Is the idea of "canon" outdated?

[Viteh]

I feel like this is a concept many people are preoccupied with, but that has very little meaning today, at least when it comes to Marvel comics.

Back in the 90s, Marvel comics used to reference themselves a lot more than they do today, to the point that in order to understand the major events you had to read a lot of other books, so it made sense to worry about what counted and what didn't. Did that mini really happen? Will it get referenced eventually? Those were valid questions back then, but that's not the case anymore.

Nowadays every book kinda exists in a vacuum, separated from all the other current books and most of the past ones.

There's only 4 instances where I've noticed stuff gets referenced:

1)It's done by the same writer on another of their books. Eg: Cap's son in Remender's books. He is in Axis and the new Cap book, but nowhere else.
2)It's part of a big marketing push by Marvel. Eg: Also by Remender, Falcon becoming Captain America (and Steve's age), Thor's hammer, Tony's...alcoholism?
3)It's done by a writer who likes referencing other stuff and use it somehow. Eg: Elwing's Loki. It's why I enjoy his book so much, it's refreshing to see someone use continuity to make the book better.
4)It's done in a veeeery casual way, with no real effect on the story. Eg: Bendis in UXM, or ANXM. Sometimes he casually mentions past continuity (half the time getting it wrong though), but it has no real purpose.

So either the book you have just read wont get referenced, or it will do so in a slightly bigger vacuum (1 and 3), or have no real effect (4), or you will find out about it from reading the comic news (2), there's really no point in worrying if something is canon or not. As being canon no longer matters.

Now, whether this is good or not I'm not sure. I think it's good from a new reader pov, as it makes books more accessible, it's also good for the writers, as they have more freedom. Although I kinda miss the "shared universe" feel that the Marvel Universe used to have.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

I feel like this is a concept many people are preoccupied with, but that has very little meaning today, at least when it comes to Marvel comics.

Back in the 90s, Marvel comics used to reference themselves a lot more than they do today, to the point that in order to understand the major events you had to read a lot of other books, so it made sense to worry about what counted and what didn't. Did that mini really happen? Will it get referenced eventually? Those were valid questions back then, but that's not the case anymore.

Nowadays every book kinda exists in a vacuum, separated from all the other current books and most of the past ones.

There's only 4 instances where I've noticed stuff gets referenced:

1)It's done by the same writer on another of their books. Eg: Cap's son in Remender's books. He is in Axis and the new Cap book, but nowhere else.
2)It's part of a big marketing push by Marvel. Eg: Also by Remender, Falcon becoming Captain America (and Steve's age), Thor's hammer, Tony's...alcoholism?
3)It's done by a writer who likes referencing other stuff and use it somehow. Eg: Elwing's Loki. It's why I enjoy his book so much, it's refreshing to see someone use continuity to make the book better.
4)It's done in a veeeery casual way, with no real effect on the story. Eg: Bendis in UXM, or ANXM. Sometimes he casually mentions past continuity (half the time getting it wrong though), but it has no real purpose.

So either the book you have just read wont get referenced, or it will do so in a slightly bigger vacuum (1 and 3), or have no real effect (4), or you will find out about it from reading the comic news (2), there's really no point in worrying if something is canon or not. As being canon no longer matters.

Now, whether this is good or not I'm not sure. I think it's good from a new reader pov, as it makes books more accessible, it's also good for the writers, as they have more freedom. Although I kinda miss the "shared universe" feel that the Marvel Universe used to have.

Yep, the idea of "canon" is outdated.
This years Secret Wars is the PERFECT vehicle to accomplish this.

X-Fans will be ECSTATIC if it turns out that mutants will be on an earth where there are ONLY mutants no superhumans, inhumans, eternals, asgardians, olympians, androids or cyborgs
KSD and BMB will be ECSTATIC if it turns out that they and ONLY they will shape, mold and define marvel charcters according to their vision.

It is for the best when this years Secret Wars will provide the means to make the above a reality because for the last 10 years the main marvel 616 universe with it's 616 characters has become an ABOMINATION.

Most important benefits for a new main marvel universe is as you accurately put it ; it's good from a new reader pov, as it makes books more accessible, it's also good for the writers, as they have more freedom.

[Raye]

I think the big difference between then and now is the sheer number of books and characters involved. In the early days, it wasn't a big deal to pick up the ENTIRE LINE, because the 'entire line' of books in the shared universe was like, 10-15 books (less if you just went with the 'core' characters) and they were a few cents each. So back then making things interconnected benefited Marvel because what's an extra 20 cents to get the full story, right? Now, it's a line of over 50 books, and they cost 4 dollars each. Each reader is going to have to pick and choose what they want to read more carefully than back in the 70's or whatever, so it now works AGAINST Marvel to make things TOO interconnected because if you feel lost and the solution is to pick up more books, that can end up being a significant cost, and a lot of people may just opt to drop it entirely.

Also, the comics these days are much less focused on a 'house style' which is good because it promotes variety, and gives everyone a something to their tastes. But if you make those books too interconnected, it can sometimes be jarring if you end up jumping between like, Squirrel Girl and Punisher to get a complete story....

