|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 27, 2009 11:24:51 GMT -5
I absolutely do not view Spike: Asylum as canon. As per your own rules, it's only Joss who makes it canon by referencing it. That was Lynch who included the lines and characters from his own previous works. And frankly, I think Lynch would have been better served developing Lorne, Wes or Nina's character arcs than bringing in Betta George (who got more to do than the true AtS characters that were in NFA). Joss said he liked Lynch's work on Asylum and Shadow Puppets, so I view it as equivalent to a scene that hit the editing floor form the TV show. Kinda like Amy Acker's audition for Fred where Gunn and Wes are acting all Shakespearian and in love with her. It's compliments canon, but it is not canon. My understanding is that AtF, and everything in it, is full-fledged canon, fully approved by Joss. He had full veto power over the script, I believe, and if he didn't want to confer canonicity on Betta George or the Asylum references, he should have cut them. You could make a valid argument that the only things that are strictly canon are that Betta George exists, he knows Spike from the past, and he knows some odd people at a place called the Mosaic Wellness Center. If that's as far as you feel comfortable going, then that's justified under the letter of "Canon Law" IMO. Aside from "easter eggs" and obvious visual jokes (like Doctor Who in NFFY), anything on the page of season 8 or AtF is fully canonical, according to my understanding of Joss's intentions. Including the stuff I wish wasn't! (Speaking of which, I love your sig image.)
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Feb 27, 2009 12:02:55 GMT -5
IDW seems to be taking the stance that canon doesn't matter. And I think they're doing this because they don't have the authority to establish canon here. So they diminish canon in order to maintain the importance of the comics they're producing (AtF is the only canon comic established). Or maybe, just putting it out there, they really think canon doesn't matter. Way before "Aftermath" was even a thought, Brian was saying it doesn't matter to him. A common question he asked was, "Wouldn't you rather a good book than a canon book?" One of the most perplexing things to me is that there are actually a huge amount of people that said "no." Oh fandom. We're getting nothing else, Angel-wise, so I hope we can enjoy the book despite obviously conflicting views on the canonical status.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 27, 2009 12:18:18 GMT -5
IDW knows that a book that's canon sells 2-3 times more copies than one that isn't. Therefore, it's in their best interests to keep up the perception that all their Angel books now are canon. I'm sure that's why they're keeping the numbering sequence from AtF going beyond #17 -- to create the impression it's a continuation of the same canonical story.
That's why you probably won't ever get a straight answer on "is this canon?" from IDW or any of the writers or artists on the books. They can't say yes, and they won't say no.
|
|
jellymoff
Ensouled Vampire
Claimer of Funn[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by jellymoff on Feb 27, 2009 12:50:24 GMT -5
IDW knows that a book that's canon sells 2-3 times more copies than one that isn't. Therefore, it's in their best interests to keep up the perception that all their Angel books now are canon. I'm sure that's why they're keeping the numbering sequence from AtF going beyond #17 -- to create the impression it's a continuation of the same canonical story. That's why you probably won't ever get a straight answer on "is this canon?" from IDW or any of the writers or artists on the books. They can't say yes, and they won't say no. This is a really good point. It's not good business sense. Can you image them putting out a press release saying: "Attention Angel fans. These stories are not canon, and any events that occur in these comics don't really matter. If you care at all about continuity, don't buy these. Enjoy!"
