Talk: Transformers Legends

Transformers Legends also refers to the K*Mart exclusives of Jazz, Grimlock, Bumblebee, and Starscream - effectively their Pretender versions without their shells. - Vanguard

So, I just re-read Fires in the Dark, the infamous 'Beast Wars in Amara's past' story.

...and I realised it's explicitly stated that the Natiltec tribe whose site they find somehow journeyed from one world to another, apparently literally crossing from one continuity to another.

That's cool.-Derik 06:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I had taken that as meaning they journeyed from one location on Earth to another, which to them would seem like going to a new world. --KilMichaelMcC 15:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Paddles and Geosensus

I replaced the "Paddles (Story)" link with one going straight to the character page. No need for redundancy. But could someone a little better at this than I am please make a redirect from "Parts" to "Geosensus"? Thanks.--Thylacine 2000 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction canonicty snafu

TF:Legends did indeed include the notorious caveat you refer to- but at least one of the stories therein included a specific note from the author saying it took place in cartoon continuity prior to TF:TM. In that light wielding the collection's forward like a club to declare everything non-canon probably not the brightest thing to do-- or even what Scott Ciencen intended. Legends had like 8 different mutually-irresolvable stories from various versions of Armada continuity. Logic suggests that he was proposing we not break our brains trying to resolve them, not that the story by the writer of Beast Machines set during Beast Machines which doesn't conflict with the cartoon 'doesn't count'. -Derik 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... sorry? Am I high, or you you basically pick and choose the rules of continuity that you feel like following on any given day? Or do you just enjoy disagreeing with me on principle?

Look, to the point - I don't see that any brain breaking is remotely neccessary. It's simple:

The editor (that is, ahem, David Cian) says these stories are "What Ifs", not part of the respective continuities in which they are set, regardless of how well they may fit. Stating that one story positions itself at a specific place in a prexisting continuity doesn't change that overriding editorial caveat whatsoever, indeed, several of the stories can be easily located at specific points in specific continuities. Thus, applying the official Hasbro line that we also follow here that "everything's canon... somewhere", the only other designation these stories can have is that they are micro-continuities. I'm not saying that these stories "don't count", or that they are cosmically noncanon, merely that they should not be regarded as actually part of same exact continuity as the BM animation, but rather a sidestep removed. i.e. they exist in a microcontinuity that includes everything in the show plus the events of the prose story. Just like the IDW Beast Wars comics aren't actually part of the Beast Wars animated continuity, and just like Beast Wars itself wasn't in exactly the same continuity as any pre-existing version of G1.

You follow?

By all means please argue your case, but I don't see any way around this other than to declare that this wiki treats Cian's forward as null and void. And if so, on what basis would you claim that right? As an official work, doesn't any statement regarding its own canonicty become something we just have to accept?

User:PacifistPrime PP 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Just like the IDW Beast Wars comics aren't actually part of the Beast Wars animated continuity, and just like Beast Wars itself wasn't in exactly the same continuity as any pre-existing version of G1." Which is precisely why I find the paragraph saying "You don't have to put this with the show" pointless. It applies to every segment of canon and we don't note it. We put them in their own sections (which is the case with Singularity Ablyss) and expect readers to put two and two together. —Interrobang 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that, frankly, the Transformers Legends book is actually pretty obscure, and most casual readers won't automatically know that it has a particularly fraught canonical status. It would be usefully informative to many users and I hardly think a short footnote is going to cause the end of the world.User:PacifistPrime PP 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm saying I think that Cian's forward was boneheaded and said something he didn't mean to say (these are all non-canon) while attempting to say something he did mean to say "Many of these are never-never land continuities." (Which many, but not all were.) Some of the authors clearly wrote under the impression that their stories were canon, and set them in very specific continuities. I don't think Cian can arbitrarily override an author's note specifically placing his story in cartoon continuity. -Derik 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like, boneheaded or not, Cian's foreword consigns everything in Legends to a pseudocanon status, with the POSSIBLE exception of the G1 Cartoon story. Saying that the author meant the exact opposite of what he said (these are all non-cnnon - these are NOT all non-canon) seems like a real reach to me. Maybe the article in question could include the pseudocanon info in italics or otherwise broken apart. As an aside, shouldn't this discussion really go there? We're not really talking about Derik. --Jimsorenson

I was discussing it on PP's user page.

