"Best of Megatron" compilation

[Sparky Prime]

Either way, I try to avoid fanon. Official is official is usually not open to debate. If the official content is not good enough for me, why would I stick around and do the writer's job for them?

138 Scourge touched on this, but I wanted to add my 2 cents: Like he said there is a difference between something being official and officially endorsed (or otherwise being counted as part of the official canon). Taking Star Trek as an example, Paramount once stated on the official Trek website that they consider "as a rule of thumb" to only count the live action series and movies as canon, which means they discount the animated series, comic books, various novels and video games even though these are also official. All that means by being 'official' is that they are approved by the license-holder of the franchise, not that they "count". And it has been debated whether or not some of those should or shouldn't be canon (in-particular the animated series has gone back and forth over the years). Transformers I see in much the same way, with some things being counted (the cartoons/movies) over others (convention comics, tech specs).

[Onslaught Six]

Ok, so then what do you do if it doesn't suck, but it's still contradictory to other official content?

You fumble it in until it works in your head.

Soundwave, in the cartoon, is pretty much just Megatron's lackey. "Soundwave! Do this!" and he does it. There's never any talk of the backstabbing, spying intelligence officer of the tech specs--but then again, the cartoon never gives us much insight on Decepticon inner politics beyond "Starscream wants to be leader but is too much of a twat to actually overthrow Megatron." It's entirely possible Soundwave is doing these kinds of things behind the scenes, or even that he doesn't do it anymore but he totally used to on Cybertron, and that's why he's Megatron's trusted guy.

[Dominic]

I think the assumed reasoning is that Megatron knows Soundwave needs a patron, and Soundwave's antics ultimately help Megatron. (This is of course a post-hoc explanation.)


Okay, now to dump out the can of worms that Sparky opened.

With "Star Trek" or "Star Wars", the distinction between "official" and "more official" (canon) is easy to make. (I am not a fan of the term "canon", but that is another issue.) They have released official statements about their standard. And, the logic is pretty easy to understand.

Hasbro has never, (as far as I know), done this until recently. Counting the cartoons and movies as canon is hard to do, as they often contradict each other. This is compounded by the fact that the cartoon was sloppy even by the low standards of the genre and time it was made in. Even Hasbro's declared "Priime" canon has all manner of problems despite having very little content and being only about 3 months old.

Even putting aside my dislike of the "moving pictures and pretty lights with noise should canon" idea, the standard for TF is hard to determine.

I just look for official precedent in one official source or another, and give weight to the more recent source and/or the one that Hasbro is pushing. For example, one could argue that Cyclonus is either a loyal soldier (cartoon), a bumbling arse (UK comics), or some kind of faux-Chaos warrior (modern comics). But, I give much less consideration to the middle idea, as modern sources seem to waver between the other two.


Dom
-of course, contradictions in the foundation novel make even this loose standard hard to work from.

[Onslaught Six]

Yeah, whoever edited Exodus needs to be shot.

For that matter, whoever decided it should coincide with WfC. It's more like Hasbro was trying to make a new unified continuity, and simultaneously there happened to be this new video game origin story coming out, so they shoved it in without any regard for design coherency.

Or maybe that's the point? Maybe Hasbor's trying to get across that from now on, events will just kind of unfold with a currently-changing look to them. Prime has no explanation for looking different than he does in WfC, for example. He just does. This is the way the cartoon looks. In essence, it's like...

It's like the incongruity between the G1 toys, comics and cartoons! What's G1 Prime "really" look like? Does he look like the toy, with big holes in his forearms for his wheels to fit into in vehicle mode? Does he look like the cartoon? Does he look like the comic, with its assortment of blues in weird places? I'd think that everyone has their own personal "vision" of what Optimus Prime's details specifically look like--it's why 20th doesn't work for me, I picture Prime's head differently than that toy renders it. But does that make anything that bases their interpretation of Prime somehow...less valid?

It's not that Prime "looks different" in the Prime cartoon than he does in WfC! (I mean, obviously he would, as WfC is on Cybertron, so there'd be at least some changing of his design for his Earth robot mode.) It's that that's how Prime looks 'through the window to this universe.' Like how Robot Heroes is a window to a little chibified-G1verse. There's not *actually* a universe where everyone is chibi. It's just a window, a different interpretation of similar events.

Wow. This has opened up my mind. Suddenly I'm okay with it.

But this doesn't make stuff like retconning Sentinel and Zeta Prime together okay.

[Dominic]

For that matter, whoever decided it should coincide with WfC. It's more like Hasbro was trying to make a new unified continuity, and simultaneously there happened to be this new video game origin story coming out, so they shoved it in without any regard for design coherency.

Dammit, that book is self-contrary. That is nobody's fault but the editor and/or writer. "Jetfire was the only seeker who did not join the Decepticons. Later, Jetfire and the other loyalist Seekers arrived at Autobot HQ." (This is not even close to being as sarcastic as it sounds.)


