Why does continuity in comics matter to you?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Also means in 20 years many will be forgotten.

A story having an ending doesn't mean the character will be forgotten.

[Agent Z]

At the end of the day, comics are created for readers in the real world. They are not meant for the readers inside the Marvel Universe, or fictional Quraci, Madripoorians and so on.

And I honestly don't think the main takeaway is necessarily xenophobia (though probably so with Qurac).

The xenophobia is from the writers who base these fictional countries on xenophobic and racist stereotypes (as they do with Madripoor and Qurac). The audience don't have to be bigoted themselves for the material to containing horrible implications, although them being blind to these problems doesn't exactly help either.

Jar Jar Binks and the Twins from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen were racist stereotypes but it didn't make the audience themselves racist.

[TheRay]

I think the idea should be that that stuff is always there to dip into if need be. Like, one writer can write Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver as Magneto's kids and build on that continuity, while another writer can choose to build on the continuity where they aren't his kids.

[Spike-X]

It doesn't. Just tell me a good story.

If a writer can use stories that have already been told to build upon and enhance their own story, great. If not... *shrug*

[TheRay]

I don't really care if certain writers ignore certain things because other writers can bring those things back in the future.

[PCN24454]

I always find it funny when people talk about starting a movies series without an origin. Movies always have a very different continuity from whatever they're based on. It means that any knowledge you have from the comics could be useless for the movie.

[TheRay]

Plus it's more fun to talk about. Sooner or later a self-contained story is going to have everything there is to say about it be said.

[babyblob]

Plus it's more fun to talk about. Sooner or later a self-contained story is going to have everything there is to say about it be said.

I agree. I mean we all knew Batman's origin from the comics. but it was cool to do In Batman Begins.

Though I did have a problem with the fact he didnt want to kill the guilty man to join the League of Assassins. (The issues isn't with not killing the man) But then he starts a fire that causes the building to blow up and kills several people including the fake Ras and he is fine with that?

[batnbreakfast]

I agree. I mean we all knew Batman's origin from the comics. but it was cool to do In Batman Begins.

Though I did have a problem with the fact he didnt want to kill the guilty man to join the League of Assassins. (The issues isn't with not killing the man) But then he starts a fire that causes the building to blow up and kills several people including the fake Ras and he is fine with that?

The difference is Bruce didn't kill the guy because he was tied up and on his knees and Bruce could have killed him easily. The setting fire to a temple full of evil ninja assasins in self defense is a problem? lol

[TheRay]

Though I did have a problem with the fact he didnt want to kill the guilty man to join the League of Assassins. (The issues isn't with not killing the man) But then he starts a fire that causes the building to blow up and kills several people including the fake Ras and he is fine with that?

I haven't seen that, but it's probably the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing. If the intention with starting the fire isn't to kill, then it's not the same.

[babyblob]

The difference is Bruce didn't kill the guy because he was tied up and on his knees and Bruce could have killed him easily. The setting fire to a temple full of evil ninja assasins in self defense is a problem? lol

I mean Batman has always been clear he does not kill. even in self defense.

I haven't seen that, but it's probably the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing. If the intention with starting the fire isn't to kill, then it's not the same.

Indirect murder or not it is still taking a life. Something he is very much against. He had to know that starting a fire around a huge pile of explosives and he was fine with the deaths that would result because you know bad guys. Cant be against murder but be fine with doing something that will very much result in the deaths of people like starting a massive fire. The whole is Bruce didnt kill them the massive explosion did. But Bruce caused the explosion so yes he did directly kill those people. Cant give someone a pass on Mass murder and arson because you know he is a hero.

[DrNewGod]

I mean Batman has always been clear he does not kill. even in self defense...

Meh, depends on the interpretation. All the film Batmen since 1989 have been a bit less fussy about the degree of harm that they do. Comics Batman started out carrying a gun, and wasn't hesitant to whack a deserving scumbag.

[babyblob]

Meh, depends on the interpretation. All the film Batmen since 1989 have been a bit less fussy about the degree of harm that they do. Comics Batman started out carrying a gun, and wasn't hesitant to whack a deserving scumbag.

yea in the movies it has been less I wont kill. And yea in the Golden Age he did kill some people. I remember when he machine gunned a truck. But for the past like 70 years he has been clear about not killing. And in the Nolan films he goes on several times about he does not kill. Kind of makes it cheap talk when he starts his quest by killing a whole bunch of bad guys lol.

[Powerboy]

I agree. I mean we all knew Batman's origin from the comics. but it was cool to do In Batman Begins.

Though I did have a problem with the fact he didnt want to kill the guilty man to join the League of Assassins. (The issues isn't with not killing the man) But then he starts a fire that causes the building to blow up and kills several people including the fake Ras and he is fine with that?

I know someone who only knew Batman from the Burton movies and had no idea he didn't kill. She thought he was just an action movie vigilante once you get by the costume and started to be interested only with that scene in BB.

I think the thing was that this was not a fight. This was murdering someone in cold blood and a bit of a shot at some vigilante characters. You don't know that the system won't work. You're just assuming it.

[Jim Kelly]

yea in the movies it has been less I wont kill. And yea in the Golden Age he did kill some people. I remember when he machine gunned a truck. But for the past like 70 years he has been clear about not killing. And in the Nolan films he goes on several times about he does not kill. Kind of makes it cheap talk when he starts his quest by killing a whole bunch of bad guys lol.

In the early stories, lots of crooks come to a bad end but it's not like Batman set out to kill them. It's negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, self defense, misadventure. The two times where he deliberately, with malice of forethought, kills people with a weapon are when he shoots Dala and the Monk with silver bullets--but they were vampires and arguably not living human beings--and when he guns down the monsters that Hugo Strange created--but his gun doesn't seem to kill them and he has to dispatch them by others means and, like Dala and the Monk, they may not be living human beings any longer but rather monster-zombies.