(I really despise that Cian's forward, which I think was supposed to tell people not to get bent out of shape about how/where these stories fit-- instead explicitly declared that "None of these count at all." This bugs me msotly because I don't think it's what Cian actually meant to say. ) -Derik 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, that's your opinion, and to be frank I actually do agree with you: I think Cian's introduction is utter bollocks too. However, I don't see how our opinion of the introduction alters the fact that it's an official work containing an official statement about canon status of the material within. And yes, of course he can override the intent of the author (which, as we know, has no canonical bearing anyway)... he's their editor! His authority supersedes theirs. Furthermore, having just re-read his introduction, I'd point out to you that he implies he had informed the writers about their stories' noncanon status when commissioning them, i.e. before they wrote them... for whatever that's worth (again, author intent doesn't count).

And, just to jog your memory, regarding canonicity, his exact words are:

But remember, none of the stories in this volume are part of continuity. In other words, they do not count for futher "facts" in the Transformers universe...

I hardly think that could be any clearer. Indeed, it's so explicit that it's only by dint of the fact that our/Hasbro's policy declares "everything canon... somewhere" that these stories even qualify as micro-continuities, frankly. Which I admit sucks, but there it is.

So even in the unlikely event that you're right and Cian "didn't mean it" or expressed himself badly, we all know that his own editorial/authorial intent has, again, no actual bearing on canon - only what he actually said in the official published work. How we can disregard the canonicity of Cian's satement about noncanonicty (yes, I know how strange that sounds) without breaking our own rules about "everything's canon... somewhere"? I mean, obviously if people want to regard any of the stories as being part of their personal canon versions of the individual continuities that's fine, but officially... I just don't see that we're in any position to ignore it.

User:PacifistPrime PP 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. to Jimsorenson - I don't see any justification for the the stories to be regarded as Pseudocanon, since it's in an officially endorsed publication. That would render the stories as belonging to micro-continuities, at worst.

P.P.S. I vote we move this to the discussion page of Transformers Legends, and am copying all this over there if you want to continue the debate. Okay?User:PacifistPrime PP 02:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

...aaand here we are. Anyone?User:PacifistPrime PP 02:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is "they do not count for futher "facts" in the Transformers universe..." is ridiculously stupid. The statement is they are not part of any continuity- and since TT1 doesn't recognize that statement as valid (everything is canon,) it's like we "bumped it down" to the next-most-extreme thing he could say that is something we recognize as valid. "They are all micro-continuities."

But that's not what he said. And I think we do a dis-service to the material to act like it is what he said.

Cian was writing from the perspective that- "Well, I guess there's like... six or 8 continuities, right? And everythign has to fit into one of these- which a bunch of these don't." The concept of the TF Multiverse with it's millions of continuities where everything happened wasn't properly established until after he wrote that forward. He was approaching it from the perspective of a Silver Age Comics fan. "If it's not Earth 1 and it's not Earth 2, then it must be an Imaginary Story."

The TF Multiverse exploded that entire... paradigm. Cian was talking uning terms we also use- but his entire mindset was 180 degrees of ours. The basic instrinsic stuff of how we view continuities-- the very concept of a micro-continuity... didn't exist at the time. And assuming that he was somehow talking in our terms seems really boneheaded. Why not just take his words in the context that they appeared- a Transformers "multiverse" composed of a very limited number of universes into which everything had to fit somewhere, and acknowledge he was saying "These aren't Earth 1 or Earth 2, so they must be imaginary stories." ("not part of [any established] continuity") Understand his worlds for what they were intended to be at the time, but acknowledge that we no longer consider that paradigm to have validity.

