Excalibur Annual #1

Here's where you report issue analyses of any issue in any universe or timeline.

Moderators: Paul Bourcier, Kevin W., Col_Fury, Arthur, JephYork, Somebody

loki
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by loki » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:01 am

I've got to disagree. Putting the Annual between 67 and 68 requires explaining why Captain Britain was back in the timestream after coming home to participate in the annual, and contradicts all the references Marvel itself provided. Yes, shoving the Annual into a gap between pages of Excalibur #66 is inelegant but (a) it's the official placement, (b) it fits with all the evidence cited above, and (c) it is entirely feasible for there to be a gap there between the team returning to the manor and Rachel arguing with the team about going back to her own time. She tells them of her plan as they are returning to the manor, they disagree (and maybe ask her to take a few days to reconsider before rushing into going home alone), the situation simmers for a while, the debate is put aside while more pressing events are happening (Khaos), then flares back up when Rachel makes it clear she still intends to go.

Jason Doty
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 5328
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Milton, Florida

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Jason Doty » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:15 am

Just curious as to where this is stated.

Loki wrote
Yes, shoving the Annual into a gap between pages of Excalibur #66 is inelegant but (a) it's the official placement,
Is it just based on the footnote, as to before #67, or is there another place this info is coming from?

loki
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by loki » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:33 am

Jason Doty wrote:Just curious as to where this is stated.

Loki wrote
Yes, shoving the Annual into a gap between pages of Excalibur #66 is inelegant but (a) it's the official placement,
Is it just based on the footnote, as to before #67, or is there another place this info is coming from?
I wish I could recall where I first saw it, but unfortunately I can't. I encountered this placement problem back when writing entries for Excalibur and its team members for the Handbooks, but the trouble is that its been years since then, and my notes of some of the earlier entries are long lost thanks to various computer rebuilds. However, I do recall fairly clearly initially wondering how the annual could fit in the suggested placement, but then, upon re-checking Excalibur #66 seeing that yes, it could fit in there. Handbook entries for the characters have subsequently gone with this, but I'm aware that, as one of the writers who did those, citing my own work as evidence is a bit of a cyclical argument. Likewise, I also know that citing "it happened in a comic but I don't know which one" is poor evidence at best. So let's just look at the options without that bit:

option 1 is to place it between #67 and 68. This requires ignoring footnotes to the contrary, and requires contradicting in-story comments that Brian got lost in the timestream while returning from DoFP (or else requires him making an extra trip for no discernable reason). The fact that #68 is a poor story with a "cack-handed transition" is entirely true, but not unfortunately relevant to the decision we are trying to make.

option 2 is to place it during #66. This requires placing a gap between pages in the story that isn't ideal or immediately obvious on a casual read, but which is certainly feasible (and it's hardly the first time such a gap has been put within an story that had no immediately obvious gaps in order to fit other stories published elsewhere - heck, it even happens outside of comics, as Dr. Who fans can tell you). It fits the placement with both the evidence based on team members and their costumes, and the various editorial footnotes and later in-story references.

Jason Doty
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 5328
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Milton, Florida

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Jason Doty » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:09 pm

I will be willing to go with the official handbook on this, but could you please let us know what entry sites this info and provide the page breaks in #66. I think our rule here is to follow Marvel's official stance, unless it can not happen at that particular point. While I prefer the between #67-68, I will concede that your evidence trumps my suggestion. Is there any evidence of why Loki's placement can not happen as stated?

User avatar
Col_Fury
Director
Director
Posts: 6314
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:37 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Col_Fury » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:06 pm

Like I said in the analysis, there is a footnote in the Annual that says it happens before Brian vanishes. This could be the footnote people are recalling. I'll dig out XCAL 66 and see where a break can be.
-Daron Jensen

User avatar
Col_Fury
Director
Director
Posts: 6314
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:37 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Col_Fury » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:34 pm

As it turns out, there’s a nice spot in XCL 66 to insert a break after Excalibur returns from XCAL 65 and before events lead into XCAL 67 between pages 11 & 13 (page 12 is a cutaway to the Days of Future Past). Rachel even feels the need to reiterate her point on page 13 before she prepares to leave for her future.

So there it is!
-Daron Jensen

Jason Doty
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 5328
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Milton, Florida

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Jason Doty » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:42 pm

No, I'm looking for the Handbook entry. I'd like them to double check. I know about the footnote.

loki
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by loki » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:52 pm

Jason Doty wrote:No, I'm looking for the Handbook entry. I'd like them to double check. I know about the footnote.
How about the Kylun entry?

"Taken to their base, Cloud Nine, he and other similarly abducted Excalibur allies were held in stasis until Nightcrawler freed them. Back with Excalibur, he helped the extra-dimensional warrior Khaos defeat the evil Ghath, traveled to Earth-811 to assist its surviving heroes in overthrowing the ruling Sentinel regime, and joined in trying to rescue his teammate Cerise after she was apprehended for war crimes by the Shi’ar."

Jason Doty
Chronology Guru
Chronology Guru
Posts: 5328
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Milton, Florida

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Jason Doty » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:09 pm

Very nice Loki. There is no doubt about the order of events and Marvel's official stance. Good catch. Nice work in getting the proper placement.

User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3035
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by Somebody » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:11 pm

loki wrote:option 2 is to place it during #66. This requires placing a gap between pages in the story that isn't ideal or immediately obvious on a casual read, but which is certainly feasible (and it's hardly the first time such a gap has been put within an story that had no immediately obvious gaps in order to fit other stories published elsewhere - heck, it even happens outside of comics, as Dr. Who fans can tell you). It fits the placement with both the evidence based on team members and their costumes, and the various editorial footnotes and later in-story references.
Rachel on page 13 says that she'd committed - in effect, started the time-travel - before she even saw them because "I was afraid you would talk me into staying". Inserting a multi-page gap is going just as directly against inserting it in there as the stuff with the later spot.

loki
Comic Pro
Comic Pro
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: Excalibur Annual #1

Post by loki » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:14 am

Somebody wrote:
loki wrote:option 2 is to place it during #66. This requires placing a gap between pages in the story that isn't ideal or immediately obvious on a casual read, but which is certainly feasible (and it's hardly the first time such a gap has been put within an story that had no immediately obvious gaps in order to fit other stories published elsewhere - heck, it even happens outside of comics, as Dr. Who fans can tell you). It fits the placement with both the evidence based on team members and their costumes, and the various editorial footnotes and later in-story references.
Rachel on page 13 says that she'd committed - in effect, started the time-travel - before she even saw them because "I was afraid you would talk me into staying". Inserting a multi-page gap is going just as directly against inserting it in there as the stuff with the later spot.
If we take that statement to mean she needs a run-up time to build up the energy / concentration / whatever to initiate time travel, then even if she had started the process prior to seeing them again, we don't know how long she needs to "get up to speed." So it doesn't preclude there being a gap between p11 and p13. Placing it here means Rachel takes some time to get the strength together to time travel; placing it between #67 and #68 means they successfully return home, then Brian, Rachel, etc. all undertake a second time travel trip (an already unlikely event made even more so if Rachel finds them tricky to initiate) for no discernable reason, and on the return from that trip Brian is lost. One version requires a gap to fit an existing story, the other version requires a whole extra story we didn't see and nobody ever referenced again.

And again, the first placement works for where the footnotes and dialogue says it was, while the second contradicts them.

Locked