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 12:54:58 GMT -5
Regarding Aftermath and the IDW stories in general, one of the key characteristics of BUFFY/ANGEL canon to me is the long-term goal. At IDW, it feels like stories are being thrown together, main characters are weaving in and out, the writers of the series aren't working closely together. There is no unified long-term vision. Season 8 has Joss holding it all together and working with his writers. This is not true for IDW's Angel titles and I find it problematic and a bit upsetting. This lacks the collaborative dynamic of the writer's room back for the TV shows where ideas were tossed back and forth. With one writer, their misconceptions about themes and characterization can sink the story because they have a single blind spot or aren't aware of certain subtleties of the story. This weakens it for me (majority of reviews I've read says Kate seems like a pod-person in Aftermath, closer to a twin sister who looks like Kate but certainly doesn't act like her). IDW seems to be taking the stance that canon doesn't matter. And I think they're doing this because they don't have the authority to establish canon here. So they diminish canon in order to maintain the importance of the comics they're producing (AtF is the only canon comic established). This doesn't mean the comics aren't good stories. I just don't view anything besides AtF as canon. Aftermath is currently in limbo for me waiting for authority to confirm it. It may forever stay in limbo - still doesn't make it canon imo. Totally agree with this. I don't like to downright exclude stories, especially those I like (which is why I like the Holocron concept), but I'm a canon purist at heart and Aftermath doesn't cut it. Currently, AtF is the only real canon comic from IDW. Or maybe, just putting it out there, they really think canon doesn't matter. Way before "Aftermath" was even a thought, Brian was saying it doesn't matter to him. A common question he asked was, "Wouldn't you rather a good book than a canon book?" One of the most perplexing things to me is that there are actually a huge amount of people that said "no." Oh fandom. We're getting nothing else, Angel-wise, so I hope we can enjoy the book despite obviously conflicting views on the canonical status. Obviously quality is crucial but canon is important too. If all we're getting is conflicting mini-series that don't tie together into a coherent whole, the integrity of the universe begins to unravel and it becomes hard to care about anything. At the end of the day, canon stories matter more than non-canon stories. IDW knows that a book that's canon sells 2-3 times more copies than one that isn't. Therefore, it's in their best interests to keep up the perception that all their Angel books now are canon. I'm sure that's why they're keeping the numbering sequence from AtF going beyond #17 -- to create the impression it's a continuation of the same canonical story. That's why you probably won't ever get a straight answer on "is this canon?" from IDW or any of the writers or artists on the books. They can't say yes, and they won't say no. Agreed. I don't like that Aftermath continues the numbering, it feels like a cheap manipulative marketing ploy. I'm a big Terminator fan, and like T3 a lot tbh. It did no more damage to the story than T2 did in my opinion. It diluted the series with it's pointlessness. Whereas T2 elaborated beautifully on the universe established in the first movie, T3 just kind of copied the formula without adding to it. John was a pitiful protagonist compared to Sarah or even his ten-year-old self, and Arnie had completely outstayed his welcome. The whole film was just going through the motions. In light of SCC and T4, I don't mind T3 so much anymore. But at the time, when you had two perfect movies and one mediocre one, it stuck out like sore thumb.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Feb 27, 2009 13:13:41 GMT -5
My understanding is that AtF, and everything in it, is full-fledged canon, fully approved by Joss. He had full veto power over the script, I believe, and if he didn't want to confer canonicity on Betta George or the Asylum references, he should have cut them. You could make a valid argument that the only things that are strictly canon are that Betta George exists, he knows Spike from the past, and he knows some odd people at a place called the Mosaic Wellness Center. If that's as far as you feel comfortable going, then that's justified under the letter of "Canon Law" IMO. From what I've understood, Joss worked with Lynch to outline the piece from beginning to end. But outlines don't include every single story development. For instance, I get the feeling that Spike: AtF wasn't a planned part of the story. And I frankly view Spike's story in First Night merely as a trailer for that off-shoot series. Just because characters are referenced in canon works doesn't mean those past works exist within canon. Merrick is referenced in Becoming but that doesn't make the BtVS movie canon with the show. The characters now exist in canon, but these previous works aren't canon. And that's okay. They were never meant to be canon, just a great story. Aside from "easter eggs" and obvious visual jokes (like Doctor Who in NFFY), anything on the page of season 8 or AtF is fully canonical, according to my understanding of Joss's intentions. Including the stuff I wish wasn't! Heh. I know what you mean. I wish the Tree Demon in AtS' Couplet wasn't canon, but it is. But there's the thing again - Joss doing the comic makes it canon. Frankly, even Joss saying it's canon doesn't convince many people. But he's the only one, only, who holds that authority. Even David Fury who worked on both shows says he didn't view the comics as the same canon as the shows then backtracked to say the equivalent of it's Joss' world - his rules apply. The entire concept of canon Buffyverse comics was created by Joss in the same way that he created the 'verse. If Joss hadn't come around and said "this is the official story" then the phrase "canon Buffy comic" would not exist. "Canon comics" are established by Joss. People still disagree with that, but most accept that it's coming from Whedon (who is THE authority on the story) and so it's born from the same place the TV shows were born. You might not like it. You can live in denial about it or ignore it. But it's similar to fans who stopped watching the show after the high school years or when Buffy moved to UPN and went thematically darker. (Speaking of which, I love your sig image.) Thank you! IDW knows that a book that's canon sells 2-3 times more copies than one that isn't. Therefore, it's in their best interests to keep up the perception that all their Angel books now are canon. I'm sure that's why they're keeping the numbering sequence from AtF going beyond #17 -- to create the impression it's a continuation of the same canonical story. That's why you probably won't ever get a straight answer on "is this canon?" from IDW or any of the writers or artists on the books. They can't say yes, and they won't say no. Excellent analysis of the situation. I fully agree. You expressed my own thoughts here. *karmas* I especially like the way you boiled it down to "they can't say yes, and they won't say no."