Basically I'm pleading for a saner interpetation of his words, which taken at face value are fundamentally at odds with both how we define canon, and how the Transformers Multiverse works. -Derik 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to agree with you because I'd like to include the stories, but I'm not sure if I'm letting wishful thinking get in the way of reason. I need to mull it over. (And I think this is the proper venue for this discussion.) --Jimsorenson 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Derik, you argue well, and add some useful context regarding Cian's introduction and the later establishment of "everything is canon... somewhere". Your DC analogy is also a good one. But I still don't see how we can just disregard his introduction (however asinine you/we may find it), other than to indeed view by in our own current terms i.e. if something isn't part of an established canon, then it's still canon... in a micro-continuity. It may not be what he meant (since the concept wasn't acknowledged at the time), but how else can we define these stories? They can't be flat-out canon (other than personal canon), and our policy doesn't allow for "imaginary stories" (which I agree was probably his thinking), but it would be way too harsh to render them pseudocanonical.

Essentially what I'm asking is: what's wrong with the micro-continuity designation? It seems to solve everything.

I just don't see what other workable solution you're really suggesting here.User:PacifistPrime PP 03:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong is that is renders Collect and Save, which the author explicitly states takes place prior to TF:TM as a "micro-continuity that doesn't count towards anything else." while the Madman Transformers comic, set in the same period and also produces 20 years after-the-fact... is allowed to actually be part of Generation 1 cartoon continuity. And that does a dis-service to Collect and Save, as well as being stupid. -Derik 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, I really do. I agree it's stupid. But you're still not offering a workable alternative solution.

Also, I really don't see that Collect and Save's forenote stating where it should be positioned in an existing continuity ergo makes it an overriding statement of canonicity. Like I said earlier, by the terms of how we currently view wider canon and micro-continuity canon, shouldn't this simply be a case in which this story thus exists in a micro-continuity version of the the G1 animated series which, unlike the series in question, also includes this prose story?

At the risk of inviting a world of pain, I think all this bespeaks what may be a continuing mushiness in the way we treat retcons and micro-continuities as part of larger canon. Without sitting down and re-reading every word at this juncture, it's my understanding from the Canon, Continuity, Continuity family and Micro-continuity articles (the last one of which I originated) that our policy is basically this:

Hasbro (and therefore we) regard everything officially published as canonical... somewhere.
"Somewhere" means that in cases of irreconcilable contradiction, we employ a massively multiversal model which allows us to then treat these differing materials produced for the same franchise (toyline, really) as belonging to separate, divergent continuities within the same continuity family.
If some of these alternative works are considered substantially "lesser" in terms of prominence/length than the most prevalent fictions (usually a comic and/or a show) of the franchise in question, then although we still regard them as being equally canonical, they become related to yet another separate strand of "reality" which we term a micro-continuity. This does not mean it's less "real" or "valid" in canon terms, merely that it does not exist in the exact same universe as its parent continuity.

Now, here comes this sticky part, that you may disagree with:

If a much later retcon (which, by our own definition also includes merely adding new information as opposed to contradicting old info) is featured in a fiction produced after the original production of the franchise in question, that is also considered to have created a divergent continuity. Hence our designation of the IDW Beast Wars as a separate continuity to the original show. Despite everything in the original show being canon from the perspective of IDW, the reverse does not hold true. Ditto Japanese neo-G1 fictions like Binaltech and Kiss Players, which are most certainly not part of the western G1 canon(s).

So, by those definitions, aren't pretty much all retroactive stories effectively micro-or-otherwise-separate-continuities? Like that Madman comic you mentioned?

I realise you may disagree with this, but I think it's important that we apply consistent rules to how we manage these niggling little continuity blips.User:PacifistPrime PP 04:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite everything in the original show being canon from the perspective of IDW, the reverse does not hold true.

