Fantastic Four Annual 3

[RobinHoodMtl]

Here are several minor adjustments that should be done to the listings to conform with general guidelines:

MR. FANTASTIC/REED RICHARDS
...
ASM 657 (12 - 19)-FB-BTS
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

INVISIBLE GIRL/SUE STORM RICHARDS
...
ASM 657 (12 - 19)-FB
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 22)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
FFWED
...

HUMAN TORCH II/JONATHAN LOWELL SPENCER STORM
...
ASM 657 (12 - 19)-FB
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

THING II/MAJ. BENJAMIN J. GRIMM
...
ASM 657 (12 - 19)-FB-BTS
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

MASTERS, ALICIA REISS
...
FF 41
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:1) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 22)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

CAPTAIN AMERICA/STEVE ROGERS
...
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (12:4 - 14:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)-BTS
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:1)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 23) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

QUICKSILVER/PIETRO MAXIMOFF
...
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (23)-OP --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

HAWKEYE/CLINTON FRANCIS BARTON
...
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (12:4 - 14:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (41:4 - 42:1)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)-OP
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

THOR/THOR ODINSON/"DR. DONALD BLAKE"/"SIGURD JARLSON"/"JAKE OLSON"/"LOREN OLSON"
...
JIM 123
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (14:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

IRON MAN/ANTHONY EDWARD "TONY" STARK/"RICHARD FRANCO"
...
TOS 69 (1 - 8:2)
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3)
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (12:4 - 19:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (12:4 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
M/H&L '96 (45:2 - 45:4)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2 (32 - 33)
...

PROFESSOR X/CHARLES FRANCIS XAVIER and CYCLOPS II/SCOTT SUMMERS/"SLYM DAYSPRING" and ANGEL III/WARREN KENNETH WORTHINGTON III and BEAST/HENRY "HANK" PHILIP MCCOY and ICEMAN/ROBERT "BOBBY" DRAKE and MARVEL GIRL/JEAN GREY SUMMERS/"REDD DAYSPRING"
...
[X:FC 8]
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 22)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (23)
...

SPIDER-MAN/PETER BENJAMIN PARKER
...
ASM@ 2
FF@ 3 (14:2 - 14:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 22)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (23)-OP
MARVELS 2 (33)-OP
...

DAREDEVIL/MATTHEW MICHAEL MURDOCK/"JACK BATLIN"
...
DD 9
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:2)
M/H&L '96 (25 - 27)
FF@ 3 (19:3 - 19:4)-OP --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:3 - 22)-OP
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (23)-OP
MARVELS 2 (33)
...

FURY, COL. NICHOLAS "NICK" JOSEPH
...
IIM 13-FB
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:5) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5-22)
M/H&L '96 (41:4 - 42:1)
FF@ 3 (23)
MARVELS 2
...

SUPER SKRULL/KL'RT/"JOSHUA PLAGUE"
...
FF 32
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
M/CP 18/4-FB
...

GREY GARGOYLE/PAUL PIERRE DUVAL/"PAUL ST. PIERRE"
...
JIM 113
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2)-OP --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)-OP
TOS 95
...

BLACK KNIGHT IV/PROF. NATHAN GARRETT
...
A6 1.1 (5)
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
TOS 73
...

ENCHANTRESS/AMORA/"HELEN EVE"/"LEENA MORAN"/"CHRISTINE COLLINS"
...
JIM 117
FF@ 3 (1 - 12:3)
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (12:4 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)-BTS
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 42:1)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
A 21
...

EXECUTIONER/SKURGE
...
JIM 117
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)-BTS
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
TTA 76/2
...

MELTER/BRUNO HORGAN
...
A6 1.1 (5)
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
TOS 89 (1 - 8)
...

UNICORN/MYLOS MASARYK
...
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
CA 315-FB
...

ATTUMA
...
TOS 66
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:2)
M/H&L '96-BTS
FF@ 3 (19:3 - 19:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:3 - 23)
A 26
...

KANG THE CONQUEROR/NATHANIEL RICHARDS | EARTH-6311
...
A 16
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:5)
M/H&L '96 (41:4 - 42:1)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:6 - 23)
AFVR 9 (8:1)-FB
...

MANDARIN/"GENE KAHN"/"ZHANG TONG"/"TEM BORJIGIN"
...
C 33-FB
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:6 - 23)
A 20
...

MAD THINKER
...
A6 3.1
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2)-OP --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)-OP
TOS 72
...

AWESOME ANDROID
...
A6 3.1
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
TOS 72 (1 - 8:4)
...