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 14:16:02 GMT -5
I wish the Tree Demon in AtS' Couplet wasn't canon, but it is. Lol, what's with this irrational prejudice against tree people, Emmie? Did you have a bad experience with one as a child or something? So do you consider Spike: After the Fall canon? I ask because I know it's one of your favourite stories. It's closely interlinked with the Angel title, but Joss' name isn't on the cover...
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Feb 27, 2009 14:34:04 GMT -5
I wish the Tree Demon in AtS' Couplet wasn't canon, but it is. Lol, what's with this irrational prejudice against tree people, Emmie? Did you have a bad experience with one as a child or something? Lol! No I just think that episode was horrible. I really enjoyed the tree fawn creature in Pan's Labyrinth. And I liked the Ents in Lord of the Rings. They just have only ever been disappointments in the Buffyverse. So do you consider Spike: After the Fall canon? I ask because I know it's one of your favourite stories. It's closely interlinked with the Angel title, but Joss' name isn't on the cover... I think by grace of it sharing the same After the Fall title that it resides within my canon purview. If anything, I have to wonder if First Night wasn't an unintended addition because the story starts of 'in medias res' and then First Night comes along to completely undo that mystery. Many S8 fans are dying for Joss to just tell us the dealio, but we're left waiting there. In AtF, not so much. I recall Lynch saying he'd originally started developing the story to start up right when NFA ended and Joss turned that on its ear. Regarding the Gunn one-shot, I think it's necessary creation is an intriguing symptom of IDW's splintered Angelverse. That Armstrong wrote Gunn as immediately up and about when Lynch had written him to be in a coma. And so we get this oneshot coming after the fact to fix the inconsistency. It's almost like unintentionally utilizing in medias res.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 27, 2009 14:34:20 GMT -5
I'm currently working on an alphabetical index of canonical Buffyverse characters (and a parallel one of the actors who played them). I'm including:
1. All episodes of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series (but not including the 1992 movie, the unaired pilot, or the animated pilot);
2. All episodes of the Angel TV series (not including the unaired pilot);
3. The Buffy season 8 comics (and seasons 9+ when they come out, if Joss continues to run them);
4. The Angel: After the Fall comics (1-17)
5. The Spike: After the Fall miniseries
6. Fray
7. Tales of the Slayers (the comics, not the prose anthologies)
8. Tales of the Vampires
9. The Origin (comic)
...and bits and pieces, like Faith and Kendra's last names that Joss invented for the Buffy RPG.
So that's what I'm counting as undisputed canon right now. Am I missing anything?