Just wanted to say that, in general, I agree with this POV, not least because it summarizes why I hate seeing the name "Darksyde" used in BW episode summaries (apart from it being a stupid name.) -- Repowers 04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, every story in Legends is a micro-continuity of its own. I feel like there's just no other way to look at it. The fact that "Collect and Save" notes that it takes place before TF:TM is irrelevant. The book's foreword, awkwardly worded though it is, means that the story simply doesn't have standing to declare itself to fully be a part of any existing universe. --KilMichaelMcC 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So Two for the Price of One isn't set in the same continuity as the Keepers Trilogy? But instead a separate, unrelated continuity with identical events? That's stupid. And it makes an unholy mess of any attempt to document it. You'd have to place it in its own section and say- "Yeah, this is it's own continuity, but..." -Derik 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

shrug* It may be stupid, but I don't see any way around it. They're all micro-continuities, even the ones based on other pre-existing universe. For example, I certainly don't think the events of Prime Spark should be included in the Unicron Trilogy cartoon timeline, even though they are explicitly set between episodes of the Armada cartoon. --KilMichaelMcC 04:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stupid? yes. Annoying? Absolutely! But an "unholy mess"? C'mon, we're only talking about 13 stories here after all...

It seems like the only logical solution.

Unless you have a better idea, and one that doesn't involve us arbitrarily deciding which stories fit existing continuities and which don't. We can't just ignore Cian's introduction as though it's totally meaningless.User:PacifistPrime PP 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a way around it. How about viewing Cian's forward in the context in which he originally made it- "If it's not Earth 1 and not Earth 2, then it must be an imaginary story," and not artificially confining the stories within that anthology because of it?

Why are we treating Two for the Price of One any different than the Madman Transformers comic? Both are set in pre-existing continuities, yet the Madman comic gets to live under the 'Generation 1 cartoon continuity' header. Why can't "Two for the Price of One" receive the same treatment?

Because Dadid Cian said somethign stupid one time? I vote that we either;

Throw it out as irrelevant Author Intent (and he's not even the author!) which isn't supposed to affect how we interpret stories, merely inform it-- and instead treat each story as is appropriate for it.
Since David Cian apparently declared that Two For the Price of One isn't set in the same continuity as the Keepers Trilogy, but instead in an all-new continuity where... everything from the Keepers Trilogy still happened, exactly as portrayed... why dont' we just declare that we're documentign that second universe that doesn't draw a meaningless delineation between this one story and the rest of everything, ever? And it is meaningless, because the story is suppsoed to take place in a micro-continuity that is otherwise completely identical to the universe without it-- only it has this extra event in it. (Unless the original universe also has this event in it, which it might. But still- this story is its OWN CONTINUITY! WOOHOO! WHERE'S MAH BEER?)

Sanity. That's what I want. Why does the Madman comic get treatment that will apparently be denied Collect and Save and Two for the Price of One? -Derik 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)-Derik 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just what I was saying a couple of posts back: I think that the Madman comic probably should technically be considered a micro-continuity as well, on the same basis that IDW's BW is already considered a separate continuity from the BW show proper. It seems to me that all after-the-fact retcons should be considered to belong to (otherwise identical) micro-continuities. It sounds crazy, I know, but otherwise we'd be in an even BIGGER mess.

It seems to me we either accept the principle of a massivley multiversal TF metacontinuity and the existence of dozens of micro-continuities and agree on some fairly clearly-stated rules, or we're just going to keep having these quibbling arguments.

Did you read my bullet point list a couple of posts before? Do you actually disagree with my assessment of how our policy works? User:PacifistPrime PP 05:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Derik, in my view, considering all of the Legends stories to be micro-continuities IS sanity. It is the ONLY way of looking at it that makes any sense at all to me. --KilMichaelMcC 06:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it, and I don't think this rises tot he level of irreconcilable difference witht he original material. And "Two For the Price of One" certainly wasn't added ages after the fact either- it was puiblished about a year after the last Keepers Book, and while the Dreamwave comics were still running. There is absolutely no reason to separate it out any more than the Keepers Trilogy already is except that David Cian made a weeping statement that even he probably didn't mean to be applied as draconianly as we are now doing.

The Magman comic, as it now stands, is clearly marked as being in G1 'toon continuity, not of it. I think the delineation we currently have is sufficient. Trying to shove it off into it'w own section circa 2006 and say "Also there's this one universe that's exactly like this one 8 sections ago, except it also has this story in it," is phenomenally stupid, it takes the story out of its context for no good reason. I don't have a problem (I guess,) with clearly marking these additions as not-part-of-the-original-source-material, but I think they should be kept in their appropriate context whenever possible.

