Page 3 of 4

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:18 am
by Michael
gregorynbaker wrote:Given the art and characterization, my solution is simply to read "Selene" as "Tessa". This would not be the first time a character was called by the wrong name in a canonical comic. This seems to solve most of the other problems. As for Osborn's interactions, Tony could have been too drunk to remember and Namor might not care (did he ever meet Harry?)
Good point. Namor hasn't met Harry, so he might not care. OTOH, he has no reason to lie either, and might blurt it out. You're right about Tony-he might have been too drunk to remember. But the problem is that there's no way Osborn could have KNOWN that Tony would get too drunk to remember, and thus his attending the party makes no sense.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:10 pm
by JephYork
Given the art and characterization, my solution is simply to read "Selene" as "Tessa".
Tessa, at this point, wasn't actively displaying telepathy.

-Jeph!

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:13 pm
by Michael
jephyork wrote:
Given the art and characterization, my solution is simply to read "Selene" as "Tessa".
Tessa, at this point, wasn't actively displaying telepathy.

-Jeph!
She defeated Psylocke by turning her telepathic attack against her and forced to her knees in Xtreme X-Men 3 in a flashback that takes place shortly after the Dark Phoenix Saga. That read like telepathy to me.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:32 pm
by JephYork
Yes, Tessa has been retconned into having always had telepathy -- I wasn't trying to say that she didn't HAVE the power back then.

I'm saying, AFAIK she never let her bosses in on that fact. Hence, "active display". Were Shaw and Emma present in the XX 3 flashback?

-Jeph!

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:33 pm
by Michael
jephyork wrote:Yes, Tessa has been retconned into having always had telepathy -- I wasn't trying to say that she didn't HAVE the power back then.

I'm saying, AFAIK she never let her bosses in on that fact. Hence, "active display". Were Shaw and Emma present in the XX 3 flashback?

-Jeph!
Sorry, I misunderstood. No, they were not present. However, Tessa could have erased Shaw's and Emma' s memories of her telepathy.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:54 pm
by JephYork
Shaw maybe. Emma? Probably not. In a Battle Of The Telepaths I'd give Emma the edge there.

Obviously this book is, chronologically, horribly flawed. No matter where we put it we'll have to fudge a lot of details. That said, I maintain that the 1983-1985 gap is the best place for this book ... as I pointed out, it's the only place where all the characters in the issue are actually present, accounted for, and more-or-less in their correct roles. Also, it's the only slot where Shaw actually has the motivation ascribed to him in the issue -- "trying to find a White King".

-Jeph!

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:30 pm
by Somebody
jephyork wrote:Obviously this book is, chronologically, horribly flawed. No matter where we put it we'll have to fudge a lot of details. That said, I maintain that the 1983-1985 gap is the best place for this book ...
And I maintain that the best place for the FB isn't in the MCP. We've got several precedents of including the framing sequence of a book and leaving a subjective FB out as faulty memory (Hulk: Grey and Spider-Man: Blue). We've even got precedents of leaving a book which is subsequently referenced by other issues out entirely and treating the references as the first time we've heard of it (MU: The End, DD: Man Without Fear). The chronology is horribly, terribly, monumentally flawed - and is presented as the result of a mindwipe being undone (with the undoing BEFORE the point you want to place it) in a character who's been comatose no fewer than four times.

