Why does continuity in comics matter to you?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So, I just went off an a tangent again, didn't I? LOL.

Nah it's cool.

So, I can't say restarts are WRONG. After all, I liked the Silver Age because I responded to it positively as a child and the Post Crisis because it did the same for me as a young adult. There is a certain nostalgia that creeps in with age to hold onto what you cherish from your early years. That's why you'll find older people want more to keep the Silver Age elements and a younger group the Post-Crisis and an even younger group something more recent.

The problem is you need more than nostalgia because otherwise you do stuff that gets incoherent.

Take The Flash. The first one was Jay Garrick, not a successful or important hero. Then you had Barry Allen, the Flash of the Silver Age who was popular in the '50s but declined in favor after that, and then during COIE the editors asked Wolfman/Perez to kill him off because they thought he'd become dull and stale. Then Mark Waid decides to upgrade Wally West as the Flash and a good part of the Flash mythos developed around Wally (i.e. the Speed Force and so on) and Wally became *the Flash* when the JLU cartoons came, and then DiDio and (sigh) Johns brought back Barry for no discernible reason other than personal nostalgia nor did Barry's return lead to stories that couldn't be told with Wally.

And now the result is that the classic Flash mythos developed around a legacy now centers around the guy it was erected above and that made no sense. It's totally subtractive.

[Jim Kelly]

Take The Flash. The first one was Jay Garrick, not a successful or important hero. Then you had Barry Allen, the Flash of the Silver Age who was popular in the '50s but declined in favor after that, and then during COIE the editors asked Wolfman/Perez to kill him off because they thought he'd become dull and stale.

Not to be picky but this is one of those misconceptions that repeated enough times starts to become what everyone thinks is true. And it's easy to believe for Marvel fans where even second string characters could have long running titles. But other than the big 3, this was never true for the Distinguished Competition. And yet, of all the characters revived in the 1950s and 1960s, only THE FLASH held onto his title--from 1959 right to the end in 1985. The only other super-hero title that had an equal performance was JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA which ran from 1960 to 1987--but that was a team title (which included the big 3) and had many changes in personnel. Only THE FLASH held strong throughout the 1960s and 1970s--not GREEN LANTERN, not THE ATOM, not AQUAMAN.

If the Flash had really been a poor seller in the 1960s or 1970s, it would have been cancelled like those other titles. But it never was, which suggests that its sales were better. And while other titles went through significant changes--with character deaths, costume changes, format changes, job changes--in hopes of jump starting their sales--the Flash stayed true to its formula. The only time there was a significant change was in 1979, when they killed off Iris. So you could argue by that point, after twenty years, the Flash was starting to slow down and needed the kind of imposed plot change to get readers back.

Just why they decided to kill off Barry Allen in the Crisis--or Supergirl--I don't pretend to know. I'm sure they had their reasons, but I don't think it was because they lacked faith in the character's sales value.

[Adam Allen]

Now Tony Stark's Iron Man origin started in a fictional Vietnam-like country called Sin-Cong. All the other Vietnam era stories like Flash Thompson serving in Vietnam were retconned to take place in Sin-Cong. The country was part of French Indochina.

https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Sin-Cong

Flash Thompson later served in Afghanistan or Iraq after he was discharged from the army. How often do discharged soldiers get to re-enlist in the army?

Why would one of the world's richest men want to play superhero? Bruce Wayne had a good reason to fight crime. Is Tony Stark doing superhero stuff because he owed Ho Yinsen?

Huh. Okay, leaving aside how horribly on the nose the name is -- Sin-Cong. Madripoor. Latveria. Wakanda.

It's something that just occurs to me, that seems kind of weird? Like, in contrast to DC, with its Metropolis, Gotham, Central City and Coast City, Marvel just says this is New York, Boston, LA or San Francisco. The GLA are not from a fictional Midwestern state, and I remember part of what I liked about Synch when he was introduced is that he's from my real-life home town.

Just saying -- is it weird that Marvel uses real-life US locations, but then makes us fictional places, if they leave the US? I mean, I guess for places like Wakanda, Latveria, and the Savage Land -- okay, these are places that are inherently unlike any in the real world. But Madripoor and Sin-Cong? Why not just use real-world places?

[DrNewGod]

Flash Thompson later served in Afghanistan or Iraq after he was discharged from the army. How often do discharged soldiers get to re-enlist in the army?

