Should. Marvel and it writers acknowledge past events in all of their titles ?

[Michael P]

Every day things? Rarely.

Important events? Quite often.

And that's the thing, big events are happening in these characters lives all the time.

If I fought, say, an evil version of myself from an alternate dimension to the death for the fate of the world, you bet I'd be bringing that every other day.

Not after the tenth time, you wouldn't.

[Coal Tiger]

Maybe if the story calls for it directly. And even then not that often, because then all you have are comics about other comics, and that's pretty dumb.

People sitting around saying "remember that time when..." is not only awful storytelling, but the basis for like half the jokes on Family Guy, and that show is terrible.

[Cmbmool]

Maybe if the story calls for it directly. And even then not that often, because then all you have are comics about other comics, and that's pretty dumb.

People sitting around saying "remember that time when..." is not only awful storytelling, but the basis for like half the jokes on Family Guy, and that show is terrible.

Say what you will, but often Family guy pulls out some good moments too as well as the bad.

[Star_Jammer]

Bendis said it best on his tumblr, like TheMerc linked to above.

Also, a lot of existing continuity is terrible. Let's forget about it and move on.

Wanda loves to know that you said this.

[Raye]

While I feel continuity is important in that it informs the characters, their relationships and the like, and an effort should be made to not contradict it, I really hate it when comics get unnecessarily bogged down with continuity nods. I want a good story as top priority, nothing more. If that means glossing over some minor (or just plain bad) bit of continuity from 20 years ago, enh, don't really care. I am fine with using old continuity as a springboard for a new story, like, a villain coming at a hero in an act of revenge, or something, but if all it amounts to is 'remember this story? wasn't it great?' then I really don't see the point.

[hawkeyefan]

It's a tool for the writer to use. They should try not to contradict what's come before, unless it's absolutely necessary or if the new story is just that good.

[Captain Haddock]

Continuity should work for the story/characters, not the other way around. Spider-Man has gone through a lot at the hands of Norman Osborne, so him being the one to punch Osborne out at the end of Siege made sense even with all the other (more powerful/important) characters around. BUT we don't need Spider-Man saying 'At least Octopus never killed Cpt. Stacey/boinked/killed Gwen/caused Clone Saga at the end of Superior - it really makes no difference.

[berserkerclaw]

Yes. Continuity needs to be reference in nessasary. For example characters action need to be consistent. Major examples. AVX and Trial of Jean Grey. Major Pheonix history was, missing so that "new" readers, wouldn't miss out. But, the story lacked in places for old fans. Trial was, bad cause portrayal of characters was wrong. Gladiator was written horrible.

[Cmbmool]

Yes. Continuity needs to be reference in nessasary. For example characters action need to be consistent. Major examples. AVX and Trial of Jean Grey. Major Pheonix history was, missing so that "new" readers, wouldn't miss out. But, the story lacked in places for old fans. Trial was, bad cause portrayal of characters was wrong. Gladiator was written horrible.

Especially when they excluded Rachel Grey's mentioning in the event. Bendis could have at least had the courtesy to mention Rachel Grey during the event.