Is Spider-Man supposed to be an unbroken story?

[Daibhidh]

Marvel has a shared universe. Rebooting one title but not another causes problems for crossovers and guest appearances. Explicitly ending the current continuity creates a definitive jumping off point. Readers may become less inclined to check out the back catalogue. Marvel would have to consider how frequently a series can be rebooted before it becomes a case of diminishing returns, and what the backup plan is if a reboot simply doesn't catch on.

There's no more need for the universe to be shared concurrently than it is consecutively. If each writer is telling new Spider-man stories they can just as well tell new Fantastic Four stories. If they're not bound by what happened in a past Fantastic Four comic why should they be bound by what is happening in a Fantastic Four comic that just happens to be published in the same month? (It would make matters a lot easier for people writing the Avengers if they didn't have to care what was going on in anyone's solo titles.)
You're already contending that there should be no reason for readers to check out the back catalogue other than the intrinsic merit of any particular story.
You're already contending that Spider-man's universe effectively reboots every time the writer changes with no risk of diminishing returns.

It would be easier to reboot Doctor Who. And that would be a bad idea too.

It's rebooted itself at least twice since the new series started. As you say, it's only technically the same continuity. There's essentially been a hard reboot between each showrunner, and arguably there was another reboot for the final series of the Twelfth Doctor. But Doctor Who doesn't have a shared universe, and it necessarily has to cope with the fact that actors move on.
(I think you probably missed my questions about the Doctor's granddaughter and Uncle Ben, since I only added them when I edited my post.)

[Lee]

There's no more need for the universe to be shared concurrently than it is consecutively. If each writer is telling new Spider-man stories they can just as well tell new Fantastic Four stories. If they're not bound by what happened in a past Fantastic Four comic why should they be bound by what is happening in a Fantastic Four comic that just happens to be published in the same month? (It would make matters a lot easier for people writing the Avengers if they didn't have to care what was going on in anyone's solo titles.)
You're already contending that there should be no reason for readers to check out the back catalogue other than the intrinsic merit of any particular story.
You're already contending that Spider-man's universe effectively reboots every time the writer changes with no risk of diminishing returns.

You're free to think that would be a good idea. I think it would be a bad idea.

It's rebooted itself at least twice since the new series started. As you say, it's only technically the same continuity. There's essentially been a hard reboot between each showrunner, and arguably there was another reboot for the final series of the Twelfth Doctor. But Doctor Who doesn't have a shared universe, and it necessarily has to cope with the fact that actors move on.
(I think you probably missed my questions about the Doctor's granddaughter and Uncle Ben, since I only added them when I edited my post.)

Doctor Who has had soft reboots. The continuity is ostensibly the same. They haven't restarted from the beginning and had the Doctor arrive on Earth for the first time or meet the Daleks for the first time. When there's a change of show runner, lead actor, companion, or direction, there's typically a segue to the next iteration. In Marvel Comics a new writer picks up the pieces from where the last writer left them, then starts doing something new. It's the same thing.

[Daibhidh]

The Doctor never meets X for the first time twice is a fairly soft limit on continuity.
There is an episode which is the first encounter between the crew of the Classic Star Trek and the Romulans. In that sense, and that alone, classic Star Trek has continuity. But nevertheless Classic Star Trek is set up so that in all other respects any episode can be aired in any order.
The TVTropes website categorises continuity into various strands. The first two are, no continuity at all - generally typical of comic animation such as Loony Tunes, and reset at the end of each episode, which is typical of most genre fiction prior to I think Babylon-5. Romulans aside, Classic Star Trek belongs here. Writing characters out when their actors become unavailable or new characters in doesn't alter the general rule here.
Classic Doctor Who is probably a small step up again, in that occasionally stories led into each other. (For example, Adric died at the end of one story; the remaining TARDIS crew ask the Doctor why they can't go back and save Adric at the start of the next story, and then Adric is completely forgotten.) But for the most part each story was a standalone. The companion Nyssa's father was killed by the Master who stole his body. Nyssa never brings this up in any of the other stories in which she meets the Master, who continued to be played by the actor who played Nyssa's father until well beyond Nyssa's final appearance.
As I say, we're talking about a level of continuity in which Peter and the supporting cast mourn Gwen Stacy in the issue after her death and then never mention her again. Spider-man has always had more continuity than that.