It's more common than you might think. Discharge carries no implications for the condition of departure (Honorable, Dishonorable, or Other Than Honorable).

Why would one of the world's richest men want to play superhero? Bruce Wayne had a good reason to fight crime. Is Tony Stark doing superhero stuff because he owed Ho Yinsen?

Yes, but also be cause he was basically a dead man walking in his early appearances, and wanted to do something useful to make up for filling the world with weapons.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why not just use real-world places?

Because real-world nations represent markets for toys and merchandise and if you have a comic showing that nation's past as someone a superhero rolled over or run by supervillains that doesn't make you simpatico to that market.

Whereas there's no Latverian market for Marvel merch because Latveria is a fictional country, so rules don't apply.

[Adam Allen]

Because real-world nations represent markets for toys and merchandise and if you have a comic showing that nation's past as someone a superhero rolled over or run by supervillains that doesn't make you simpatico to that market.

Whereas there's no Latverian market for Marvel merch because Latveria is a fictional country, so rules don't apply.

But if you wanted to do a Bludhaven/Nightwing thing based in St. Louis, where -- I don't know, Blade? Luke Cage, maybe? Yeah, all of Marvel's heroes are basically based in New York. Anyway, if a book was based there and it was about the town being run by supervillains, with a lone hero trying to combat them and protect the people ... not only would I want to read that book, but I'd be very surprised if it was not super popular in real-world St. Louis.

I mean, again, we already have the bulk of Marvel's stories happening in the comics versions of real-world US cities. Just seems weird for that mirroring to disappear, once you leave the borders of fictional US.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Just seems weird for that mirroring to disappear, once you leave the borders of fictional US.

It does seem strange but look Iron Man originated in the Vietnam War, one that became super-unpopular and is today seen as a major embarrassment. There's no way you can sell toys with a Cold Warrior as a good guy these days (sure they did in the '70s and '80s) because Disney wants Vietnam (now an American ally and partner) to buy their merch. Likely the same deal eventually with Afghanistan. Even if you take the most sympathetic reading, there's no arguing the fact that Tony sold weapons to be used in Vietnam and Afghanistan against Vietnamese and Afghani people, and sure he felt bad about it but it's not hard for potential Marvel consumers from that part of the world to add up and realize that Tony probably made a profit killing their ancestors or grandparents or uncles and so on. Remember merchandising isn't about making money, it's about making all the money.

The same situation adds up with any real-world nation they use.

[TheRay]

Interesting note is that, when Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2010, he refused to call it a sequel to 2001, insisting on calling it an alternate reality sequel to an alternate reality 2001 that was not the 2001 we in this reality saw on the movie screen. Why?

Most of the time this is the case, it just isn't explicitly stated like it is here.

[Zelena]

Because real-world nations represent markets for toys and merchandise and if you have a comic showing that nation's past as someone a superhero rolled over or run by supervillains that doesn't make you simpatico to that market.

Whereas there's no Latverian market for Marvel merch because Latveria is a fictional country, so rules don't apply.

I read a long time ago a book about imaginary countries in comics… Indeed, they are very practical.

Here’s a map to some of them but very few from US comics… although there’s Latveria: http://g.courtial.free.fr/airpalombia/index.htm

[TheRay]

Basically, if you are going to reboot, then reboot, don't partly reboot.

The goal is always to acquire new readers. So we can't really have that be a caveat for anything.
I think the more they do it the more and more difficult it becomes to do anything but a soft reboot without it just being a full on alternate universe. Someone is not going to reboot and have Superman and Supergirl not be from Krypton, for example, etc.

[Zauriel]

Huh. Okay, leaving aside how horribly on the nose the name is -- Sin-Cong. Madripoor. Latveria. Wakanda.

Just saying -- is it weird that Marvel uses real-life US locations, but then makes us fictional places, if they leave the US? I mean, I guess for places like Wakanda, Latveria, and the Savage Land -- okay, these are places that are inherently unlike any in the real world. But Madripoor and Sin-Cong? Why not just use real-world places?

A good question, sir. Following the death of Jason Todd, Iran appointed Joker ambassador to the UN. But for some reason, it was later retconned to a fictional country called Qurac.

Sin-Cong sounds almost horrible as a name.

Madripoor is a stand-in for Thailand. Sin-Cong is a stand-in for Vietnam. Qurac is a stand-in for Iran.

