Pitch a Direction: Batwoman

[dropkickjake]

I just don't see any point in conceptual discussions like this, for any character, that ignore continuity for what is supposed to be the same version of that character. If it's about an AU version of a character, fine. But that's not what I take these sorts of threads to be about; I do read them as asking that first question, because that's the default, and none of these threads have specified AUs.

The point is that it can be fun. Neither is the right/wrong way to do it. Its just good to understand where the person you're talking to is coming from. There has been a trend in comics lately to prioritize telling the best story possible over worrying about the minutia of continuity. Given that trend, its understandable for people to talk about things conceptually, "What would make for the best possible Batwoman/Nightwing/Tim Drake story?"

[Caivu]

There has been a trend in comics lately to prioritize telling the best story possible over worrying about the minutia of continuity.

Yes, and I hate it. Drives me up the wall that so many are just willing to accept that for the sake of story.

Because too often, it doesn't just involve "the minutia of continuity" (I do think that should be adhered to, though), it involves characters acting in contradictory ways in stories that are supposed to be taking place in the same universe, without any reason for that difference. That's a big problem. This kind of wishy-washy approach to continuity isn't accepted in other forms of storytelling, so why do comics get a pass?

[Ascended]

Not without it being horribly convoluted and introducing a bunch of story problems.

Nah. Its comics; anything can, and does, happen. If Im writing and I want the Colony back, then I have Sarge Steel, Sam Lane, or whatever representative of the military that I care to use (and is available) say "Y'know, that Colony program had potential. I'm gonna ask POTUS for funding to give it another go" and we're off to the races.

Continuity is a tool, not a noose. It should enable story telling, not limit it. The fact that there *was* a Colony means I have precedent to bring it back, it doesn't mean that it *cant* come back.

That's my viewpoint on it anyway. If you disagree, cool. You do you.

I've noticed that you take to these types of threads with a far more concrete view of continuity than Ascended does.

Hey, they're fictional, made-up events. We're not beholden to continuity, we can make it do what we want it to. It serves us, not the other way around.

[Caivu]

Nah. Its comics; anything can, and does, happen. If Im writing and I want the Colony back, then I have Sarge Steel, Sam Lane, or whatever representative of the military that I care to use (and is available) say "Y'know, that Colony program had potential. I'm gonna ask POTUS for funding to give it another go" and we're off to the races.

"Oh," says the President. "You mean that project that went rogue and operated on US soil in violation of the law? The one that's been a political headache for me since their existence was made public? The one that I specifically disbanded? Take a hike."

Continuity is a tool, not a noose. It should enable story telling, not limit it.

We're not beholden to continuity, we can make it do what we want it to. It serves us, not the other way around.

Why? Why should this be the case? Why should superhero comics get a pass for this when in every other form of storytelling, it's not tolerated?

And don't you contradict yourself a little when you say this:

or whatever representative of the military that I care to use (and is available)

If continuity doesn't matter, as you seem to be saying, why stop at available characters? Just use someone who's technically dead at present, or in jail! Or part of a whole other unrelated group! 'Cause who cares, right? As long as it's a good story!

Ugh.

[Kurisu]

Why? Why should this be the case? Why should superhero comics get a pass for this when in every other form of storytelling, it's not tolerated?

It absolutely is though, especially when the previous canon is poorly received. Video games do it, prose does it, film does it. Maybe not as frequently, but it's hardly intolerable.

Halloween, for example, was a huge critical and financial hit last year and it's the second instance of retconning in that franchise.

[Ascended]

And don't you contradict yourself a little when you say this:

Not at all. I never said continuity should be ignored. I said it should be made to work for you. Having an organization brought back to active duty isn't anywhere close to the same thing as the stuff you're saying. Hell it's not even a unique or original idea; at one point or another most of the organizations like this in the DCU (Checkmate, SHADE, DEO, etc) have gone rogue and been brought back at a later date.