[Lee]

I know.

One thing can be similar to another thing in a particular way. Those same two things can be dissimilar in other ways.

Saying that A and B do X similarly is not saying that A and B do X exactly the same, nor is it saying that A and B do Y and Z similarly.

I don't know how to explain things any more clearly than I already have.

[Xenon]

Of course it is. They wouldn't bother publishing stuff like OMD or OMIT or even retconning Sins Past if it wasn't. That isn't to say it's perfect, or that every issue is relevant at all times, but it is to say that new issues shouldn't contradict older issues without an explanation, and things relevant to past issues COULD become current concerns again. This isn't a bad thing. It allows the story to be much bigger than it could be otherwise. The Night Gwen Stacy Dies matters because of the nearly 80 some odd issues before it that developed Gwen and Peter's relationship to her. The Death of Jean DeWolff is just another cop being killed if she's not this ally that crushes on Spider-Man. Harry Osborn's death in Spec 200 doesn't mean nearly as much without knowing his history. Every time Norman Osborn is used to this day, it draws on his history of torment that he's put Peter through. The stories are bigger and more meaningful with continuity. And that's why they put the legacy number on the book. Because they know it too.

[godisawesome]

…I think I might actually argue that, semi-ironically, the current run and most of the OMD era is actually *more* dependent on portraying the story as a single, unending story than the halcyon eras editorial holds up.

As much as returning Peter to a editorially preferred status quo eventually is one of their constant top priorities, everything else is much more rigidly detailed in terms of previous arcs and runs between creative teams. And even the current arc’s nature has no value or story without a meta-commentary deeply ingrained in previous chapters.

Modern editorial may despise character consistency, but they’re still continuity fanatics; references to the past clearly matter more than character work right now.

[clonegeek]

…I think I might actually argue that, semi-ironically, the current run and most of the OMD era is actually *more* dependent on portraying the story as a single, unending story than the halcyon eras editorial holds up.

As much as returning Peter to a editorially preferred status quo eventually is one of their constant top priorities, everything else is much more rigidly detailed in terms of previous arcs and runs between creative teams. And even the current arc’s nature has no value or story without a meta-commentary deeply ingrained in previous chapters.

Modern editorial may despise character consistency, but they’re still continuity fanatics; references to the past clearly matter more than character work right now.

I do love me some deep continuity cuts, but thats more my Aspergers at play. Now that I mentuin it, how much of the fanaticness for canon at editorial is rooted in autism?

[Celgress]

I don't understand what you're confused by. No incoming Spider-Man writer thinks they're writing Chapter 3054 of a work in progress novel. They're just writing new Spider-Man stories.

You have a Doctor Who avatar, that show's continuity operates similarly to Marvel Comics. It's ostensibly all one continuity dating back to 1963, but that's largely an illusion. Doctor Who doesn't work as a single cohesive story.

Actually, you're wrong about Doctor Who. The continuity did and does matter a great deal and is (mostly) coherent. It was leaned into heavily both for the Classic Series and the Modern Series: see examples such as "The Three Doctors", "Planet of the Daleks", "Destiny of the Daleks", "Arc of Infinity", "Attack of the Cybermen", "The Invasion of Time", "Remembrance of the Daleks", "Parting of the Walks", "The Stolen Earth", "Utopia", "The Sound of Drums", etc. too many for me really to mention. Events and whole stories from the past were ALWAYS referenced and often played into later plotlines.

[Spider-Tiger]

…I think I might actually argue that, semi-ironically, the current run and most of the OMD era is actually *more* dependent on portraying the story as a single, unending story than the halcyon eras editorial holds up.