If Namor & Emma mention it later, fine. If they FB to a point in the story that doesn't raise the same continuity concerns, place the FB as new. But leave UX@2 2-FB out.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:07 pm
by Jason Doty
We are ignoring other continuity clues based on Selene's appearance. The use of Sentinels, Donald Pierce, Emma's lack of skill, Shaw's just taking leadership. These flashbacks ring true of the UX 99 era. I'm pretty sure they work for everbody but Osbourne and Selene. Lets just pretend Selene got mindwiped and sent to Nova Rome in an unknown scene, unless something in the future contradicts this. Osbourne is here right before he hides out in Europe. This isn't the 1983-1985 era and rulling part of a comic non-canon isn't exceptable either. Does that cover everybody, charecter's, plot, ect. or am I missing something.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:02 pm
by Michael
Jason Doty wrote:We are ignoring other continuity clues based on Selene's appearance. The use of Sentinels, Donald Pierce, Emma's lack of skill, Shaw's just taking leadership. These flashbacks ring true of the UX 99 era. I'm pretty sure they work for everbody but Osbourne and Selene. Lets just pretend Selene got mindwiped and sent to Nova Rome in an unknown scene, unless something in the future contradicts this. Osbourne is here right before he hides out in Europe. This isn't the 1983-1985 era and rulling part of a comic non-canon isn't exceptable either. Does that cover everybody, charecter's, plot, ect. or am I missing something.
I'm not sure the Sentinels fit 100%. Shaw first proposed Sentinels to Kelly in Uncanny X-Men#135, although I suppose you could say these were prototypes Shaw planned to show Kelly.
If you say that Selene got mindwiped, then who mindwiped her? It couldn't have been Shaw.Shaw's thought balloons in Selene's early appearances don't make sense if he knew her beforehand. Besides, why go through all the trouble of tricking Firestar into killing her if he could have just mindwiped her again?
OTOH, maybe it WAS a different Selene. I once worked for a construction company that employed two project managers with the same first name and last name. So maybe Shaw and Emma knew a telepath named Selene and later met a sorceress named Selene.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:13 pm
by JephYork
Jason Doty wrote:We are ignoring other continuity clues based on Selene's appearance.
Yes.
Jason Doty wrote:Lets just pretend Selene got mindwiped and sent to Nova Rome in an unknown scene, unless something in the future contradicts this.
No.

;)

-Jeph!

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:34 am
by dimadick
Michael wrote:I'm not sure the Sentinels fit 100%. Shaw first proposed Sentinels to Kelly in Uncanny X-Men#135, although I suppose you could say these were prototypes Shaw planned to show Kelly.
The Sentinel production of Project: Armageddon was already funded by the Hellfire Club and Shaw. This Project and its Sentinels appeared in "X-Men" vol. 1 #96-100 (December, 1975 - August, 1976) and "Classic X-Men" #7 (March, 1987). The proposition in #135 (July, 1980) leads to Project Wideawake. These new Sentinels were created by Shaw Industries with United States government funding. The Project was approved by a Senate committee headed by Kelly and the President of the United States in #142 (February, 1981). The government's representative in this project was Henry Peter Gyrich. The first few Sentinels to come of this project were seen in action in #151 (November, 1981). The same issue makes it obvious Frost is familiar with Shaw's "precious toys".

If our flashback is placed between 1975 and 1980 we can assume the Sentinels were remnants of Armageddon. If the flashback is placed between 1980 and 1981 we can assume they are prototypes for Wideawake. If placed after 1981 we can assume them to be typical Wideawake products and have to pretend Frost being ignorant of them was an error.

.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:14 pm
by templedog1972
This whole thread makes me doubt whether or not Marvel has anyone overseeing continuity for their stories. When comic writers just ignore character facts that have already been established it annoys me greatly. :x Apparently this stories writer had no idea of the characters' histories or chose to ignore them entirely.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:42 pm
by Nathan P. Mahney
It seems to me that placing this around the time of Uncanny #100 is the best way to go. I wouldn't take the option of saying that this is an all-new Selene, though. The other two options are better: either this is Selene on a previously unknown trip outside of Nova Roma, or it's actually Tessa.

Personally, I'm more inclined to go the latter option. That Tessa wasn't yet displaying telepathy is a much smaller detail of her character than Selene's centuries-long stay in Nova Roma.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:47 pm
by Michael
On bendisboard, Fraction admitted that it was a mistake. Selene WAS supposed to be Tessa. See the following link:
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/s ... tcount=652
Fraction claims that it will be corrected in the trade. So I guess we should just treat it like occurs shortly after Uncanny#100 and treat Selene as Tessa. You'd think that editors would be more careful about these things.

Re: Uncanny X-Men Annual #2

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:54 pm
by JephYork
Well, he says that he HOPES it'll be corrected for the trade.

Still. Good find. Thanks!

-Jeph