MR. HYDE/CALVIN ZABO
...
JIM 111
FF@ 3 (1 - 14:4)
M/H&L '96 (12 - 24)-BTS
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 42:1)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
DD 30
...

BEETLE II/ABNER RONALD JENKINS
...
ASM 657-FB
FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2)-OP --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)-OP
A 26
...

EEL II/LEOPOLD STRYKE
...
M/H&L '96 (2 - 9:3)
FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (1 - 19:4)
M/H&L '96 (28 - 41:3)
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:2) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 23)
CA 315-FB
...

COLLINS, MILLICENT "MILLIE"
...
FF@ 3 --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3-BTS (She's never seen in this story, but Patsy and Hedy are looking for her.)
MARVELS 3-BTS
...

Since I did not read M/H&L '96, I did not make any corrections to it in those listings. My OCD does have its limits. I only focused on FF@ 3.

[Russ Chappell]

Here are several minor adjustments that should be done to the listings to conform with general guidelines:

Which guideline is that?

[RobinHoodMtl]

General guidelines or rules or whatever policy this website follows. We've had that discussion before with michel. It's about the way to break appearances in listings when a character appears more than once in a story and there's another appearance in between. Basically, if you check the changes I propose, you should get the idea, right?
Example if a character appears in a scene at page 5 to 7 of book A, then only one place in book B, then on page 8 to 9 of book A, you would not list A (5 - 7). You would not list this way

Book A (5 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 9)

You would list whole sequences from the beginning to the end of book A, like this:

Book A (1 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 20) or whatever the last page is.

Am I correct or did I miss the whole point of that long discussion you and I had with michel?

[Russ Chappell]

Book A (5 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 9)

You would list whole sequences from the beginning to the end of book A, like this:

Book A (1 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 20) or whatever the last page is.

Am I correct or did I miss the whole point of that long discussion you and I had with michel?

Well, it's complicated.

You just have to be careful. Strictly speaking, the first sequence above would not be incorrect, if it's accurate. The second sequence is probably okay, too, but be aware of the potential pitfalls.

Let's say that a character only appears in the pages listed in your first sequence--that is, only in pages 5-7 and pages 8-9 of book A, separated by book B. But let's say that there's a significant break between pages 12 and 13 of book A. Furthermore, let's assume that Book C occurs in that gap between pages 12 & 13 of book A. Our character does NOT appear after page 9 of book A, but he DOES appear in book C.

Without giving any consideration to character appearances, the book chronology would look like this:

Book A (1 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 12)
Book C
Book A (13 - 20)

The proper way to list the character chronology would be:

Book A (5 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 9)
Book C

If you're in a period where there's not a lot of interweaving of characters and books, your suggested edits are probably appropriate. I'd be very nervous about doing that with a book like FF@ 3, though.

[RobinHoodMtl]

Well, it's complicated.

You just have to be careful. Strictly speaking, the first sequence above would not be incorrect, if it's accurate. The second sequence is probably okay, too, but be aware of the potential pitfalls.

Let's say that a character only appears in the pages listed in your first sequence--that is, only in pages 5-7 and pages 8-9 of book A, separated by book B. But let's say that there's a significant break between pages 12 and 13 of book A. Furthermore, let's assume that Book C occurs in that gap between pages 12 & 13 of book A. Our character does NOT appear after page 9 of book A, but he DOES appear in book C.

Without giving any consideration to character appearances, the book chronology would look like this:

Book A (1 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 12)
Book C
Book A (13 - 20)

The proper way to list the character chronology would be:

Book A (5 - 7)
Book B
Book A (8 - 9)
Book C

If you're in a period where there's not a lot of interweaving of characters and books, your suggested edits are probably appropriate. I'd be very nervous about doing that with a book like FF@ 3, though.

You say it's complicated. I could not agree more. But you guys need to talk to each other and come up with some official and consistent set of rules and make them known. And stick to it. Because now, one minute I hear something and make suggestions on something, and the minute i'm told that's not the right way to do it. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment and you'll understand why it can be frustrating. For example, In your "proper way" to list, you have Book A (5 - 7). Why not (1 - 7)? That is exactly the opposite of what someone else told me to do.

With all due respect, I think it is complicated because sometimes, you guys make it complicated. The suggestions I made for FF@ 3 are intended to bring consistency in the listings for those characters with inconsistencies. Another example, why would you have FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) for Mr. Fantastic but not for the others. Or why would the listing start with page 1 for some characters, but not for some others.