As much as returning Peter to a editorially preferred status quo eventually is one of their constant top priorities, everything else is much more rigidly detailed in terms of previous arcs and runs between creative teams. And even the current arc’s nature has no value or story without a meta-commentary deeply ingrained in previous chapters.

Modern editorial may despise character consistency, but they’re still continuity fanatics; references to the past clearly matter more than character work right now.

The current material is nostalgia-laden, but I think that's inevitable to some degree with any property that goes on for this long (fans eventually become creators.) This has much less to do with upholding the merits of continuity itself.

I would also disagree that the last three runs have been all that consistent (aside from a rigid "no marriage" rule.) Spencer's run was a continuity focused run. He clearly made attempts to "clean up" the ongoing story by tying together elements of the pre- and post-OMD eras while removing some unpopular story developments. Aside from a wink to the Night Gwen Stacy Died, the "What did Peter Do?" saga in the Wells run could practically be an elseworlds story involving random characters.

(If you're arguing that the Wells run only sells because of a meta-disagreement over Peter and MJ, that's all still happening external to the story itself. Editorial is just leveraging that outrage to their advantage.)

[Daibhidh]

Actually, you're wrong about Doctor Who. The continuity did and does matter a great deal and is (mostly) coherent. It was leaned into heavily both for the Classic Series and the Modern Series: see examples such as "The Three Doctors", "Planet of the Daleks", "Destiny of the Daleks", "Arc of Infinity", "Attack of the Cybermen", "The Invasion of Time", "Remembrance of the Daleks", "Parting of the Walks", "The Stolen Earth", "Utopia", "The Sound of Drums", etc. too many for me really to mention. Events and whole stories from the past were ALWAYS referenced and often played into later plotlines.

The new series is a different beast, with a lot more continuity than the classic series. And the classic series develops a bit as video tapes and Target Novelisations go on sale and magazines come out with plot summaries of old episodes. Nevertheless, of the seven classic series episodes you mention, five are notorious stinkers. In the case of Attack of the Cybermen, we know one of the people in the script editors' room was obsessed with continuity over storytelling. Looking at the two great episodes in your list, The Three Doctors makes no use of continuity beyond Patrick Troughton and William Hartnell both used to be the Doctor; and the Doctor's actions in Remembrance do not really fit with The Unearthly Child at all.

By comparison, in Gerry Conway's run, there's a little character moment where Flash offers to let Peter stay at his apartment after Peter's apartment was bombed by Harry (who is on a psychotic break because he thinks Peter killed his Dad, who was the Green Goblin) and Peter reflects that he would never have believed this would happen back in High School when Flash was a bully and it's funny how people change.
That's a level of continuity that just couldn't happen in the classic series of Doctor Who. Now that's not saying that every appearance of Flash in the Romita era was written with a view to Flash's character development, nor that every issue with Flash was relevant, but it does mean that Peter is aware of Flash as someone who has changed over the course of their history and isn't just a flat archetype.

[Lee]

Actually, you're wrong about Doctor Who. The continuity did and does matter a great deal and is (mostly) coherent. It was leaned into heavily both for the Classic Series and the Modern Series: see examples such as "The Three Doctors", "Planet of the Daleks", "Destiny of the Daleks", "Arc of Infinity", "Attack of the Cybermen", "The Invasion of Time", "Remembrance of the Daleks", "Parting of the Walks", "The Stolen Earth", "Utopia", "The Sound of Drums", etc. too many for me really to mention. Events and whole stories from the past were ALWAYS referenced and often played into later plotlines.

You have misunderstood what I said.

These are all examples of Doctor Who ostensibly being one continuity dating back to 1963, similar to Marvel Comics.

But Doctor Who is not One Big Story, it's not a novel. The entirety of Doctor Who is not intended to be digested as a single piece of entertainment.

[Daibhidh]

But Doctor Who is not One Big Story, it's not a novel. The entirety of Doctor Who is not intended to be digested as a single piece of entertainment.

