actually happened in the past and what events didn't. Was Renee Montoya ever The Question? Not explained. Etc.

When Alan Moore took over Swamp Thing in the 80s, he retconned Swamp Thing to not even be Alec Holland at all, he was just an elemental swamp monster who'd absorbed the memories of Alec Holland and 'thought' he was Alec Holland. That's a retcon. It's explicit and it's hard and fast, and it's done in an in-story context. A soft reboot is generally vague and poorly defined--things in the past happened, sometimes all of them, but the tone is still very much changing.

EDIT: A soft reboot is like, if Swamp Thing died ten years ago, and then one day a Justice League book starts and Swamp Thing is just there, hanging around, without an explanation. He never died! That whole story where he died didn't happen. Politely ignored.

soft reboot" (whatever that is, I still don't get that term... either it's a reboot, or it isn't, and this isn't).

A soft-reboot assumes that previous stories are still counted in context, but the status quo of the series is more or less set back to the standard established either in issue one or for its most "golden" run. (For example, the Avengers team is frequently reset to a Stern/Thomas era standard. Now, "Avengers" is being set back to pre-Bendis standard, but the Bendis run is still being counted in theory.)

The status quo keeps changing, and that's a good thing.

In theory, I agree with you on this. But, the soft-reboots and the (reasonable) assumption that more of them are in store effectivly nullifies any of the changes because the changes are going to effectively be undone, such as when a character dies and then "gets better".

The status quo *isn't* changing.

And, in this case, it is especially irksome because the ongoing started off with the characters talking about how they have to changed. That was the high-concept of the series. Now, we have a text-book event that promises "change everything", and gimmicky numbering. What does that sound like?

Thus far, every major character death IDW has pulled--Ironhide, Sunstreaker, Megatron--has been undone. I don't see Prime being any different.

Ironhide-planned to come back. That much is obvious.
Megatron-not actually dead. He was only declared dead in "Continuum", which was so error riddled that IDW fiated it away withing a week of it being released.
Thundercracker and Sunstreaker: No excuse. But, both furthered the concept of the ongoing and were more than "how they survived" resurrections.
Thrust and Scrapper: Still dead for now....

Is it a fandom thing? 'Cos this is really the only fandom I socialise with, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'd never heard it.

It is not exclusive to TF if I understand your question. But, soft reboots are (by definition) associated with serialized fiction that gnerally outlives its writers and artists. (For example, Batman has been around for the better part of a century, but is generally presented to be in his 30s. That requires soft-reboots on occasion.)

Season 3 was arguable a soft reboot. But, I would say it was a radical change in direction that more or less stuck.

The new DC universe, that's a soft reboot--things in the past still happened, but not all of them, you know?

"Flash Point" is hard to define because DC has not defined it. From what we have seen, I would argue that "Flash-Point" was a hard reboot. That is based on statements from DC that have been contradicted by DC. But, there have been substantial enough changes to enough titles that I would go with the "hard reboot" label for "Flash Point".

EDIT: A soft reboot is like, if Swamp Thing died ten years ago, and then one day a Justice League book starts and Swamp Thing is just there, hanging around, without an explanation. He never died! That whole story where he died didn't happen. Politely ignored

Alternatively, the "change back" would be made and explained in a secondary book, (a miniseries or a back-up in an annual or one-shot), and then the restored character just shows up in another book with no explanation there.

And this is different to mass retconning how?

In theory, a mass retcon is definitive and writes out most, if not all of the previous context. "Crisis on Infinite Earths" is the gold standard here. In TF, one could argue that "Time Wars" was a hard reboot because it over-wrote the original "future movie" timeline.


Dom
-and it gets really interesting when you try to compare comic:real time.

Onslaught Six wrote:
EDIT: Freddy Vs. Jason! That was a soft reboot! It's clear from the film's context that some previous Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th films have happened, and that this film is obviously taking place in 2004 or whenever it was made, despite Jason definitively dying previously in Jason Goes To Hell, and Freddy definitively dying in Freddy's Dead. Obviously those movies are being ignored and the franchise is continuing, but some elements of the previous canon are still intact.

Nope, those movies are in continuity, at least as close to continuity as you get in a Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street movie, anyway. It starts out with Freddy and Jason in Hell, and Freddy disguises himself as Jason's mom to convince him that somewhere, teenagers are having sex and he's gotta put a stop to it. There's a good long scene where Jason's corpse regenerates itself, and we're off. And the whole thing's an attempt by Freddy to get people afraid of him again so he can shake off that whole "being dead and in hell" thing. Plus, when you figure that "Jason goes to Hell" ended with Freddy's hand dragging Jason's hockey mask down undergroun, that sort of sets up the whole thing. It was more of a joke at the time, but since they did do a Freddy vs. Jason, it sort of fits.

Even Jason X fits in here, despite it sending Jason a few hundred years into the future. The beginning of that movie took place a few years in the future...I wanna say 2008 or so, and Jason vs. Freddy took place before that.