[Russ Chappell]

You say it's complicated. I could not agree more. But you guys need to talk to each other and come up with some official and consistent set of rules and make them known. And stick to it. Because now, one minute I hear something and make suggestions on something, and the minute i'm told that's not the right way to do it. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment and you'll understand why it can be frustrating. For example, In your "proper way" to list, you have Book A (5 - 7). Why not (1 - 7)? That is exactly the opposite of what someone else told me to do.

We've gone 'round and 'round about this, like two professional wrestlers at the beginning of a bout, spanning multiple topics.

I've asked for citations, and you've demurred. I've asked, "Which guideline?", and you've hand-waved, "general guidelines." You say it's the opposite of what "someone else" said.

So I can only speculate.

Are you referring to this discussion?

https://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb ... 196#p68196

In that topic, I posted this message:

https://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb ... 208#p68208

where I specifically mentioned that it's the way I do it, but the other directors may follow a different philosophy. It's all part of the process of my loosening up the reins to the site, in preparation for my retirement.



It's not a policy. Not a rule. It's a guideline.

Another example, why would you have FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) for Mr. Fantastic but not for the others. Or why would the listing start with page 1 for some characters, but not for some others.

By "the others," I'm assuming you mean Sue, Johnny and Ben.

Well, are any of them wrong? If they're wrong, then by all means, we should take action. If they're not wrong, I don't feel the urge to correct them.

But any director who disagrees is free to take you up on it.

[RobinHoodMtl]

We've gone 'round and 'round about this, like two professional wrestlers at the beginning of a bout, spanning multiple topics.

I've asked for citations, and you've demurred. I've asked, "Which guideline?", and you've hand-waved, "general guidelines." You say it's the opposite of what "someone else" said.

So I can only speculate.

Are you referring to this discussion?

https://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb ... 196#p68196

In that topic, I posted this message:

https://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb ... 208#p68208

where I specifically mentioned that it's the way I do it, but the other directors may follow a different philosophy. It's all part of the process of my loosening up the reins to the site, in preparation for my retirement.

It's not a policy. Not a rule. It's a guideline.

Let's go for guidelines then. Each time, it becomes harder and harder to locate specific posts in the volume of discussions I've had and in the threads I've read. StrayLamb has made an effort to gather some of the posts in this thread: https://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb ... hp?t=20628, but the thing is, there were no real conclusions. Among other things, it gathers a few replies from you, Michel and Leoparis to a post I made using a hypothetical story in which I made several mistakes. Since then, I've learned a few other things about the way to cut scenes on this site. I've made many, many suggestions in the past, some good, and some not so good because I did not know how you guys proceed when breaking down complex scenes. So it's hard to start from there.

The problem is, other than comments, advice and corrections made in distinct topics, there is no real dedicated thread outlining the proper way to list appearances when they are cut by scenes from other books. So instead of commenting on outdated posts, maybe it would be a good idea to make a topic like the MCP Stylebook you made to explain the syntax of an appearance and which, by the way, was very well done and very clear. Then when someone makes a mistake, we could refer to those guideline, and if the particular case of that mistake is not covered by the guidelines, they could be edited to address more particular cases.

Another example, why would you have FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) for Mr. Fantastic but not for the others. Or why would the listing start with page 1 for some characters, but not for some others.

By "the others," I'm assuming you mean Sue, Johnny and Ben.

If you take a look at the first post on this thread, you see this for Reed Richards:

FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
...
FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22)
...
FF@ 3 (23)

The others are not just Ben and Johnny (does not apply for Sue). They include Cap, Quicksilver, Hawkeye, Iron Man, and many villains who follow a similar pattern:

FF@ 3 (14:5 - 19:4)
...
FF@ 3 (19:6 - 22:3) --> CHANGE TO FF@ 3 (19:5 - 22 (or 23, depending on the character))

My point in this particular correction was, why would panel 19:5 be omitted for all these characters but not for Reed?

Well, are any of them wrong? If they're wrong, then by all means, we should take action. If they're not wrong, I don't feel the urge to correct them.

But any director who disagrees is free to take you up on it.

The post I made was to make sure the breakdown of appearances was consistent for all characters. If it can help, I will comment in red the suggestions I made in the original post so that you can understand my reasoning. And after that, as always, the decision is yours as to what you accept or reject in my suggestions.

[RobinHoodMtl]

Finally, in order to make adequate suggestions, I decided to check MARVEL HEROES & LEGENDS 1996. In the light of what I saw in this issue, I realized that some key parts of FF@3 have been retold or retconned in M/H&L '96. Let's take the scene where the Watcher takes Reed to his lab, for example. In FF@ 3, he tells him that he cannot interfere, whereas in M/H&L '96. he admits that he's made a choice to break his vow and save humanity. I did not read it completely just yet, but I saw many additional scenes where, for example, Sue is actively fighting the villains.