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 15:05:56 GMT -5
Lol, what's with this irrational prejudice against tree people, Emmie? Did you have a bad experience with one as a child or something? Lol! No I just think that episode was horrible. I really enjoyed the tree fawn creature in Pan's Labyrinth. And I liked the Ents in Lord of the Rings. They just have only ever been disappointments in the Buffyverse. Don't remember having a problem with "Couplet". That's the one where Cordy makes Groo all pretty and they comshuk for the first time, am I right? I recall it being mildly amusing. I liked the Forest of Cheem from Doctor Who. What the Buffyverse lacks in tree people, we make up for in cool fish people (George, Teeth, and especially Gunther... I love me some Gunther). Let's not count the Sunnydale High Swim Team. So do you consider Spike: After the Fall canon? I ask because I know it's one of your favourite stories. It's closely interlinked with the Angel title, but Joss' name isn't on the cover... I think by grace of it sharing the same After the Fall title that it resides within my canon purview. If anything, I have to wonder if First Night wasn't an unintended addition because the story starts of 'in media res' and then First Night comes along to completely undo that mystery. Many S8 fans are dying for Joss to just tell us the dealio, but we're left waiting there. In AtF, not so much. I recall Lynch saying he'd originally started developing the story to start up right when NFA ended and Joss turned that on its ear. Regarding the Gunn one-shot, I think it's necessary creation is an intriguing symptom of IDW's splintered Angelverse. That Armstrong wrote Gunn as immediately up and about when Lynch had written him to be in a coma. And so we get this oneshot. Yeah, I kind of rationalise Spike as canon due to it's AtF subtitle. The problem, Brian has said it's part of an overall " Spike trilogy" so I feel bad for counting it and not Asylum and Shadow Puppets. Those three titles and the ongoing series are all kind of the same series in my eyes, and I find myself considering them all canon even though I know they're technically not. You're right, the Gunn one-shot is a product of crappy organisation. Still looking forward to it though. I'm currently working on an alphabetical index of canonical Buffyverse characters (and a parallel one of the actors who played them). I'm including: 1. All episodes of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series (but not including the 1992 movie, the unaired pilot, or the animated pilot); 2. All episodes of the Angel TV series (not including the unaired pilot); 3. The Buffy season 8 comics (and seasons 9+ when they come out, if Joss continues to run them); 4. The Angel: After the Fall comics (1-17) 5. The Spike: After the Fall miniseries 6. Fray 7. Tales of the Slayers (the comics, not the prose anthologies) 8. Tales of the Vampires 9. The Origin (comic) ...and bits and pieces, like Faith and Kendra's last names that Joss invented for the Buffy RPG. So that's what I'm counting as undisputed canon right now. Am I missing anything? My definitive canon list consists of: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Angel Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Origin Fray Tales of the Slayers Tales of the Vampires Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight Angel: After the FallThe above-mentioned Spike titles hover around the fringes.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Feb 27, 2009 15:13:16 GMT -5
Don't remember having a problem with "Couplet". That's the one where Cordy makes Groo all pretty and they comshuk for the first time, am I right? I recall it being mildly amusing. I liked the Forest of Cheem from Doctor Who. What the Buffyverse lacks in tree people, we make up for in cool fish people (George, Teeth, and especially Gunther... I love me some Gunther). Let's not count the Sunnydale High Swim Team. The episode makes me cringe, frankly. Haha! We do have some amazing fish people. Poor Bro'os. And I miss Cordragon. I hope that Groo adopts that style of referring to his Cordelia's as "Cordragon" and "Corsteed" or some such so they don't get confused. Yeah, I kind of rationalise Spike as canon due to it's AtF subtitle. The problem, Brian has said it's part of an overall " Spike trilogy" so I feel bad for counting it and not Asylum and Shadow Puppets. Those three titles and the ongoing series are all kind of the same series in my eyes, and I find myself considering them all canon even though I know they're technically not. You're right, the Gunn one-shot is a product of crappy organisation. Still looking forward to it though. The Gunn one-shot is actually what I'm most looking forward to. He was the most interesting character Lynch got to play with and he's in a fascinating place right now. I don't quite understand how Aftermath is set up - Kate instead of Nina (where did Nina go?), Gunn is off chilling with Illyria, Spike finally left (I understand this but personally feel meh about it). Did Armstrong choose to not use Gunn? Seems like a bizarre choice to me. And isn't it strange that the most promising story is only happening due to a production mishap? It seems like everything Lynch set up so beautifully (see, I do like some stuff he did) in #17 were dropped in Aftermath from what I've heard. Nina/Angel hasn't appeared yet and Gunn is only shown driving away. The only other thread that has been picked up was Angel/Connor (thankfully).