[ed2962]

Huh. Okay, leaving aside how horribly on the nose the name is -- Sin-Cong. Madripoor. Latveria. Wakanda.

It's something that just occurs to me, that seems kind of weird? Like, in contrast to DC, with its Metropolis, Gotham, Central City and Coast City, Marvel just says this is New York, Boston, LA or San Francisco. The GLA are not from a fictional Midwestern state, and I remember part of what I liked about Synch when he was introduced is that he's from my real-life home town.

Just saying -- is it weird that Marvel uses real-life US locations, but then makes us fictional places, if they leave the US? I mean, I guess for places like Wakanda, Latveria, and the Savage Land -- okay, these are places that are inherently unlike any in the real world. But Madripoor and Sin-Cong? Why not just use real-world places?

The Sin-Cong situation really has to do more with the sliding timescale than anything else. The back stories of some of the Marvel characters are tied to specific real world events. And while that's fine for some characters, for others it it just doesn't work anymore as the characters don't age in real time. Keeping their origins the same year the comics were published makes the characters too old. And just pushing them up to modern times doesn't always fit with current events or politics. It would make no sense for Tony Stark to be in Viet Nam building weapons for the US Army in the early 2000's, or Bruce Banner doing above ground atomic bomb tests the same year, etc. Thus Reed, Ben, Rhodey etc were all part of a fictional war

[Jim Kelly]

In the original story Tony Stark was in South Vietnam (thanks Fireside Books) and Flash Thompson went to Vietnam. For Marvel that's how I like it. To maintain their continually updated timeline, they might need to change the location to other places--but those should be real places like Afghanistan and Iraq, not made up stuff. To me that's what always set Marvel and D.C. apart. I never liked it much when D.C. stories were set in New York--New York was the main city in the Marvel Universe--in the D.C.U., there was Gotham City and Metropolis.

I prefer the two companies to stay in their lane and not try so hard to be like each other.

[Adam Allen]

The Sin-Cong situation really has to do more with the sliding timescale than anything else. The back stories of some of the Marvel characters are tied to specific real world events. And while that's fine for some characters, for others it it just doesn't work anymore as the characters don't age in real time. Keeping their origins the same year the comics were published makes the characters too old. And just pushing them up to modern times doesn't always fit with current events or politics. It would make no sense for Tony Stark to be in Viet Nam building weapons for the US Army in the early 2000's, or Bruce Banner doing above ground atomic bomb tests the same year, etc. Thus Reed, Ben, Rhodey etc were all part of a fictional war

Well, that's reason to not tie characters/origins to specific real world events/conflicts/circumstances, sure. But you have whole towns being destroyed and what not within the borders of Marvel's fictional US, so I don't really see a reason to not have fictional events/origins or whatever taking place in fictional versions of other countries -- except, granting, as Revolutionary Jack points out, you wouldn't want to do that if you intend to make the entire government/country of some other country look bad. As far as that though, they shouldn't be doing that, anyway. If the point of making Thailand into fictional Madripoor is so you can portray the whole country in the worst light possible -- just don't do that, because xenophobia is not cool.

But I mean, I'm not personally opposed to something like Banner doing above-ground gamma bomb tests in fictional Nevada or where ever, because sure, in the real world they wouldn't be doing that -- but also in the real world, being caught in radiation doesn't give you the ability to transform into an indestructible 9 foot tall monster, so ... you know, not going to get too hung up, if some of the circumstances they make up for the characters is not quite in synch with our real world. It's comic books, I'm not expecting it to reflect the world outside my windows.

[Jim Kelly]

Isn't the point of these fictional countries xenophobia just the same?

I think the reason Stan Lee used South Vietnam in the Tony Stark origin is because he was so used to the slurs in the Korean War stories he was churning out, he couldn't give it up and he just wanted another "yellow race" to bash, so he took what was handy at the time. Calling it Sin-Cong doesn't change that--it's still meant to condemn South East Asians as a whole and make them into the devil.

If you call it Qurac, we still know the point is to drag all Muslim countries through the mud and declare American superiority.

Vague East European dictatorships are clearly stereotypical portraits of the Eastern Bloc that paint everyone and everything there in grey tones--even if the names are fake.

Just because they say it's fictional, that doesn't hide their hatred directed at the other.