Assuming that the latter version of the wedding is the more accurate and official one, I guess that the initial post will need to be completely reviewed. One thing is sure, if that assumption is right, this would means that many FF@ 3 segments should be replaced by their M/H&L '96 version. As noble as my first intention was, I'm not sure I wish to spend long hours breaking those two issues down. There is A LOT of characters and A LOT of scenes. So before I decide whether or not to review it, I need to be sure that MCP acknowledges M/H&L '96 takes precedence over FF@ 3 when scenes are repeated or retconned.

What is your input on this?

[Russ Chappell]

Just my opinion: I am not comfortable with events in Heroes & Legends replacing FF@ 3. We should make every effort to integrate the two, but unless H&L explains discrepancies, events happened the way we saw them in the original telling.

Sometimes, we have to perform surgery on the revisits and retellings, throwing out the pieces we can't use. Regrettably, sometimes, the overwhelming weight of what we throw out forces us to throw out the entire story. Exactly when we reach that tipping point can be a personal decision.

Some tips for merging the two, when you get a spare weekend, to make the overwhelming seem manageable:

Take FF@ 3 and break it down, panel-by-panel. Who appears in each panel?

Then look at H&L. Look at each panel. Each panel goes in one of three stacks.

Stack 1: If it duplicates information in FF@ 3, toss it out.

Stack 2: If it incontrovertibly contradicts information in FF@ 3 (without explanation), toss it out.

Stack 3: Otherwise, place it between panels of your FF@ 3 breakdown (or, if necessary, between word balloons of a single panel). If the M&L panel explains the contradiction, place it on top of the FF@ 3 panel.

Compare the size of stack 2 to the size of stacks 1 & 3 combined.

Report your findings here.

[RobinHoodMtl]

So I made a breakdown for both issues. Since it was an opportunity to hit two birds with one stone, I posted it here on StrayLamb's Chronology thread, as a suggestion to take a second look at his listing. Maybe you should take a look at it before reading any further.

As opposed to what I first thought. there are not so many scenes that are repeating themselves after all. To me, M/H&L '96 is more or less a complement to the original story. Many new elements are added and the don't necessarily contradict the first version. Here are, however, the most notable changes you have in the later version:

• Some characters who did not exist when FF@ 3 was published were added, like Robbie Robertson and Phil Sheldon, and some new ones were created, like Mark, Miriam Birchwood and ... urgghhh... Grogoom. A lot of the new scenes revolve around those additional characters.
• The is a significant difference in the scene that involves Hawkeye about to get smashed by a safe, but in the breakdown I made, I found a way around it. In FF@ 3, the safe falls down because of a spell from the Enchantress. In M/H&L '96, the safe falls off a building after the Grey Gargoyle has damaged its structure. In both cases, Spider-Man catches the safe with his web and saves him. Knowing how the Enchantress's magic sometimes work, we cannot rule out that it was her spell which triggered the safe to fall down after the building was damaged.
• In FF@ 3, Hydra's bomb causes a big explosion in the river, which destroys Attuma's fleet. In order to really destroy the whole fleet, I would tend to think the bomb needed to be as powerful as the one used in M/H&L '96, which caused a tornado after it exploded. The bomb, after all, was intended to level down Baxter Building. Again, nothing in FF@ 3 excludes the possibility that it happened. There was only two panels showing the explosion after all.
• One of the biggest differences was that in M/H&L '96, Sue decides to suit up after Doom has shown her live holograms of her friends in battle. But again, FF@ 3 says noting about what she's being doing all this time. I can easily accept that she went out and fought, because it's pretty much in character with her to do so. And even if no mention of this was made in the original story, nothing contradicts it either. So exclusion here either.
• I that the only scenes in both books that can contradict each other was the one I mentioned in my last post. In FF@ 3, the Watcher denies that he's interfering, which is a complete lie. He freakin' teleported Reed to his planet to let him take whatever weapon he wanted from his arsenal. I know that in his earlier appearances, the Watcher would constantly pretend he is not interfering when he actually was. But if I remember well, he was also reprimanded for doing so. It is more plausible to me that this time, the Watcher admitted to Reed that he chose to break his oath to save humanity so cherishes so much. For that reason, I would remove the FF@3 scene from the listing and use the more complete version.
• Finally, there are several minor differences as to who fights whom and when, but given the chaotic melee, it is fairly possible that both stories are true and all these fights occurred.

As you can see, there was not much to place in the reject "stack". So before I amend my initial suggestions using the breakdown I made, I need to make sure we're on the same page in terms of reasoning.