You seem to think the only options with continuity are either one so rigid you can't ever backtrack at all, or having none. There's more ways to use it than just that. What I suggest wouldn't involve contradicting anything that's been said on panel. Just a few characters changing their minds.

Ugh.

Is that necessary? I'm being respectful of this discussion and your views, here.

[Caivu]

Having an organization brought back to active duty isn't anywhere close to the same thing as the stuff you're saying.

But this isn't just a matter of reactivating them. It's re-establishing them entirely when none of the characters involved have any reason to do so.

You seem to think the only options with continuity are either one so rigid you can't ever backtrack at all, or having none. There's more ways to use it than just that.

What I suggest wouldn't involve contradicting anything that's been said on panel. Just a few characters changing their minds.

Backtracking is certainly possible, but not for thin reasons like "they just changed their minds." That's weak writing.

Is that necessary? I'm being respectful of this discussion and your views, here.

Sorry. I'm just beyond fed up with this lackadaisical sort of attitude toward continuity that I've seen crop up in the comics community.

[Ascended]

But this isn't just a matter of reactivating them. It's re-establishing them entirely when none of the characters involved have any reason to do so.

Backtracking is certainly possible, but not for thin reasons like "they just changed their minds." That's weak writing.

If I were actually writing this, there'd obviously be better reasons than that. But ultimately? That's all it is once you get past the details. It's someone changing their mind. "Why" is just exposition. It's someone saying "The Source Wall broke and/or Leviathan is out there, and/or all these other things happened, and circumstances now dictate that I reinstate the Colony, because America could use an army of Batmen right now."

Sorry. I'm just beyond fed up with this lackadaisical sort of attitude toward continuity that I've seen crop up in the comics community.

Right? How dare we view a narrative tool differently! And make no mistake, in comics, continuity is a tool as well as part of narrative structure (a result of the serialized format). It can be utilized to enhance a story. If you're letting it limit you, that is what is lazy and, in my opinion of course, you're using it wrong.

Its cool if you see continuity differently than I do. But let's not either of us pretend that our views are the only correct ones and anyone who disagrees just doesnt "get it."

[Caivu]

If you're letting it limit you, that is what is lazy and, in my opinion of course, you're using it wrong.

How is it lazy to adhere to a pre-existing structure when writing? That requires more discipline and care, since you can't just do whatever you want, and will probably have to do a bit of research. In terms of a shared universe, limits are a good thing.

[dropkickjake]

Hey, they're fictional, made-up events. We're not beholden to continuity, we can make it do what we want it to. It serves us, not the other way around.

We've talked enough over in the Nightwing pitch thread that you probably know I'm totally with you on that.

This kind of wishy-washy approach to continuity isn't accepted in other forms of storytelling, so why do comics get a pass?

Continuity is adhered to to various degrees in various media. Comic books shared universes are pretty unique in the quantity with which they are published. Novels/series can hold to a strict continuity because far fewer of them are published at a time. Most series, in fact, only have one author, and even these series are prone to continuity inconsistencies. When you start adding authors, however, things get more complicated. Looking back at the Star Wars EU from before Disney took over, the continuity was a bit of a mess. You had to do some mental gymnastics to make it all work. Looking at movies, the MCU has had 21 movies in the past 10 years. Compare that to the sheer volume of Marvel comics published in that time (or, hell, published every month).

There are literary genres that function with fairly loose continuity though. Chief among them is mythology in which there are stories about heroes gods told with little regard to sequence. There are also film serials where one story doesn't necessarily lead in to the next. James Bond, until the more recent films, followed this model. These stories all happened, it doesn't matter which happened before or after the others.


Again, its cool for you to prefer a very rigid continuity, but with the frequency of your critiques on the subject I wanted to point out how your different view often leads you to offer critiques that are somewhat off point based on the spirit in which the suggestions were offered. It is similar to walking out of Schindler's List complaining "This was the worst comedy I've ever seen!"