Objectively speaking, 20th Prime is a more valid interpretation of the character than anything a fan would come up with. Hasbro designed and released the toy as a representation of their character. The "Prime" cartoon and comic look fundamentally different from other iterations of TF, not unlike how B="Beast Machine" looked fundamentally different from "Beast Wars". This is the problem I have with displaying movie, TFA and "Generations" on the same shelf. They do not look right together.


I tend to think Hasbro initially planned to have a unified continuity. But, as time goes on, and the inherent difficulty of maintaining it becomes more apparent, they will back off and loosen up on that. They will likely drop any facade of coherency in the next few years.


Dom
-notes that TF is one of the only franchises where the tacit acceptance of a multiverse is seen as an invitation to self-indulgence by both fans and owners.

[Sparky Prime]

With "Star Trek" or "Star Wars", the distinction between "official" and "more official" (canon) is easy to make.

I'd very much disagree. As I already mentioned with Star Trek, there is debates over certain aspects. Going back to the animated series, though it's largely not considered canon by Paramount, they have reconsidered one episode, "Yesteryear", given information from that episode was used in a couple episodes of Enterprise. So if one animated episode is now canon, what does that mean for the rest of those episodes?
As for Star Wars, at one point George Lucas claimed he considered the 'expanded universe' "new stories to the Saga", essentially claiming everything as canon. But in more recent years he has changed his mind saying that the movies are his universe with everything else created by others as their own separate universe.

So again, what's considered canon isn't necessarily constant. It can and sometimes does change over time.

Counting the cartoons and movies as canon is hard to do, as they often contradict each other. This is compounded by the fact that the cartoon was sloppy even by the low standards of the genre and time it was made in. Even Hasbro's declared "Priime" canon has all manner of problems despite having very little content and being only about 3 months old.

Transformers is a bit unique in that Hasbro treats it all as being a multi-verse rather than distinctly making one thing canon over another. But still, they do sometimes appear favor one over another. In Beast Wars for example, it's clear the Cartoon was treated as "more official" than the tech specs given they later adapted the tech specs to suit the story of the cartoon rather than continue the modern day Earth setting the first wave of toys tech specs presented.

[Dominic]

AAAAnnnnnd, this is why I dislike the term "canon". It is not that is sounds snitty and pretentious. (Remember, I was an English major and have bad associations on that front.) It is not that it arguably makes people take it as an invitation to invoke religions.

(Well, those things do not help.) It is that "canon" implies more consistency than what we have here. Canon does in fact change over time, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes out of capriciousness. And, sometimes, it changes due do sloppiness.

In the case of 'Trek, it is pretty unambiguous. Paramount made the call that an episode of the cartoon counted, largely after a writer (likely) made a teensy booboo on the subject. That one episode is "canon". (Dammit, I hate that word.) The rest of the animated 'Trek series is not.

Lucas is so damned capricious about what is official, he edits and revises movies after they have been released. Regardless of which iteration of the movie one prefers, the changes are still capricious. (What is the official line from him this week anyway?)

Use/misuse/abuse of the multiverse concept will not cover for sloppy editing. Even if Hasbro calls the multiverse canon, it is still difficult to account for mistakes internal to a series, (the Constructicon origins in G1), or on the page of a novel, ("Exodus"). Of course, the Fan-wank Club wrote in a canonical excuse for sloppy writing and editing in their first story arc. But, objectively, that post-hoc excuse for everything is one of the clumsiest "fixes" since hyper-time in 90s DC.

Dom
-damned right movei Sideways is getting tossed.

[Sparky Prime]

AAAAnnnnnd, this is why I dislike the term "canon". It is not that is sounds snitty and pretentious. (Remember, I was an English major and have bad associations on that front.) It is not that it arguably makes people take it as an invitation to invoke religions.

(Well, those things do not help.) It is that "canon" implies more consistency than what we have here. Canon does in fact change over time, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes out of capriciousness. And, sometimes, it changes due do sloppiness.

I was an English major myself and while I can understand your dislike for the term I really can't agree that it implies consistency. The term originates from the Greek word Kanon, which means "a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure." So if we're talking about essentially a measuring stick here, certainly what we are measuring can be subject to some change.

In the case of 'Trek, it is pretty unambiguous. Paramount made the call that an episode of the cartoon counted, largely after a writer (likely) made a teensy booboo on the subject. That one episode is "canon". (Dammit, I hate that word.) The rest of the animated 'Trek series is not.

Again, I wouldn't say Trek canon is that clear cut just because Paramount made a statement on it. Like I said before, some things have changed over the years. I've seen some fans even argue what's canon based on comments Gene Roddenberry made on the subject. Heck, I've even seen some fans who say they only accept what was made while Roddenberry was alive as their canon.

And it was no "teensy booboo" from writers. After some more research, I've found "Yesteryear" actually established several things later referenced and even shown in various live episodes action episodes and movies. Spock being bullied as a child by other Vulcan children for example, which was also shown in the 2009 "Star Trek" film. Or the Vulcan Forge, introduced in that animated episode, later referenced in an episode of DS9 and even visited in Enterprise.

(What is the official line from him this week anyway?)