[StrayLamb]

Just because something isn't shown in an original issue, doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's the case with Sue. Heroes & Legends fills in what Sue was doing. Sometimes a logical answer can be deduced, as you've done in explaining the two apparent reasons for the falling safe. The trick is to figure out how it can work. Saying it can't work is a last resort. I don't believe the two versions shown of Reed and the Watcher are mutually exclusive, and that both issues can be synchronized with minimal problems.

I would break down the scene with the Watcher & Reed like this..

FF@ 3 (19:6) [The Watcher appears to Reed]
M/H&L '96 (42:1) [Sue sees Reed vanish]
FF@ 3 (20) [The Watcher transports Reed to his home]
M/H&L '96 (42:2 - 42:3) [Reed says it's unimaginable and asks Uatu how he did it. Uatu says "The Watcher is privy to science that man can only dream of! I wish to aid you, Richards! I have weaponry here that might turn the tide of battle! Choose what you will!" Reed says "But you have sworn never to interfere in human affairs!"]
FF@ 3 (21:1) [Uatu: "I am at liberty to explain nothing -- to offer nothing! Yet, if you should see something that might help you -- I am not permitted to interfere with whatever you may do!" Reed: "I've got to understand the function of these devices! Everything depends upon it!"]
M/H&L '96 (43:1 - 43:2) [Uatu: "Tis a terrible choice I face! ... shall I be true to an oath... while a world is destroyed? Or betray my sacred word... that a race shall not perish? My choice is made! Which weapon will you take?" Reed thinks: "I dare not choose wrong! Every second counts!"]
FF@ 3 (21:2:1) [Reed: "This is it! The only thing to defeat our enemies! It must be!"]
M/H&L '96 (43:4) [Reed: "This one! The Sub-Atomic Time Displacer!" Uatu: "It is yours!"]
FF@ 3 (21:2:2 - 21:3) [Uatu: "Its power is unimaginable, Richards! If used wrongly, it will destroy you! I can say no more! Return to your own world now!" Reed: "What of you? Will you remain here?" Uatu: "Yes, for my task is merely to watch -- and my eyes can pierce the universe!"]
FF@ 3 (21:4) [Uatu: "So, go now! And do what must be done!" (equates to M/H&L '96 (44:1:1) Uatu: "Go you then, Reed Richards!")
M/H&L '96 (44:1:2) [Uatu: "You have chosen wisely... as I knew you would!" Reed as he returns to Earth: "If this works -- all memory of the battle will be erased from the public's mind!"]
FF@ 3 (21:5) [Reed thinks: "The fight still rages! I've just time to use the machine! Within seconds I'll have achieved my greatest victory, or tasted my final defeat!"
M/H&L '96 (44:2 - 44:3) [Reed thinks: "Rather than force of arms -- how much better to defeat them by -- science!" Reed uses the Time Displacer]
FF@ 3 (22:1) [Reed thinks: "It's working!! I analyzed it correctly!" and so on..]

[Leoparis]

Holy Shakespeare! I'd never read M/H&L '96 before. Stan Lee was the Ian Doescher of comics.

Well done! This merging works quite well.

FF@ 3 (21:2:1) [Reed: "This is it! The only thing to defeat our enemies! It must be!"]
M/H&L '96 (43:4) [Reed: "This one! The Sub-Atomic Time Displacer!" Uatu: "It is yours!"]

These two lines by Reed are essentially the same. I think it works as well if you reverse them and it avoids the insertion of 43:4 in the middle of 21:2...
M/H&L '96 (43:1 - 43:4) [Uatu: "Tis a terrible choice I face! ... shall I be true to an oath... while a world is destroyed? Or betray my sacred word... that a race shall not perish? My choice is made! Which weapon will you take?" Reed thinks: "I dare not choose wrong! Every second counts!" Reed: "This one! The Sub-Atomic Time Displacer!" Uatu: "It is yours!"]
FF@ 3 (21:2 - 21:3) [Reed (to himself): "This is it! The only thing to defeat our enemies! It must be!" Uatu: "Its power is unimaginable, Richards! If used wrongly, it will destroy you! I can say no more! Return to your own world now!" Reed: "What of you? Will you remain here?" Uatu: "Yes, for my task is merely to watch -- and my eyes can pierce the universe!"]

[RobinHoodMtl]

Thank you both. StrayLamb's breakdown works well and with Leoparis' adjustment, it's even better. I'll wait for Russ's input and rework my initial post when I have a moment.

[Russ Chappell]

My input? Well, if you've found a way to incorporate M/H&L without breaking FF@ 3, then I like it.