[QUOTE=RBerman;4676309]The stories will be better if writers are at liberty to treat continuity like a buffet rather than a straitjacket.[/QUOTE]
Continuity is a chokehold on corporate superhero comicbooks that needs to be fought off.
It stops progress and does not allow for dynamism or originality.
[QUOTE=Chris0013;4674707]Who is with me??
So...the new Doom series (which I really love...most interesting thing they have going now)...We have Doom surrendering and being escorted to prison by Silver Sable along with others.
In ASM we find out that SS laid up from massive injuries and is remote operating LMDs to be seen in public as NOT being so bad off.
Then over in Savage Avengers....Doom...still ruling Latveria kidnaps then welcomes Conan into his castle and offers to feed him
Am I the only one around here who cares about continuity?? Is it too much to ask the editors and writers to to plan this stuff a little better??
I remember back in the day they were willing to tie things together. Back when Steve was The Captain they did the crossover with Iron Man during the Armor Wars....then in ASM they even tied into the cap book in a minor way after Viper poisoned DC and turned people into snake people...ASM had a background appearance of David Letterman mentioning "Reagan making an 'asp' of himself"[/QUOTE]
The way I look at it is I place the start of the arcs in date order. If ASM and Savage Avengers started before the Doom series, then that’s the order you read it.
[QUOTE=RBerman;4676309]The stories will be better if writers are at liberty to treat continuity like a buffet rather than a straitjacket.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676433]Continuity is a chokehold on corporate superhero comicbooks that needs to be fought off.
It stops progress and does not allow for dynamism or originality.[/QUOTE]
When Jim Shooter ran a tight ship of continuity in the 80s we got Frank Miller's Daredevil, Claremont's X-Men, Simonson's Thor, Byrne's Fantastic Four, Jim Shooter's very own Secret Wars'84 and his Avengers run, Roger Stern's Avengers/Doctor Strange/ASM, and Tom deFalco's ASM, as well as Bill Mantlo's Spectacular Spider-Man, PAD's Spectacular, Mantlo's Micronauts.
This is considered Marvel's second great peak after the '60s, so the evidence is not convincing about the idea of A) Continuity is a Straitjacket, B) Stops Progress and Does Not Allow for Dynamism or Originality.
Evidence suggests that the opposite might be true. Quesada's idea is "use the toys, don't break the toys, put the toys back in the box" i.e. writers are allowed to do whatever story they want but they cannot really allow real emotional impact on the characters and setting. That means different writer/artists do a run on title that is often counter to what's happening in the rest of Marvel, counter to what's done before and there's only the vaguest of justifications and explanations offered. So readers experience low-continuity and writers don't have any real free hand.
That seems to me an actual straitjacket on the characters. Because writers are actively working with actual constraints on the characters for the entire duration of the run, whereas in Shooter's regime whether changes will stick or not, stories and character changes will have consequences/impact and a rigid explanation needed to be offered to overturn changes and restore status-quos.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4676760]When Jim Shooter ran a tight ship of continuity in the 80s we got Frank Miller's Daredevil, Claremont's X-Men, Simonson's Thor, Byrne's Fantastic Four, Jim Shooter's very own Secret Wars'84 and his Avengers run, Roger Stern's Avengers/Doctor Strange/ASM, and Tom deFalco's ASM, as well as Bill Mantlo's Spectacular Spider-Man, PAD's Spectacular, Mantlo's Micronauts.
This is considered Marvel's second great peak after the '60s, so the evidence is not convincing about the idea of A) Continuity is a Straitjacket, B) Stops Progress and Does Not Allow for Dynamism or Originality.
Evidence suggests that the opposite might be true. Quesada's idea is "use the toys, don't break the toys, put the toys back in the box" i.e. writers are allowed to do whatever story they want but they cannot really allow real emotional impact on the characters and setting. That means different writer/artists do a run on title that is often counter to what's happening in the rest of Marvel, counter to what's done before and there's only the vaguest of justifications and explanations offered. So readers experience low-continuity and writers don't have any real free hand.
That seems to me an actual straitjacket on the characters. Because writers are actively working with actual constraints on the characters for the entire duration of the run, whereas in Shooter's regime whether changes will stick or not, stories and character changes will have consequences/impact and a rigid explanation needed to be offered to overturn changes and restore status-quos.[/QUOTE]
"Use the toys and don't break them and put them back" is the definition of stopping progress.
Why not break them? Why not create new ones?
Because of continuity, that's why.
A woman can never be Thor, because that's not how it was in the past.
Spidey can't reveal his identity, because that's not how it was in the past.
Captain American cannot be black, because that's not how it was in the past.