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

I think the big difference between then and now is the sheer number of books and characters involved. In the early days, it wasn't a big deal to pick up the ENTIRE LINE, because the 'entire line' of books in the shared universe was like, 10-15 books (less if you just went with the 'core' characters) and they were a few cents each. So back then making things interconnected benefited Marvel because what's an extra 20 cents to get the full story, right? Now, it's a line of over 50 books, and they cost 4 dollars each. Each reader is going to have to pick and choose what they want to read more carefully than back in the 70's or whatever, so it now works AGAINST Marvel to make things TOO interconnected because if you feel lost and the solution is to pick up more books, that can end up being a significant cost.

Makes sense.

[HaveAtThee]

The idea that a lack of continuity is "freedom" for writers is childish and patronizing to the reader, and just plain idiotic in general. You're dealing with licensed characters, the writers shouldn't be given total free reign to shape their destinies as they see fit, only for the next creator to come in and go in a completely new direction. The character then loses his/her identity (somewhat) and merely becomes a shiny prop for whatever story a particular writer wants to do at the time. It isn't a coincidence that a majority of the most revered stories and arcs in Marvel history were published between the 60's and the 80's, when there was a strong sense of continuity and evolution of the universe. Sure, it slowed considerably in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's, but past stories were still referenced and thus the hunt for back issues was all the more pleasing. That's not to say that writers didn't infuse their own ideas into the characters, however the basic elements of the characters remained consistent from their inception under Stan, Jack, Ditko, Romita and others. Besides, what made Marvel so revolutionary for years is the idea of a continuous, shared universe with intricate details and maybe the occasional crossover.

Adhering to canon or continuity does not have to be tyrannical, but just examining some of the major stories in the past year there are so many plot holes in these writers' concepts it's not even funny, and guys like Tom Brevoort have to conjure up ridiculous explanations for these errors in logic. In my opinion, a stronger sense of continuity (or canon) makes it more seamless for the reader to understand why things happen in separate titles involving the same character.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

The idea that a lack of continuity is "freedom" for writers is childish and patronizing to the reader, and just plain idiotic in general. You're dealing with licensed characters, the writers shouldn't be given total free reign to shape their destinies as they see fit, only for the next creator to come in and go in a completely new direction. The character then loses his/her identity (somewhat) and merely becomes a shiny prop for whatever story a particular writer wants to do at the time. It isn't a coincidence that a majority of the most revered stories and arcs in Marvel history were published between the 60's and the 80's, when there was a strong sense of continuity and evolution of the universe. Sure, it slowed considerably in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's, but past stories were still referenced and thus the hunt for back issues was all the more pleasing. That's not to say that writers didn't infuse their own ideas into the characters, however the basic elements of the characters remained consistent from their inception under Stan, Jack, Ditko, Romita and others. Besides, what made Marvel so revolutionary for years is the idea of a continuous, shared universe with intricate details and maybe the occasional crossover.

Adhering to canon or continuity does not have to be tyrannical, but just examining some of the major stories in the past year there are so many plot holes in these writers' concepts it's not even funny, and guys like Tom Brevoort have to conjure up ridiculous explanations for these errors in logic. In my opinion, a stronger sense of continuity (or canon) makes it more seamless for the reader to understand why things happen in separate titles involving the same character.

a lack of continuity is "freedom" for writers is childish and patronizing to the reader, and just plain idiotic in general. Cannot argue with that.
It isn't a coincidence that a majority of the most revered stories and arcs in Marvel history were published between the 60's and the 80's, when there was a strong sense of continuity and evolution of the universe. revered stories, strong sense of continuity and evolution of the universe I have not noticed in the 21st century
the hunt for back issues was all the more pleasing. I can identify with this
Adhering to canon or continuity does not have to be tyrannical To me it comes across that writers like KSD and BMB experience canon or continuity as tyrannical
there are so many plot holes in these writers' concepts it's not even funny, and guys like Tom Brevoort have to conjure up ridiculous explanations for these errors in logic. Indeed it is NOT funny but marvel comics gives me the feeling that it IS funny to them and that they could care less what readers who LIKE continuity, care about.

[Username taken]

Personally, I don't believe there's some hard cannon that comics should adhere to. Canon is inevitably what writers put on the page but it shouldn't completely contradict what came before.

For me, things should be consistent and make sense. If you're looking for hard continuity Remender and Hickman are practically writing in their own universes. Uncanny Avengers has been one long story which pretty much ignores other happenings in the Marvel universe and Hickman's Original Sin arc (which practically kicked off Time Runs Out) didnt tie into the other happenings in the Marvel universe at all.

I'm not saying writers should shackle themselves with continuity but adding retcons such as having Asgardians possess spells that can enchant weapons to kill Celestials but not use them in the face of certain destruction (Thor #300) makes absolutely no sense.

Same with Hickman's Avengers stories. Having Captain America close his eyes to reason and common sense and make the Illuminati his sworn enemies when he could be working other heroes to solve the Incursions and in fact stop the Cabal from doing what he's pursuing the Illuminati for doesn't make sense.

