Talk:The Big Broadcast of 2006 (issue) - Revision history

Abates: /* US continuity "errors" */

2012-06-02T05:19:58Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:19, 2 June 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''		'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''

	'''[[Slingshot (G1)\|Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Generation 2 (Marvel ~~comic~~)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''		'''[[Slingshot (G1)\|Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Transformers: Generation 2 (Marvel)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''
	* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.		* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.

Geewunling at 19:57, 1 August 2011

2011-08-01T19:57:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 1 August 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''		'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''

	'''[[Slingshot (G1)\|Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Generation 2 (Marvel ~~Comics~~)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''		'''[[Slingshot (G1)\|Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Generation 2 (Marvel comic)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''
	* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.		* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.

Geewunling at 07:01, 6 July 2011

2011-07-06T07:01:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:01, 6 July 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''		'''Rodimus Prime mentions a past battle between him and Galvatron inside [[Unicron]]. This event is... highly unlikely in the mainline comic continuity, especially if this Rodimus Prime is a [[Matrix of Leadership\|Matrix]]-enhanced Hot Rod.'''

	'''[[Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Generation 2 (Marvel Comics)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''		'''[[Slingshot (G1)\|Slingshot]] was consumed by [[Swarm (G2)\|Swarm]] in the [[Generation 2 (Marvel Comics)\|Generation 2]] [[A Rage in Heaven!]] (which happened chronologically before this issue).'''
	* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.		* Here, you were trying to reverse engineer continuity errors, because #43 doesn't fit with stories that happened years after it. If anything, the later stories would be the "errors" because they contradict Big Broadcast.

Starfield: /* Which continuity is it again? */

2009-09-22T05:08:08Z

Which continuity is it again?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 22 September 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:
	:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::Thanks for looking that up. That makes sense. In issue #53 they probably didn't know how the Unicron thing would work out so they didn't know if the Adaptation would be in continuity and they were reserving the right to take a different path. Or just trying not to spoil the surprise. The common sense approach is take the Movie to be the backstory to #43 which it obviously was when it was written. This would knock #43 out of continuity as well. I was ripping #43 out of real-world context with an indeterminate backstory to see how it fit as a one issue window into the events of 2006. By itself it doesn't explicitly clash with much. There is just a lot of empty backstory. I think that is more fun than dismissing it as a cartoon episode adaptation that (to be honest) is what it actually is. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 01:08, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* Which continuity is it again? */

2009-09-22T03:57:26Z

Which continuity is it again?

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 22 September 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:
	I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* US continuity "errors" */

2009-09-22T03:47:53Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 22 September 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

			==Which continuity is it again?==

	All right, I wasn't 100% on-base, though I wasn't 100% off-base either. In the letter page for #53, readers are asking about both the movie adaptation and the Big Broadcast of 2006 adaptation. A writer posits that they took place in an alternate universe. Don Daley allows that that might be happening, but teases that we'll need to wait till 2005 to know for sure. They also acknowledge that adapting a tv script was not popular, partially because of continuity headaches, and promise not to do it again.		All right, I wasn't 100% on-base, though I wasn't 100% off-base either. In the letter page for #53, readers are asking about both the movie adaptation and the Big Broadcast of 2006 adaptation. A writer posits that they took place in an alternate universe. Don Daley allows that that might be happening, but teases that we'll need to wait till 2005 to know for sure. They also acknowledge that adapting a tv script was not popular, partially because of continuity headaches, and promise not to do it again.

	I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* US continuity "errors" */

2009-09-22T03:30:06Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:30, 22 September 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

			All right, I wasn't 100% on-base, though I wasn't 100% off-base either. In the letter page for #53, readers are asking about both the movie adaptation and the Big Broadcast of 2006 adaptation. A writer posits that they took place in an alternate universe. Don Daley allows that that might be happening, but teases that we'll need to wait till 2005 to know for sure. They also acknowledge that adapting a tv script was not popular, partially because of continuity headaches, and promise not to do it again.

			I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* US continuity "errors" */

2009-09-22T01:49:12Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 22 September 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:
	::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Starfield: /* US continuity "errors" */

2009-09-22T00:55:15Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 22 September 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* US continuity "errors" */

2009-09-21T22:54:19Z

US continuity "errors"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 21 September 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::::The fact that it is set in the future makes it by definition not in the mainstream (i.e. present) Marvel continuity. Any future would pretty much be an alternate future.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 17:27, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::The fact that it is set in the future makes it by definition not in the mainstream (i.e. present) Marvel continuity. Any future would pretty much be an alternate future.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 17:27, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 22 September 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:
	:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::Thanks for looking that up. That makes sense. In issue #53 they probably didn't know how the Unicron thing would work out so they didn't know if the Adaptation would be in continuity and they were reserving the right to take a different path. Or just trying not to spoil the surprise. The common sense approach is take the Movie to be the backstory to #43 which it obviously was when it was written. This would knock #43 out of continuity as well. I was ripping #43 out of real-world context with an indeterminate backstory to see how it fit as a one issue window into the events of 2006. By itself it doesn't explicitly clash with much. There is just a lot of empty backstory. I think that is more fun than dismissing it as a cartoon episode adaptation that (to be honest) is what it actually is. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 01:08, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 22 September 2009
Line 32:		Line 32:
	I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		I don't want to read too much into the tea leaves here, but my take on this is that the editors are acknowledging that Broadcast (and the movie adaptation) MAY be in an alternate continuity. That means that we the wiki should probably make that our official position as well. These events may or may not be in continuity with the rest of the comics - who are we to judge? We note it and let the readers decide. Thoughts?--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:30, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:Just to add in another relevant piece of info from the letters pages, the letters for #63 specifically clarify that the cartoon and the comic are divergent continuities. "The closest in terms of a possible future is the movie, but even then it might not be what eventually happens." In the same answer, Simon writes "Issue #43 was the only episode that tied in directly with the cartoon series." Obviously there's the issue of how much we should listen to writer's intent, especially since Simon was answering the letters page by this point and he had nothing to do with #43, but I think it lends credence to the idea that #43 is out of step with the mainstream continuity. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:47, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::Up to issue #65. Here Simon states that because Unicron has shown his face in the present, the comic is NOT leading up to the movie. "2005 in the comic will be completely different." --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:57, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 22 September 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:
	::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::::::Are you looking at US letters? I didn't know those were available online. I'll check my originals tonight. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:49, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 22 September 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::I wanted to include a letters page citation in the article, but I couldn't find one. I scanned through a bunch of them, but I don't think the website I went to had them all. I did, however, learn that both the Transformers comic and Dreadwing are brill. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:55, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:54, 21 September 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::::The fact that it is set in the future makes it by definition not in the mainstream (i.e. present) Marvel continuity. Any future would pretty much be an alternate future.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 17:27, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		::::The fact that it is set in the future makes it by definition not in the mainstream (i.e. present) Marvel continuity. Any future would pretty much be an alternate future.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 17:27, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
	:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)		:::::What happened to change the future making these events "alternate"? I don't quite understand yet. Was it when Primus was woken up, or when Unicron brought Galvatron II into this reality or something? - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 17:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
			::::::Well, I suppose from an in-universe perspective, the moment time-travel was introduced (i.e. Rhythms of Darkness) the timeline would have started diverging. So I suppose one could, for personal canon, accept that #43 would have been the future of the universe until Unicron screwed that up by summoning Galvatron. From an out of universe perspective, it's that this was a filler issue that neither Budiansky nor Furman nor editors like Tokar had any intention of hewing to. They said as much on the letters page once people wrote in to complain. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 21 September 2009 (EDT)