Hulk can't be Asian, because that's not how it was in the past.
Real change can never happen, because continuity deems it so.
I mean you are referencing these old stories that came out before my parents even met, because to you they are the benchmark; but those same benchmarks hold the corporate superhero genre back.
Because everyone looks back at the "good ol' days" constantly.
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676787]Why not break them? Why not create new ones? [/quote]
This is an entirely separate issue from having an integrated consistent continuity that co-ordinates appearances of character in monthly titles in different ongoings.
[quote]Because of continuity, that's why. [/quote]
Because of <INSERT SCAPEGOAT>, that's why also. Again, it's a separate issue entirely from what the OP was talking about i.e. inconsistency and incoherence vis-a-vis Doom's appearances in different monthly titles.
[quote]I mean you are referencing these old stories that came out before my parents even met, because to you they are the benchmark;[/quote]
They are also stories before my parents came too. The reason certain stories become benchmarks isn't just because of one generation's nostalgia. There is an element of that sure, but it's not the main defining element. Those stories are benchmarks because they are considered great by a wide consensus, and retain readership and audience generations after.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4676814]This is an entirely separate issue from having an integrated consistent continuity that co-ordinates appearances of character in monthly titles in different ongoings.
Because of <INSERT SCAPEGOAT>, that's why also. Again, it's a separate issue entirely from what the OP was talking about i.e. inconsistency and incoherence vis-a-vis Doom's appearances in different monthly titles.
They are also stories before my parents came too. The reason certain stories become benchmarks isn't just because of one generation's nostalgia. There is an element of that sure, but it's not the main defining element. Those stories are benchmarks because they are considered great by a wide consensus, and retain readership and audience generations after.[/QUOTE]
But what I am saying that there shouldn't be a integrated continuity, what if the Doom writer wanted to send him to another universe; now he can't because he's appearing on some other title.
I don't see how it is a separate issue it all has to do with keeping a consistent continuity; that's why real change can't happen
I feel writers should be more remindful and respect continuity, they are a team at Marvel as such should learn what others did and are doing, and follow through with that story otherwise it sort of comes out like "screw your story, my story is better".
That's how I felt reading Death of the Inhumans. The only way Cates made this story work was saying screw Continuity, as such now does any story we read hold any weight if the next writer can just ignore it.
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676787]"Use the toys and don't break them and put them back" is the definition of stopping progress.
Why not break them? Why not create new ones?
Because of continuity, that's why.
A woman can never be Thor, because that's not how it was in the past.
Spidey can't reveal his identity, because that's not how it was in the past.
Captain American cannot be black, because that's not how it was in the past.
Hulk can't be Asian, because that's not how it was in the past.
Real change can never happen, because continuity deems it so.
I mean you are referencing these old stories that came out before my parents even met, because to you they are the benchmark; but those same benchmarks hold the corporate superhero genre back.
Because everyone looks back at the "good ol' days" constantly.[/QUOTE]
Because we saw what happened when Spidey revealed his ID.
Thor is Thor, Rogers is Cap and Banner is Hulk. And you said it yourself...'why not create new ones?'...why replace existing characters instead? Wilson has his own identity as Falcon...why make him Cap? It diminishes him. Why make Jane Thor...instead of giving her her own thing? Which they eventually did. Why kill off Banner to replace him with Cho...just to bring Banner back to change Cho to Brawn?
I am not saying they should stagnate the characters...they should evolve...but not at the expense of the core of who they are.
And I am not saying every single moment needs to be referenced and tied into every other moment...but the larger world needs to be respected.
[QUOTE=Chris0013;4676872]Because we saw what happened when Spidey revealed his ID.
Thor is Thor, Rogers is Cap and Banner is Hulk. And you said it yourself...'why not create new ones?'...why replace existing characters instead? Wilson has his own identity as Falcon...why make him Cap? It diminishes him. Why make Jane Thor...instead of giving her her own thing? Which they eventually did. Why kill off Banner to replace him with Cho...just to bring Banner back to change Cho to Brawn?
I am not saying they should stagnate the characters...they should evolve...but not at the expense of the core of who they are.
And I am not saying every single moment needs to be referenced and tied into every other moment...but the larger world needs to be respected.[/QUOTE]
But why should it be respected? Is it gospel? Does come from the gods?
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676884]But why should it be respected? Is it gospel? Does come from the gods?[/QUOTE]
Well...let's kill Storm and replace her with a white guy.
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676828]But what I am saying that there shouldn't be a integrated continuity, what if the Doom writer wanted to send him to another universe; now he can't because he's appearing on some other title. [/quote]
That's always been true regardless.
