MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bendy-Bus Prime

2011-09-21T05:23:29Z

70.17.200.179: /* Any word on who won the thing? */ new section

Wait, is this officially-approved-by-Hasbro and all that stuff we usually require for things to be added to the Wiki? --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 18:11, 2 December 2009 (EST)
:The project is from Paramount, which, as I understand it, counts as official. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:44, 2 December 2009 (EST)

== Any word on who won the thing? ==

All i can say is, i hope it was a TransFan--or that it's been given or sold to a TransFan by now.
[[Special:Contributions/70.17.200.179|70.17.200.179]] 01:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Canon

2011-09-21T05:22:26Z

70.17.200.179: /* retcon, microcontinuity, or personal canon? */ new section

I was quite surprised that nobody had done this article yet so I thought I’d have a go. Given the potential arguments that this topic might cause, I have tried to be as uncontroversial as possible and stick to the ‘facts’.

I have never heard of (and been unable to find) any official canon policy from Hasbro (beyond the Universe thing mentioned in the article) and so until someone enlightens me otherwise I assumed that there isn’t one.

There is a G1 bias to the article as that’s where my knowledge mainly lies so someone might want to add in some later stuff for balance.

I look forward to the inevitable rewrites.[[User:Omnisvalidus|Omnisvalidus]] 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:The main reason you've not been able to find any offical canon policy from Hasbro is that there is none. With ''Transformers'', the closest thing to "Is this cannon?" is "Is this piece of fiction licensed or produced by Hasbro or TakaraTomy?" --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::I think this page definately needs a note that it's not spelled "cannon".--[[User:66.237.45.7|66.237.45.7]] 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Ask and you shall receive. [[User:Omnisvalidus|Omnisvalidus]] 10:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== Blogs and Q&A sessions as canon. ==

I disagree with events that happen only in a blog or Q&A session being treated as canon. I am thinking of event "[[Rodimus Prime (Animated)]] survived the cosmic rust attack and is recovering". "Rodimus in recovery" is an event that only happened in a Q&A session. The event never happened in fiction. Now I agree that a blog or Q&A session can clarify something that ''was'' seen, like, "was that Alpha Trion we saw?" but I don't think it can introduce a new event.

Another example would be [[Hail and Farewell]]. Simon Furman explicitly said that was canon in a blog post, but now the editors say it was never canon and the events have been contradicted all over the place. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:42, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
:I take them as canon if they conform with matters of basic fact. Derrick Wyatt said Animated Rodimus will reappear in an upcoming episode, just as he had also said Sari's key will not. If that eventually comes true, then he was just giving us sneak previews a few weeks in advance--and we've been accepting stuff like that for years. Problems arise when you get into the issue of "[[Authorial intent|author intent]]", when something they say goes ''further than'' or even ''in contradiction with'' what the actual series material showed. If Rodimus never shows up again, then we really can't conclude he was cured of his rust after all. Derrick wanted crushed-cube Blurr to have a pulsing spark drawn inside it, making him unambiguously alive--but the series didn't show that, so given the internal context it's at least as likely that he's dead (especially if he's never explicitly brought back to life). The same thing goes for Furman. If there's an internal contradiction within the stories, that can't be magically handwaved away just based on which of the authors seems to want it more. Ideally, there would have been nothing in "Farewell" that explicitly contradicted the comics and so it could have just been fit inoffensively between-the-scenes, but apparently that's just not true anymore. We may be looking at another [[Alignment]] here, where Furman very much has his own ideas on what happened but not enough of it was ever published (or published coherently) to make it definitively "true." --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 12:56, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Can Paramount influence canon on its own? ==

The rules for canon are "If it was released by a Transformers licensor with Hasbro approval, then it is canonical." What if Paramount does something without Hasbro's approval? They seem to be a special case being co-producers of ''Transformers'' major motion pictures. I'm wondering about [[Bendy-Bus Prime]]. The news articles don't mention Hasbro at all, so it looks like Paramount might have done that all by themselves. If Hasbro didn't give approval, would he be non-canon, even though he was made by the producers of ''Transformers'' films? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:56, 18 December 2010 (EST)
:I woulda thought that Hasbro would have to give their approval for anything Paramount did with the Transformers. Sure, the Bendy-Bus Prime news items don't mention Hasbro, but I'd be surprised if the idea wasn't passed by Hasbro beforehand. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 02:04, 18 December 2010 (EST)

::I suspect that over the years a lot has been done by licensees without having every single addition to the mythos specifically rubber stamped in advance. However Paramount are a fairly experienced company when it comes to intellectual property and it's doubtful they'd do this sort of thing without at least having a licence. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 07:59, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:::But what does the licence cover? Hasbro's intellectual property for sure. But it seems like Paramount would be free to go about promoting its ''Transformers'' movies without it necessarily falling under license, which may or may not involve a promotion in England involving an original character named "Bendy-Bus Prime." Who knows. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:24, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::We generally tend to assume that the license carries with it tacit Hasbro approval, and thus chronicle these things anyway. At worst, it's a microcontinuity.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 02:11, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== Licensed but non-canon? ==

Does anything fall into the category of non-canon TF fiction, despite being officially licensed? i seem to recall that Hasbro allowed IDW (or was it Fun Publications) to print Mosaics, although only considering select Mosaics to be canon? Also, the use of footage from the G1 cartoon in the Animated cartoon comes to mind--didn't Hasbro say that was just an Easter egg, and not canon? Then there's Robo-Capers, Grim Grams and other letters pages...
[[Special:Contributions/70.17.200.179|70.17.200.179]] 01:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== retcon, microcontinuity, or personal canon? ==

IDW's graphic novelization of the 1986 G1 movie added/"clarified"/"corrected" some details--off the top of my head, 1) the battle at the Ark including Omega Supreme and some of the Scramble City combiners, 2) who Unicron reformatted into whom, and 3) a pair of Constructicons instead of one Constructicon and one Insecticon menacing the Human germ on the Planet of Junk.

Is the graphic novel a retcon of the movie, or a microcontinuity closely related to the movie? or is that a question only personal canon can answer?

[[Special:Contributions/70.17.200.179|70.17.200.179]] 01:22, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Canon

2011-09-21T05:15:04Z

70.17.200.179: /* Licensed but non-canon? */ new section