Thing should just make sense, I don't have problems with retcons or characters acting out of character in certain situations (like Spider-man wanting to kill Sin-Eater for killing Jean Dewolff or Rogue going to extremes to prevent another M-day) but it shouldn't enter the realm of character assassination like we saw with Iron Man in Civil War.

[Mark]

True, but back then you didn't have the internet. I can find the history of any character now with the same ease that Mr. Spock used to get data out of the computer in the original Star Trek show. But you have an excellent point on the number of characters, I can't even keep count of the number of X-men and with so many Avenger teams it's equally hard. Plus there are so many years and stories. Still I feel a lot of writers want to have the cake and eat it too, rely on continuity to pull in readers as they build or extend on an old story, but feel free to ignore it when that story won't fit with what they want to write.

I think the big difference between then and now is the sheer number of books and characters involved. In the early days, it wasn't a big deal to pick up the ENTIRE LINE, because the 'entire line' of books in the shared universe was like, 10-15 books (less if you just went with the 'core' characters) and they were a few cents each. So back then making things interconnected benefited Marvel because what's an extra 20 cents to get the full story, right? Now, it's a line of over 50 books, and they cost 4 dollars each. Each reader is going to have to pick and choose what they want to read more carefully than back in the 70's or whatever, so it now works AGAINST Marvel to make things TOO interconnected because if you feel lost and the solution is to pick up more books, that can end up being a significant cost, and a lot of people may just op to drop it entirely.

Also, the comics these days are much less focused on a 'house style' which is good because it promotes variety, and gives everyone a something to their tastes. But if you make those books too interconnected, it can sometimes be jarring if you end up jumping between like, Squirrel Girl and Punisher to get a complete story....

[RobinFan4880]

Continuity makes books stronger.

Having the same character star in more than a few books hurts continuity and weakens cohesive story telling.

I have to agree with Raye in that Continuity is always tighter and more cohesive with fewer book being published. I just counted the number of in-616-continuity issues Marvel is publishing for February and it is over 75. There is no way any reasonable fan can come close to buying all of those comics, let alone enjoying other company's offerings.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Personally, I don't believe there's some hard cannon that comics should adhere to. Canon is inevitably what writers put on the page but it shouldn't completely contradict what came before.

For me, things should be consistent and make sense. If you're looking for hard continuity Remender and Hickman are practically writing in their own universes. Uncanny Avengers has been one long story which pretty much ignores other happenings in the Marvel universe and Hickman's Original Sin arc (which practically kicked off Time Runs Out) didnt tie into the other happenings in the Marvel universe at all.

I'm not saying writers should shackle themselves with continuity but adding retcons such as having Asgardians possess spells that can enchant weapons to kill Celestials but not use them in the face of certain destruction (Thor #300) makes absolutely no sense.

Same with Hickman's Avengers stories. Having Captain America close his eyes to reason and common sense and make the Illuminati his sworn enemies when he could be working other heroes to solve the Incursions and in fact stop the Cabal from doing what he's pursuing the Illuminati for doesn't make sense.

Thing should just make sense, I don't have problems with retcons or characters acting out of character in certain situations (like Spider-man wanting to kill Sin-Eater for killing Jean Dewolff or Rogue going to extremes to prevent another M-day) but it shouldn't enter the realm of character assassination like we saw with Iron Man in Civil War.

Yep. Marvel comics hero assassinated Tony Stark for me.

[Viteh]

The idea that a lack of continuity is "freedom" for writers is childish and patronizing to the reader, and just plain idiotic in general. You're dealing with licensed characters, the writers shouldn't be given total free reign to shape their destinies as they see fit, only for the next creator to come in and go in a completely new direction. The character then loses his/her identity (somewhat) and merely becomes a shiny prop for whatever story a particular writer wants to do at the time.

I understand where that's coming from, but I don't think Marvel cares about that anymore. The characters are just a means to a end, they are there for the stories, not the other way around.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Continuity makes books stronger.

Having the same character star in more than a few books hurts continuity and weakens cohesive story telling.

I have to agree with Raye in that Continuity is always tighter and more cohesive with fewer book being published. I just counted the number of in-616-continuity issues Marvel is publishing for February and it is over 75. There is no way any reasonable fan can come close to buying all of those comics, let alone enjoying other company's offerings.

That is true.

[RobinFan4880]

Yep. Marvel comics hero assassinated Tony Stark for me.

Same thing happened with Cap and Cyclops in AvX.

Seriously, events these days rely entirely on heroes not sitting around and talking things out like reasonable people.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

I understand where that's coming from, but I don't think Marvel cares about that anymore. The characters are just a means to a end, they are there for the stories, not the other way around.

I am convinced of this.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Same thing happened with Cap and Cyclops in AvX.

Seriously, events these days rely entirely on heroes not sitting around and talking things out like reasonable people.

Yeah, why is that marvel comics? Not a challenge for a writer or editor or something?