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Feb 27, 2009 15:32:19 GMT -5
The Gunn one-shot is actually what I'm most looking forward to. He was the most interesting character Lynch got to play with and he's in a fascinating place right now. I don't quite understand how Aftermath is set up - Kate instead of Nina (where did Nina go?), Gunn is off chilling with Illyria, Spike finally left (I understand this but personally feel meh about it). Did Armstrong choose to not use Gunn? Seems like a bizarre choice to me. And isn't it strange that the most promising story is only happening due to a production mishap? It seems like everything Lynch set up so beautifully (see, I do like some stuff he did) in #17 were dropped in Aftermath from what I've heard. Nina/Angel hasn't appeared yet and Gunn is only shown driving away. The only other thread that has been picked up was Angel/Connor (thankfully). I'm more excited about Spike tbh. That seems to have a clearer direction than the Angel series. Have you read Aftermath yet? I've been looking forward to hearing your thoughts. The lack of Nina doesn't bother me, I've never liked her. Maybe she'll show up with Gwen later on, them being "family" now and all. I think Armstrong was aiming for back to basics simplicity, so maybe she thought having Gunn there would complicate things? Who knows. I'm just not that invested in Aftermath so I don't really care what they do with it. Guess that says it all.
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Feb 27, 2009 15:46:23 GMT -5
I think I've said it before, but the Spike continuation has become infinitely more interesting to me in just a few weeks. I feel like Angel has wrapped up now. I'm happy to know he's back in business, he's returned to roots in many ways, and to be honest I don't need to see that pursued any longer. Spike has built solid foundations for a new series from ATF and it feels like there's a mission/destination in mind for this collection. It's also great because Spike has really become Lynch's "baby", and some of the ideas he's been pitching sound great already. That said, in relation to the canon discussion; "Spike - the series" in not going to be canon. It may eventually be read through by Whedon and even approved but it's 100% Lynch, just as the other Spike comics have been.
|
|
parabola
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 131
|
Post by parabola on Feb 27, 2009 16:13:25 GMT -5
I'm starting to take a Star Wars approach to Buffyverse canon. That franchise has what they call "the Holocron" (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon ), which is a hyierach of canon containing 5 levels. Here's my rough translation of the Holocron into Buffyverse terms (it might not be perfect, I'm not a Star Wars fan!): G-canon - Absolute canon, i.e. the two TV shows. T-canon - Comic books confirmed to be canon, like S8, AtF, Fray, Tales, etc. C-canon - Comic books/novels with unknown canonicity but fit into continuity. The Spike comics, Aftermath, Go Ask Malice, etc. S-canon - Comic books/novels which contradict or don't really fit into canon. Most of the old novels/comics would fall into this. N-canon - Totally non-canon. The Buffy movie and pilot, Queen of the Slayers, the old IDW Angel comics. I like the idea of there being various levels of canon. This is just my personal interpretation though, I'm not stating this as fact, so don't get all up in my face. It's also not quite the same as Star Wars either, because George Lucas actually oversees all SW expanded universe to an extent IIRC, whereas Joss doesn't really care. That's a pretty good mapping. Star Wars continuity is quite the beast. Lucas actually has very, very little interaction when it comes to most of the expanded universe. Within the Lucas empire there are editors and other staff who coordinate that kind of thing with the various publishers. There's been much debate as to Lucas' perception of the expanded universe and whether he regards it as 'true'. Without getting into all the history, I think nowadays it's apparent that while he's certainly willing to borrow things that have been established by others, he just does whatever he wants with them. e.g., he'll use a cool-looking alien from a comic book, but then ignore the characteristics of their home planet/culture when he uses it in the Clone Wars animated show (something he is pretty hands-on with). Luckily there's a whole subgroup of SW authors who take that lemon of a continuity problem and come up with clever ways to make it work, somehow. We're also fortunate that there was pretty much an embargo on publishing stories set in the Prequel era, knowing that Lucas would one day come back to that timepoint. Now that we've got the prequel trilogy, some of the gaps most interesting to fans back in the 80s & 90s are being filled in. The era after Return of the Jedi is very developed, and Lucas hasn't (and isn't likely) to venture there ... so less for him to muddle up. But anyway ... with Star Wars, canon is important to me because it's something that is actively managed and is *supposed* to work all together. Discrepancies really are errors/editorial failures and can be distracting to the nit-picky (*raises hand*). Buffy is a shift for me ... when I first got into the Dark Horse comics, and the occasional novel, it was with some trepidation. I knew they weren't necessarily canon. Like most other franchises, you really have to just take these publications as another piece of merchandise and enjoy them on their own. Now it's suddenly more interesting with S8 and AfF; when we start getting follow-up pieces without Joss' name attached (and this will be IDW's tough task to manage) the natural question for many will be whether these too should be considered canon. For many people, if it's a 'no' or even unclear, they just won't bother.
