reducing continuity

[CaptCleghorn]

I think the easier thing, instead of having Flash #53 & Flash #53-E, is to have Flash #53 and then <Event Title>: The Flash #1.

Like what's often done by DC and Marvel now. Seems like a functional solution.

[Carabas]

Do they??? Or do they get OVER ORDERED for crappy variants or because store owners can't control themselves?

Or they get over-ordered by store owners who know what they're doing and that they can sell such and such extra-rare cover for way more than those dozens of unsold issues.

[DrNewGod]

I prefer what Marvel use to do and have a tie-in mini series. #52-E and #53-E could create confusion and screw with numbering.

It won't disrupt the numbering. The next issue of The Flash will be #54, and there won't be a 54-E.

Another option that Marvel used that I like was dedicating Annual issues to the event (Atlantis Attacks stands out in my mind for some reason). Now that I think about it, didn't DC use that approach for their Armageddon 2001 event?

[KC]

I hate big crossovers and events that take over books for tie-ins. However, I don't think it is as big of a problem as you describe. The current line-up of DC books go through multiple story arcs without being interrupted.

[dancj]

Events (which I'd define here as big crossovers) are a double-edged sword. Yes, they sell a lot of copies, but they do so by selling a lot of copies to a limited group of people, ie the core audience. They do less well in bringing in new readers, where it is more important to sell just a few titles to lots and lots of people.

I'm not sure that's totally true. Back in the mid-80s when I was getting into comics, Crisis on Infinite Earths was a huge draw for me. I wanted to know more about all of these characters I was seeing.

Of course, back then it was something special which pretty much hadn't been done before by DC. Now there are just too many of the damn things.

As for the main issue, I think most of the time, most comics read fine if you skip the events, so it's not a massive deal.

That said, my reading of the two I Am Robin TPBs was partially ruined by Robin War which I hadn't read.

[kjn]

I'm not sure that's totally true. Back in the mid-80s when I was getting into comics, Crisis on Infinite Earths was a huge draw for me. I wanted to know more about all of these characters I was seeing.

No doubt, and I think they can serve as a great tool for turning casual readers into more dedicated readers. Having a big, well-prepared, and well-handled event, or several smaller events, can serve that purpose very well. But I'm not sure they can do a good job of turning non-readers into casual readers, except possibly as marketing vehicles (which will come at additional cost and effort).

You need to do both. Turn casual readers into dedicated readers, and turn non-readers into casual readers. And long-term, I believe the latter is the more important mission.

(It should be added that a big event places a huge burden on the editorial office in planning and communication, in that they have to make sure all the creative teams and their stories are lined up correctly, know what to do, and the framework in which they have to do it. That's another important factor to consider.)

[Clark_Kent]

Another option that Marvel used that I like was dedicating Annual issues to the event (Atlantis Attacks stands out in my mind for some reason). Now that I think about it, didn't DC use that approach for their Armageddon 2001 event?

Yep, DC used to do that as well. Along with Armageddon 2001, they also used annuals for the tie-ins to Eclipso: The Darkness Within, and Bloodlines (and each of those events had only 2 "regular" issues, if I recall).

[Restingvoice]

Do they??? Or do they get OVER ORDERED for crappy variants or because store owners can't control themselves?

I have seen to many bins packed with events-with some bins having the recent issue in the 25 cent bin days after it came out (looking at YOU Civil War 2).

Same thing. Stores order from DC so they get money, so they think, hey! Event sells! Let's make more.

What the stores do after that with the leftover issues are not their concern

[dancj]

No doubt, and I think they can serve as a great tool for turning casual readers into more dedicated readers. Having a big, well-prepared, and well-handled event, or several smaller events, can serve that purpose very well. But I'm not sure they can do a good job of turning non-readers into casual readers, except possibly as marketing vehicles (which will come at additional cost and effort).

Yeah. Superman got me into being a casual reader and then CoIE got me into the whole universe. The good thing about that was that the Superman comics weren't really affected by Crisis at all, so it didn't stop me getting into it.

Even John Byrne's reboot didn't barely mention Crisis, so it there wasn't even a barrier there.

[deadboy80]

Yes. Events can be fun, even exciting......when not over done. Even the theme that it will change everything has been tired for nearly thirty years. Zero hour was fun, but had little impact, forever night, or longest night had no real impact, identity crisis, was a minimal impact story, infinite Crisis was cool , so many tie ins hard to grasp whole story. Final crisis had horrible continuity problems. Flash point at least was strait forward, and somewhat under the radar. But man, give some breathing room between them. Loose continuity is the best way to go.

[deadboy80]

Hey! YA! Another event! Whoo! 5G! So great it destroyed a career before it even launched. Oh, wait, and it has nothing to do with what had been the initiative of the last 3-4 years. Great! Can't wait!

[Doctor Bifrost]

Or take, for example. Atlantis. At one time, long ago at DC, there were several versions of Atlantis. Wonder Woman had one, Aquaman another, and Superman (with Lori Lemaris) still another. As long as you didn't pay too much mind to this, it all worked okay.

It didn't for me. I'm just not the kind of reader who doesn't "pay to much mind" to the information presented in the stories I'm reading. Whether it's world-building in a single, long novel, or in a lengthy series, or in multiple storylines that are presented as taking place in the same narrative setting, I "build up" a world based on the details given. And then I think about it. And walk around in it. A well-constructed science fiction/fantasy world is as compelling to me as good characters, good dialogue, and good art.