I don't think anyone here has put forward the idea that it's a single piece of entertainment. That's not what the people who've put forward the 'unbroken story' idea have meant.
(The closest I've seen anyone get is Douglas Wolk, in his book All the Marvels, who asserts that Spider-man up to the marriage was a bildungsroman. And because it was a single piece of entertainment with an end it therefore had to stop and be rebooted by getting rid of the marriage.)

[Mister Mets]

The current material is nostalgia-laden, but I think that's inevitable to some degree with any property that goes on for this long (fans eventually become creators.) This has much less to do with upholding the merits of continuity itself.

I would also disagree that the last three runs have been all that consistent (aside from a rigid "no marriage" rule.) Spencer's run was a continuity focused run. He clearly made attempts to "clean up" the ongoing story by tying together elements of the pre- and post-OMD eras while removing some unpopular story developments. Aside from a wink to the Night Gwen Stacy Died, the "What did Peter Do?" saga in the Wells run could practically be an elseworlds story involving random characters.

(If you're arguing that the Wells run only sells because of a meta-disagreement over Peter and MJ, that's all still happening external to the story itself. Editorial is just leveraging that outrage to their advantage.)

Wells is consistent with continuity in that he is building on a status quo set up by other writers (Randy Robertson is still seeing Janice Lincoln, Norman Osborn has been "cleansed," Jonah knows that Peter is Spider-Man.) That alone keeps it from being an Elseworlds.

[godisawesome]

The current material is nostalgia-laden, but I think that's inevitable to some degree with any property that goes on for this long (fans eventually become creators.) This has much less to do with upholding the merits of continuity itself.

I would also disagree that the last three runs have been all that consistent (aside from a rigid "no marriage" rule.) Spencer's run was a continuity focused run. He clearly made attempts to "clean up" the ongoing story by tying together elements of the pre- and post-OMD eras while removing some unpopular story developments. Aside from a wink to the Night Gwen Stacy Died, the "What did Peter Do?" saga in the Wells run could practically be an elseworlds story involving random characters.

(If you're arguing that the Wells run only sells because of a meta-disagreement over Peter and MJ, that's all still happening external to the story itself. Editorial is just leveraging that outrage to their advantage.)

Wells is consistent with continuity in that he is building on a status quo set up by other writers (Randy Robertson is still seeing Janice Lincoln, Norman Osborn has been "cleansed," Jonah knows that Peter is Spider-Man.) That alone keeps it from being an Elseworlds.

That’s what I meant by how editorial still very much wants you to keep track of events, but discount characterization consistency, as often the writers actually want the supporting cast to go through drastic and dramatically explosive changes. You’d better know what the new gimmick is for Norman, Jonah, Ben, etc., because none of them resembles any familiar status quo.

And I’d argue that the “outrage-dependent” writing of the current run stems from how the type of “mystery box” being used to start Wells’s run depends on the audience knowing and engaging with a prior story’s endpoint - that particular *type* of in media res opening relies on putting beloved and familiar characters and setting elements into chaos, rather than relying on the simple conflict itself.

[Scott Taylor]

Its treated as one, unbroken story. Always has been. When Romita took over, he used the Green Goblin which was created by Ditko. Single narrative. When JMS did his Happy Birthday issue, he had Spider-Man relive all the significant moments of his past, which were written by many authors. Single narrative. Most of the supporting characters in use by writers over the past 20 years were introduced by someone else. Single narrative.

Just ... there are some stories that aren't worth bringing up again. Its not that they didn't happen. They just aren't something anyone wants to revisit. Like Sin's Past. Still a single narrative, based on the other factors I mentioned.

I would argue that OMD/OMIT are also just a part of the narrative. Thats practically the only hope those of us who hate them have in getting rid of them - they can be revisited and abolished because its all one big story. How you abolish them would just become part of the narrative and everyone would talk about how much that era sucked. Like they do about Chapter One or (for some) the entire JMS era. The best strength of the single story aspect is that you can draw from anything and ignore anything, without invalidating anything.