And really- the reason we give IDW's BW stuuff it's own section isn't that it was added after-the-fact, it's that it's mutually irreconcilable with the 3H stuff, which also claims that "the cartoon happened just as we saw." It is not possible to present the cartoon 'inline' with its expanded universe withotu creating more messes than you solve. In the case of the Madman comic (and Collect and Save,) I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the cartoon continuity section with a clear "The events in italic are not from the cartoon itself" note, just like we do for Animated's expended continuity from the comics. -Derik 06:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I only really object to the constant hand-wringing notations of "this doesn't really count." In that respect, I very much agree with Derik. Everything that gets Hasbro approval is canon. Maybe not canon that is compatible with anything else, but canon nonetheless. Author intent does not, in this case, override one of the fundamental assumptions of this wiki. We accept a lot of weird shit as canon, and I see no reason not to go balls-out with this either.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 06:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the question at issue here. We already treat these stories as "canon." If we didn't, they wouldn't have articles or be mentioned at all. The question is whether some of these stories should be considered part and parcel of existing continuities, or whether they should all be treated as universes unto themselves, micro-continuities. --KilMichaelMcC 06:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think that David Cian didnt' actually intend to make such a sweepign statement (for the reasons I've stated above,) and if he'd kept his big mouth shut, left to our own devices, that would not be the way we'd choose to treat these stories. I also feel strongly that author intent doesn't override the actual story-as-it-happened, and David Cian's editorial intent shouldn't be able to override a natural reading of the stories either. -Derik 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of this... I guess you can't call it an argument, we're all fairly civil and are stating our cases while citing examples we think represent paramount priorities... disagreement is brushing up against other issues, like how you handle information added long-after-the-fact, or the very issue of author intent--- which I know a lot of editors have strong feeling about.

What's really at hand here are (as I see it,) 3 things;

What did David Cian say, what did he mean when he said it, and to what degree is that relevant to our own organizational schema?
What is the best way to present information clearly without misrepresenting it?
If David Cian hadn't made his statement in the forward, would we be treating these stories differently?

I think there's pre-existing tension about how we've been handling some material, like the Madman comic (which was shoved into cartoon sections with no real discussion- but AFAIK no real objection either,) that everyone has been putting off arguing about. So just saying "Well we treat the Madman comic this way" isn't a good 'proof,' because the other person might not feel that's the appropriate way to treat that material either, and simply because there hasn't been an argument over the existing treatment of similar 'secondary' sources within 'primary' continuities doesn't mean that there is a consensus on how they should be treated.

Does this seem about right to anyone else? -Derik 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kind of. I mean, in part you're actually sort of just repeating/rephrasing what I've already said myself a couple of times here. This discussion all bespeaks a pre-existing lack of clarity about how we treat certain material. As I've been saying, the Madman comic isn't adequate proof of anything, because even though (as you pointed out) it's never been specifically debated, it too probably shouldn't be considered part of the existing G1 cartoon continuity.

At this point I actually think Cian's introduction is becoming increasingly irrelevant (which is not say I think it's actually irrelevant) in the face of the larger issue:

"Should all retcons published/produced outside the timeframe of the pertinent franchises be considered by their very nature to create divergent but otherwise largely identical continuities?"

Well, I think probably yes. I know it sounds completely insane, but I just don't see how we can avoid having some kind of clear rule about this, otherwise we're condemning ourselves to an endless series of arguments in order to arbitrarily decide which after-the-fact stories are inside the parent continuities and which are not.

I mean, seriously, it would never 'effin end...

We're dealing with a very unique metacontinuity here that allows everything but implies internal divisions as a method of explaining incongruity and decades-later retcons. I think in order to embrace that we need to agree on some logical rules about how to define things, and stick with them. Heaven knows, I've got in enough trouble in the past for not sticking to your rules, so forgive me for wanting to actually make them clearer.

P.S. Don't get me wrong - I'd be overjoyed if we could easily and neatly incorporate everything in Legends. For starters, it would finally canonise that damn bit about G1 Megatron's spark getting put back at the end of BWs3.

User:PacifistPrime PP 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)