Dominic wrote:"Flash Point" is hard to define because DC has not defined it. From what we have seen, I would argue that "Flash-Point" was a hard reboot. That is based on statements from DC that have been contradicted by DC. But, there have been substantial enough changes to enough titles that I would go with the "hard reboot" label for "Flash Point".

Not to derail the thread, but DC has said not to call it a reboot and instead they define it as the launch of the "new DC Universe". And anyway, I think calling "Flashpoint" a hard reboot would be too generalized for it. Certainly some characters have had more of a hard reboot, but others have seen little to no change at all. Just doesn't seem right to me to label the whole thing as a hard reboot when not all of it is.

and instead they define it as the launch of the "new DC Universe".

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive reboot to me....

Dominic wrote:

and instead they define it as the launch of the "new DC Universe".

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive reboot to me....

Not at all. Just being a new universe doesn't mean everything has to be different from the old universe. And it isn't, considering some books and characters picked up right where they left off from before the relaunch.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Dominic wrote:

and instead they define it as the launch of the "new DC Universe".

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive reboot to me....

Not at all. Just being a new universe doesn't mean everything has to be different from the old universe. And it isn't, considering some books and characters picked up right where they left off from before the relaunch.

Which to me, just sounds like they half assed it. I mean, if you're gonna reboot something go all the way and reboot everything or don't bother at all.

And as for the big two having their "universes", as a kid, I always saw the different Marvel and DC titles as being separate and when they crossed over it always seemed like such an obvious marketing scheme money grab. I really don't think all the titles should be set in the same "continuity". I think there would probably be a lot more comic book readers if everything was in it's own self contained "universe". Having everything be part of the same continuity just feels like... well like I said, an obvious marketing scheme. And I don't really think it works. I mean, it's almost like they're trying to market to people like me who would feel like they have to have all the titles to get the full story. But, how many people are there who actually do have that mentality? Our discussions on such topics here have proven that the answer is not many and even fewer with the actual capital to support such an approach. And I think our discussions here have also proven that most people are going to pick and choose which characters to follow anyway, so why have those characters be only one small part of a larger puzzle? The business model just doesn't really make sense to me.

Shockwave
-Boy did I go off on a tangent. This is what happens when I don't post for days at a time.

Dominic wrote: As recently as 6 months ago, "Transformers" was my top book and had me doubting that I was ever going to be out of comics. But, now, I am wondering if I am going to be reading comics in 6 months at all, partly because of this book.

This was me 13 issues ago. Out of morbid curiosity, do the older ongoing issues still hold up for you, or has it all become one long road to nowhere?

Shockwave wrote: Which to me, just sounds like they half assed it. I mean, if you're gonna reboot something go all the way and reboot everything or don't bother at all.

Agreed. It sounds to me like they really wanted a fresh start, but then lost their nerve at the last minute and realized that a clean slate means they have to toss out all the really good stories along with the bad. Oops.

Onslaught Six wrote: The status quo *isn't* changing. It's like...it just keeps going back and forth. At the beginning of the ongoing, Bumblebee was leading the Autobots while Rodimus (or Hot Rod or whatever) went off to go form his own team because he didn't like the way Bumblebee (and Prime, I guess) were running things. And, surprise! Here we are two years later, back exactly where we started with that.

Oh my god, you're right. I hadn't even picked up on that. Except that now BB is rockin' that stupid cane. I would love to see a comic that actually shows us what cybertronian culture is like during peace time. I'd love to see all the different locales and such, but I have no doubt that it'll quickly devolve into Autobots vs. Decepticons again. I mean, it has to, right? This is Transformers and there's no room for non-war stories. I'm sure Roddy will dig up some ancient, evil, long lost Decepticon colony and come running back to Cybertron with them hot on his heels. Then it'll be a united Cybertron vs. the evil Ancient Decepticon Empire (just in time for a crossover between the 2 books).

Damn, IDW has made me a cynic.

Onslaught Six wrote: Also, these solicits have all but confirmed that Prime will legitimately die. As with Megatron, I give two years or less before he comes back.

And agreed again. Prime dying is so old-hat by now. I can't believe they played that same old card again. Are they completely bankrupt for ideas? I know the toons focus on Prime all the time, and the comics are kind of the venue that focuses on all the other characters, but it irks me that every writer that comes in seems to have it in their minds that they need to take Optimus out of the stories for 90% of the time.

I am *SO* glad I haven't been paying money for this crap. The solicits and reviews are more than enough.

Shockwave wrote:Which to me, just sounds like they half assed it. I mean, if you're gonna reboot something go all the way and reboot everything or don't bother at all.

I don't agree. If it aint broke, why fix it? Green Lantern, to use as an example, has been one of DC's top sellers for a couple years now. Why mess with that success? The point to the relaunch is to get publicity and boost sales.