If you are a writer starting out and want Spider-Man to appear but the Spider-Man office says no, then that's the breaks. No writer at Marvel, after Stan Lee stepped down, at any time has had full and total access to every character without A) Permission, B) Editorial Vetting, C) Feedback from other writers.
And in any case, sometimes people not having access to a character is important for quality control. Kraven's Last Hunt was a story that ran across all monthly ongoing titles for two months. IN those two months, if you wanted to know what happened to Spider-Man you had to read the monthly ongoing titles. The reason is creative because editorial wanted readers in suspense about the story which would be ruined if the character appeared in another title at the time.
Right now, thanks to the shenanigans about Doom, we know for a fact that Cantwell's Doom will end with a status-quo back to normal. And so on.Now you might say that in the back of your mind you know the status-quo would be re-asserted. That might be true but the suspense as an experience is a real thing and it's not cool for editors and others to deny a writer full audience engagement.
Take Hickman's HoX/PoX. IN those 12 issues, the mutants and X-Men did not appear in any other Marvel title. Hickman was given total control and no other writer could use the X-Men for those months. In the interest of fair play, to talk of a story I dislike, Dan Slott's Superior Spider-Man removed Peter Parker for nearly 2 real-time years. In that time if you wanted Spider-Man then it was Otto-in-Peter. Did I like that story? NO. Do I think Slott had a right as a writer to call dibs on Peter and maintain control over the suspense of that? Yes. As a writer/storyteller he has that right.
[QUOTE=Chris0013;4676897]Well...let's kill Storm and replace her with a white guy.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
That's what I am saying Storm will always have her stories, because another writer can write Storm.
Why limit the potential of story telling?
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4676901]That's always been true regardless.
If you are a writer starting out and want Spider-Man to appear but the Spider-Man office says no, then that's the breaks. No writer at Marvel, after Stan Lee stepped down, at any time has had full and total access to every character without A) Permission, B) Editorial Vetting, C) Feedback from other writers.
And in any case, sometimes people not having access to a character is important for quality control. Kraven's Last Hunt was a story that ran across all monthly ongoing titles for two months. IN those two months, if you wanted to know what happened to Spider-Man you had to read the monthly ongoing titles. The reason is creative because editorial wanted readers in suspense about the story which would be ruined if the character appeared in another title at the time.
Right now, thanks to the shenanigans about Doom, we know for a fact that Cantwell's Doom will end with a status-quo back to normal. And so on.Now you might say that in the back of your mind you know the status-quo would be re-asserted. That might be true but the suspense as an experience is a real thing and it's not cool for editors and others to deny a writer full audience engagement.
Take Hickman's HoX/PoX. IN those 12 issues, the mutants and X-Men did not appear in any other Marvel title. Hickman was given total control and no other writer could use the X-Men for those months. In the interest of fair play, to talk of a story I dislike, Dan Slott's Superior Spider-Man removed Peter Parker for nearly 2 real-time years. In that time if you wanted Spider-Man then it was Otto-in-Peter. Did I like that story? NO. Do I think Slott had a right as a writer to call dibs on Peter and maintain control over the suspense of that? Yes. As a writer/storyteller he has that right.[/QUOTE]
I agree, and I think that is detrimental to story telling.
Think about the Superior Spider-Man title that just ended. Otto made a deal with Mephisto and he was reverted back to his classic look!
So if you enjoyed Otto as a curmudgeon Spidey, too bad because continuity dictates the status quo always be reset.
Because for corporate superheroes, the status quo always has to be set in [B]stone[/B]
[QUOTE=charliehustle415;4676908]Think about the Superior Spider-Man title that just ended. Otto made a deal with Mephisto and he was reverted back to his classic look!
So if you enjoyed Otto as a curmudgeon Spidey, too bad because continuity dictates the status quo always be reset.[/QUOTE]
Don't usually go all-caps but this time I really need to do it.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OP SAID.
The issue of status-quo character reset is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY SEPARATE, TOTALLY UNRELATED issue to how much the overall shared universe continuity should be integrated, i.e. whether the character's appearance in multiple on-goings has a general consistency. Please re-read the original post, that's what the OP said.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4676925]Don't usually go all-caps but this time I really need to do it.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OP SAID.
The issue of status-quo character reset is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY SEPARATE, TOTALLY UNRELATED issue to how much the overall shared universe continuity should be integrated, i.e. whether the character's appearance in multiple on-goings has a general consistency. Please re-read the original post, that's what the OP said.[/QUOTE]
I am not referring to what the OP is saying, I am replying to your post.
Nevertheless, we are two ships passing one another at night.