I don't mind if it's made clear that two stories are taking place in different worlds. (We can say timeline, alternate universe, whatever. I think of them as different narrative settings. Until they start crossing over with each other, and sharing a narrative...)

Aquaman had an Atlantis where undersea water-breathers looked human, with two legs. Superman had an Atlantis where undersea water-breathers looked like mermaids and mermen, with fish tails. But Aquaman and Superman were friends; they got together in JLA and sometimes (rarely) even guest-starred in each others comics. So what would happen, I wondered (and I think this kind of wondering is very common to a lot of readers of science fiction and fantasy, and is part of how those readers engage with the story or stories), if Superman visited Aquaman and Aquaman took him to Atlantis? Would we have two-legged Atlanteans, or fish-tailed Atlanteans? I actually looked forward to seeing an answer one day. (Although I hoped it would be a very good answer. I had an implicit, unexpressed belief that a given narrative setting doesn't really need two Atlantises.)

This question was actually asked in a letter column in a Superboy comic (I think) once. (Not by me.) And the editorial answer was (paraphrased): it's just comic books. We keep some things, like Superoby's parents' names, the same from issue to issue, but other things we don't. Don't "pay too much mind to" it.

And I just felt disappointed. And kind of bored. I was no longer reading stories in a narrative setting that would reward thinking about it. I couldn't really wander around in the narrative setting any more, because it had hard walls where the contradictions were. It didn't make any sense, and it wasn't supposed to. (I distinguish between a science fictional/fantasy aspect like "a man can fly" making sense - it's part of the the premise - and things like "Superman and Lex Luthor first met when they were adults; also, they were kids together in Smallville" making sense.)

Earth 1 and Earth 2 did a little to reconcile these things (you could imagine that the Superman and Luthor of Earth 2 met as adults, but on Earth 1 Superman was Superboy when he was younger and knew young Lex - parallel timelines), and was kind of ingenious. It would have helped if they made it more explicit which stories belonged to which. But it didn't fix everything by a long shot. And, as was clear from the letter response, the editors didn't care. They weren't even trying.

That's when I wandered away from DC Comics, which I had been reading for years, and became a big Marvel fan. It took a few years to click, but Marvel's continuity was better. (It turns out that this was mainly based on two facts: Stan Lee was writing so many of the comics, and he just carried a lot of details in his head that he could use later. And Marvel's universe, starting with FF #1, was much younger, and hadn't accumulated a lot of inconsistencies yet.)

I want to point out that, at this time, I wasn't a nit-picking, aging, entitled, post-modern fanboy who felt superior to everything. (I think I'm still not.) I was 12. It just seemed to me, on a basic level - even if I didn't have the words for it - that a narrative setting should be self-consistent. Especially in science fiction and fantasy, where the world is quite different from The So-Called Real World™, and so readers have to put in more effort to understand the world. (And that effort should be worthwhile.) And, similarly, if two stories are presented as taking place in the same narrative setting, they should be consistent with each other. Other narrative settings - parallel worlds and the like? No such rules. But you should make it clear what world stories are taking place in, so the reader knows how to piece things together. That's all.

I sort of kept an eye on what was happening over in DC-land while buying every comic set in the Marvel Universe, and I did continue to buy LSH stories. (I don't know, they just got me.) But I didn't come back to DC until 1985 and Crisis on Infinite Earths. It was my impression, from what I read and heard, that DC was going to take this opportunity to start over their universe and create something that was more consistent, more compelling as a shared narrative setting. And I wanted to see them do it!

I really enjoyed CoIE. But the subsequent follow-through was not well planned or well thought-out, and quickly began to accumulate contradictions of its own. Which they then tried to fix with new Crisis-like stories, but generally that just led to more problems and more fixes, and meanwhile long-time, attentive readers were finding that paying attention wasn't so worthwhile, and a lot wandered away. Also, CoIE made DC think that they should have a massive, company-wide crossover every year or so. It turns out that these can be very bad for consistency and continuity, since characters and ongoing arcs have to be twisted out of shape so they can fit into the crossover.

There were some writers and editors - Mark Gruenwald (on old friend, gone too soon - RIP), Roy Thomas - who really did want to put in the time and effort to create a consistent timeline. But a lot of writers and editors just didn't.

And let me mention that I never expected perfect continuity, any more than I expected perfect, realistic-sounding dialogue, or perfect pacing despite the physical constraints of the comics. Even The Lord of the Rings (one of the world's greatest efforts in this regard) isn't perfectly consistent. But, man!, could you see the good-faith effort put into it! And that's what I wanted in a comic-book shared universe: a serious, good-faith effort at consistent, compelling world-building.

I think most people who were - or are - interested in that no longer read mainstream comics. Not enough return on investment. I've hung around a lot, due to nostalgia and habit, and when they reboot the DCU (which happens with increasing frequency these days), I think: maybe they'll try harder this time. This is called "the triumph of hope over experience." And, of course, some writers and editors (fewer and fewer, it seems) want to try harder. But if the corporate and editorial climate doesn't support that, it's not going to happen.

I'll take a look at 5G. Maybe it'll be great! But I'll be honest, from what I've heard about it so far, it seems designed to fail - to alienate many existing fans and probably not bring in a lot of new ones. However, I am perfectly willing to be wrong on that. I wish them well.

Anyway, that's just me. Your Mileage May Vary.

[Aahz]

I don't mind a Tie-in issue as long as they don't have lasting influence on the direction of the book (and the writer has still the option to say that it happened before or after the current story arc).

In some cases like the Batmafranchise I actually like if there is an occasional Tie-in or cross over since it brings all the different books back in sync.