|
|
parabola
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 131
|
Post by parabola on Feb 27, 2009 16:18:27 GMT -5
IDW knows that a book that's canon sells 2-3 times more copies than one that isn't. Therefore, it's in their best interests to keep up the perception that all their Angel books now are canon. I'm sure that's why they're keeping the numbering sequence from AtF going beyond #17 -- to create the impression it's a continuation of the same canonical story. That's why you probably won't ever get a straight answer on "is this canon?" from IDW or any of the writers or artists on the books. They can't say yes, and they won't say no. QFT. If someone has After the Fall in their pull list at the local comic shop, you can bet the solicited Aftermath issues have been ordered for them!
|
|
|
Post by henzINNIT on Feb 27, 2009 16:26:43 GMT -5
It's absolutely IDW's right to continue their story and their numbering though. They're in an unusual position where they've got an official continuation to follow on from, with little to nothing for them to be contradicted by, and a creator that's wanting little to do with it. I'm a big Terminator fan, and like T3 a lot tbh. It did no more damage to the story than T2 did in my opinion. It diluted the series with it's pointlessness. Whereas T2 elaborated beautifully on the universe established in the first movie, T3 just kind of copied the formula without adding to it. John was a pitiful protagonist compared to Sarah or even his ten-year-old self, and Arnie had completely outstayed his welcome. The whole film was just going through the motions. In light of SCC and T4, I don't mind T3 so much anymore. But at the time, when you had two perfect movies and one mediocre one, it stuck out like sore thumb. www.slayaliveforums.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4879
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Feb 27, 2009 16:33:37 GMT -5
QFT. If someone has After the Fall in their pull list at the local comic shop, you can bet the solicited Aftermath issues have been ordered for them! Haha that's probably true for my comic book store. But I take that in the context of being uniformed. Whenever I go in there they ask *me* questions about the 'verse, not the other way around. I talk about the artists, the covers coming up, the continuation of the series, etc. So it's more based on a superficial assumption then on being informed about the canon situation of the Buffyverse. I think it's because there are so many titles coming out nowadays that they just don't follow it as rabidly as fans do. Plus we follow the news online and get news direct from the publishers. It's just too much info for a comic bookstore owner to manage for every single title.
|
|
parabola
Potential Slayer
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 131
|
Post by parabola on Feb 27, 2009 17:23:28 GMT -5
I think it's because there are so many titles coming out nowadays that they just don't follow it as rabidly as fans do. Plus we follow the news online and get news direct from the publishers. It's just too much info for a comic bookstore owner to manage for every single title. Oh yes, for sure! There are multiple Star Wars comics that have been called "Clone Wars" or similar ... they don't always know if it's something new, or a collection of something I already have. So a few mixups have happened at the store, but I don't fault them for it. I was thinking along the lines of the many fans who are new to comics and have just asked for S8 and AtF to be set aside for them. They'll probably continue to get Angel issues, and maybe not notice for a while that Joss isn't in the credits the same way as before. I can certainly understand IDW's strategy here; you have to use whatever advantages you can in this tough industry. Hopefully there aren't too many people who feel deceived into buying a questionably (for now) canon series because they think it's an official continuation of the definitely canon one.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Feb 27, 2009 19:38:00 GMT -5
Canon or not, I'm happy to leave it on my pull list until such time as it starts sucking, which I feel reasonably confident it won't do in the near future. If #18 is the most awkward issue we get, things will be OK. Besides, I want to be up to speed if Joss casually says, "oh, yeah, those are canon" someday.
|
|
patxshand
Ensouled Vampire
Writer/director/Amy Acker's husband.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by patxshand on Feb 27, 2009 20:12:43 GMT -5
Quick question. If the upcoming "Tales of the Vampire" one-shot doesn't have Joss's name on it and doesn't bear the Season Eight lable, are you going to consider it to be canonical?
|
|