Classic and new Christmas specials and longer videos. See what I add all year and see if one of your favorites is on the list.
We’re halfway through the production notes that led to the second draft of making a Saturday morning Transformers for CBS in the 1980s, after the same parties minus CBS already made a syndicated three episode miniseries for weekend airing. I still don’t get why, with everyone still there, they had to start from scratch. The work was already made. They had the backstory. They had the previous stories, meaning they had the cast and the history. I have my theories–infighting for various reasons, as I’ve stated–but it feels like a lot of work that could have gone into just making the stories, which they ended up doing with a syndicated series.
So far we’ve seen what went into the first draft, but now it’s time for Hasbro and for CBS to add their own notes. Sunbow and Marvel Productions weren’t doing this alone. The network has to deal with parent groups, hence some version of the Bureau Of Standards & Practices, and what they could and couldn’t get away with, as well as what marketing “genius” thought would sell the show to the kids versus whatever show it was put up against, or in some cases dump something into the slot that’s going against a juggernaut show and hope to get some of the stragglers who weren’t into that show. That’s usually the death knell for a show, especially in Prime Time but also in the SatAM slot. Plus they’re going up against sports, parents who make their kids play outside instead of watching TV (so the parents can watch TV), family parties, and other activities with the weekend off from work and school. Why make a tough battle worse?
Then there’s Hasbro. Their main goal is to sell toys to kids (or was back then–it’s up for debate now with the adult collector market and kids getting the shaft and blaming it on video games and tablets). Confusing kids isn’t a good idea, and they already paid Marvel a bunch of money to create lore, characters, and ideas that were all over the toys and other merchandise. The picture and coloring books were already telling the story of the Transformers (sorry, Rad) and what we saw in the first draft matched none of that. So we’re starting with Hasbro’s notes on what they didn’t like So what were Hasbro’s concerns?
Tell others about the Spotlight:
“I have this sudden kink in my neck!”
Mystery Men Comics #7
Fox Publications, Inc (February, 1940)
Well, thus far this comic hasn’t brought me down. This is back during the good years of rookie patrolman Dan Garret, and the other stories have at least been okay. After that “Supergirl” trailer I could use some good superheroing. So let’s see what we get this time.
Tell others about the Spotlight:
I was going to make a toy joke but research says this was an actual toyline in Argentina.
Warriors Of Tomorrow #1
(aka Guerreros del Manana)
UMC Ediciones (May, 2019, but I’m using Drive Thru Comics latest update at time of writing, April, 2023)
“The Expedition”
WRITER: Diego Mascaro
ARTIST: Guillermo Villarreal
COLORIST: Carolina Cesario
COVER ART: Axel Gimenez
COVER COLORIST: Francisco Etchart
no letterer credited
EDITORS: John Curcio & Luis Sanchez
Tell others about the Spotlight:
In articles and v-logs passed I’ve referred to the retcon (retroactive continuity) as the most dangerous weapon in a writer’s arsenal. Used correctly it can build upon a world and make characters and worldbuilding more interesting, or fix mistakes and plot holes that are capable of being filled. Used incorrectly and it destroys characters and ruins worldbuilding, causing mistakes and plot holes that can’t possibly be fixed without calling it a lie or a misremembering of events. Guess what we get more of these days, as retcons are used to recreate the world in the new writer’s vision rather than the original creators, or reflect their current worldviews since they don’t want to let go of a previous property that made them money. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, according to whatever AI Duckduckgo uses in their search engine defines retcon thusly:
- The depiction of fictional events, as in a television series or comic book, that entail a revision of the narrative presented in an earlier installment.
- A situation, in a soap opera or similar serial fiction, in which a new storyline explains or changes a previous event or attaches a new significance to it.
A good retcon builds on what came before. A bad retcon destroys what came before and not only ruins a character or past storyline from then on, but retroactively (hence the name) ruins the character when you go back to the older story. For example, when Marvel Comics turned every post WWII appearance of Dum Dum Dugan into a robot (life model decoy for the geeker fans–yes, I know what it is) and told us the original Nick Fury would blow up planets to keep them from banging into Earth (or was it whole multiverses?), it’s hard to go back and see those characters as originally intended ever again. It didn’t enhance them, it ruined them as part of the legend of the Marvel universe 616.
That brings us to this article from Screen Rant lead writer Lewis Glazebrook. “Star Wars Is Officially Retconning The Sequel Trilogy” makes the claim that…well, it’s in the title. The idea is that the Disney+ shows and upcoming films will alter the sequel trilogy by altering the previous two trilogies. I’m not sure how that works, but read the article for yourself, then come back here (the link opens another tab or window depending on your settings and device) and see if you agree with me that he might not be using the term “retcon” correctly.
BW Media Spotlight 