Funny you say that... When I was looking up what his position on the matter was I was rather surprised to find Lucas has made so many comments about the Star Wars canon.

[andersonh1]

Again, I wouldn't say Trek canon is that clear cut just because Paramount made a statement on it. Like I said before, some things have changed over the years. I've seen some fans even argue what's canon based on comments Gene Roddenberry made on the subject. Heck, I've even seen some fans who say they only accept what was made while Roddenberry was alive as their canon.

That always irritates me. By definition"Canon" (which technically is a term with religious connotations) is established by a governing authority. In the case of a body of fiction, that authority would have to be the owner of the property. In the case of Star Trek, Paramount owns the property, and thus they have the final say on what counts and what does not.

There is no such thing as "personal canon". The term "canon" is being misused when paired with "personal". The correct way to express it would personal preference. Fans are certainly free to pick and choose which episodes they like, but they have no say on what counts as official and what does not. And neither does Gene Roddenberry. He would have struck not only the Animated series, but also large portions of Star Trek 5 and 6, as well as numerous episodes of the original series.

As an example, I'd love to say that the Doctor Who episode "Love and Monsters" doesn't count, because I despise it. I think it's the worst episode of Who ever made. But I don't have any say in the matter. I may not like that, but the fact is that I don't own the fiction, and I am in no position to say what counts and what doesn't. That's just a fact.

And it was no "teensy booboo" from writers. After some more research, I've found "Yesteryear" actually established several things later referenced and even shown in various live episodes action episodes and movies. Spock being bullied as a child by other Vulcan children for example, which was also shown in the 2009 "Star Trek" film. Or the Vulcan Forge, introduced in that animated episode, later referenced in an episode of DS9 and even visited in Enterprise.

This is a case of writers adopting story elements from the animated series into the live action Treks. It doesn't necessarily mean that the episodes that the events came from are officially recognized.

I've found "Yesteryear" actually established several things later referenced and even shown in various live episodes action episodes and movies. Spock being bullied as a child by other Vulcan children for example, which was also shown in the 2009 "Star Trek" film.

It was also mentioned by Amanda in "Journey to Babel", which pre-dated the animated series.

[Dominic]

I was an English major myself and while I can understand your dislike for the term
I really can't agree that it implies consistency. The term originates from the Greek word
Kanon, which means "a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick;
something serving to determine, rule, or measure."
So if we're talking about essentially a measuring stick here,
certainly what we are measuring can be subject to some change.

The subject matter, (the thing be measured), may change. But, the units and scale of
measurement are going to be pretty consistent. People grow and shrink as they age.
But, the units of measurement, (inches, feet, centimeters, meters), are more or
less the same.

Establishing a consistent degree of canon with something like TF is hard because
rules for measuring it tend to be applied inconsistently.

Again, I wouldn't say Trek canon is that clear cut just because Paramount made
a statement on it. Like I said before, some things have changed over the years.
I've seen some fans even argue what's canon based on comments Gene Roddenberry made
on the subject. Heck, I've even seen some fans who say they only accept what was made
while Roddenberry was alive as their canon.

Paramount owns "Star Trek", which gives Paramount a pretty much unambiguous right to
say what is official and/or canonical.

The fans really do not have much of a say, nor should they.

Vulcan Forge

I oppose that phrase on principle. Oh, clever. Very clever of the writers,
making a pun like that. (sorry, I *really* tired. Just the thought of typing the word
"tuchus" is making me giggle like a loon.)

Funny you say that... When I was looking up what his position on the matter was
I was rather surprised to find Lucas has made so many comments about the Star Wars canon.

This is a good example of canon changing. Lucas's word is all it takes
to make something official into something canonical. (Still hate that damned
word.) What is and is not canonical is variable based on Lucas's whims.
But, the standard for being canonical, (what Lucas says), does not change.

This is a case of writers adopting story elements from the animated series into
the live action Treks. It doesn't necessarily mean that the episodes that the
events came from are officially recognized.

Good point. There is nothing to say that even the entire episode is canonical, merely
a plot point or two.

There is no such thing as "personal canon". The term "canon" is being misused when
paired with "personal". The correct way to express it would personal preference.
Fans are certainly free to pick and choose which episodes they like, but they
have no say on what counts as official and what does not.
And neither does Gene Roddenberry. He would have struck not only the Animated series,
but also large portions of Star Trek 5 and 6, as well as numerous episodes of the
original series.

I am consistently amazed at how many fans have trouble grasping that concept.
There are very few franchise where the fandom can meaningfully influene what is
official, let alone what is canonical.

"Personal canon" is a good short-hand for a loose standard that allows for
incomplete knowledge of a fanchise, honest misreadings, and the kinds of
mental acrobatics that O6 alluded to when it comes to reconciling outright
contrary elements in official sources. Author intent only carries so far,
especially when it is unclear or even non-existent. (Is there a canonical origin for
the Constructicons, even in the context of the G1 cartoon?)



Dom
-is getting uncomfortably comfortable with typing "canon". See that? Barely flinched.