[Caivu]

Most series, in fact, only have one author, and even these series are prone to continuity inconsistencies. When you start adding authors, however, things get more complicated. Looking back at the Star Wars EU from before Disney took over, the continuity was a bit of a mess. You had to do some mental gymnastics to make it all work. Looking at movies, the MCU has had 21 movies in the past 10 years. Compare that to the sheer volume of Marvel comics published in that time (or, hell, published every month).

So in other words, they get a pass because... what, it's too hard? Too complicated? When both the Internet and digital versions of almost every major comic issues exist?

Again, its cool for you to prefer a very rigid continuity, but with the frequency of your critiques on the subject I wanted to point out how your different view often leads you to offer critiques that are somewhat off point based on the spirit in which the suggestions were offered.

Huh? How are they off point? Look at the initial post:

Pitch a direction for Kate Kane that will hopefully branch into a new era of prosperity for the character.

How does that raise or even imply the question, as you put it, of "what is the best way to use this character conceptually?"

It just says "Pitch a direction", as have other such threads, IIRC. I just continue on from current canon, because it makes zero sense to me to not do that.

[dropkickjake]

So in other words, they get a pass because... what, it's too hard? Too complicated? When both the Internet and digital versions of almost every major comic issues exist?

Yes, continuity is difficult, but they "get a pass" because continuity isn't really the point. It's similar to the film serials and mythology. The point is telling good stories with iconic characters. Within that, continuity is a consideration, an important one even, but it is malleable.

Huh? How are they off point? Look at the initial post:



How does that raise or even imply the question, as you put it, of "what is the best way to use this character conceptually?"

It just says "Pitch a direction", as have other such threads, IIRC. I just continue on from current canon, because it makes zero sense to me to not do that.

First, I meant that your critiques of peoples ideas are off base based on the spirit in which the posts were made. For example, When Ascended posted he was offering some fun ideas that he would enjoy for the character. He wasn't looking to fit it perfectly like a jigsaw into a rigid continuity. In light of Ascended's purpose, you offered a non sequitur critique. That was what I was trying to communicate,

However, re: the initial post, you are correct in this: it just says "Pitch a direction." That is as open ended as it gets. I'd say it does imply an anything goes style discussion. In any case, OP didn't specify a rigid continuity discussion.

My effort here was to help you understand how other people see comics because it seemed to me that there was a disconnect. I did not mean to imply that your preferences are wrong, but rather to help you understand the validity and legitimacy of preferences that differ from your own.


But this isn't the "How do you view continuity" thread. It's about Batwoman, a character I have pretty much zero ideas about.

[Ascended]

How is it lazy to adhere to a pre-existing structure when writing? That requires more discipline and care, since you can't just do whatever you want, and will probably have to do a bit of research. In terms of a shared universe, limits are a good thing.

I can tell that this is something you're not gonna get, but I'll give it one more shot.

I am not suggesting ignoring continuity. The Colony was shut down and I am not suggesting a writer say that it wasn't. I am not suggesting changing the events that happened in any way. What I am suggesting is that just because it was shut down does not mean it has to stay that way. Kate's narrative does not have to be limited by that previous choice.

It's not about changing continuity. Nothing about the past is being changed. Nothing. All you're doing, by saying a new version of the Colony could potentially be reinstated, is gaining new possibilities for Kate and her story. That is not a bad thing, and finding interesting ways to bring the Colony back that doesn't go against previous continuity requires far more effort and imagination than simply saying it can't be done at all.

[Caivu]

I am not suggesting ignoring continuity. The Colony was shut down and I am not suggesting a writer say that it wasn't. I am not suggesting changing the events that happened in any way. What I am suggesting is that just because it was shut down does not mean it has to stay that way.

I get all that. But the way you're describing it happening doesn't make sense, because it glosses over big parts of why it was disbanded, and makes it seem way too easy since it wasn't just shut down, but dismantled.

[Ascended]

I get all that. But the way you're describing it happening doesn't make sense, because it glosses over big parts of why it was disbanded, and makes it seem way too easy since it wasn't just shut down, but dismantled.

Eh, haven't worked out the details, that's all. Like I said, "why" is just exposition.