Is the idea of "canon" outdated?

[cyberhubbs]

The new Ant-man book.
Stuff got reset to match the up coming movie.

What stuff?

[hawkeyefan]

None of those versions of Batman are supposed to be in continuity with each other at all, though. Red herring.

Well, no it's not a red herring. My point was not that these various takes on the character were expected to fit together, it was just to display the many takes on the character that could be successful while using the classic canon to different degrees.

Continuity and how much writers should adhere to it is only at issue when the writers and publishers have told us that a certain subset of stories are supposed to be happening in the same universe with the same versions of the characters in the first place. So, no, I don't expect characterization and continuity to be the same or even much connected (apart from some Platonic ideal of what makes a character 'Batman' perhaps) between the Adam West 60s series and the Dini animated Batman and the Burton movies and the Nolan movies. But when you're talking about different episodes within Batman the Animated Series (probably the best example, due to the large number of episodes and seasons, more comparable to serialized comics than the others), then yes, I don't think it's too much to ask for a certain level of consistency and continuity (though not perfection) between those stories, even if that means the showrunners need to maintain a series 'bible' in order to keep things straight after a season or two.

And yes, all this is merely a tool.... but once you have announced to the reader or viewer that a set of stories can be expected to fit together (as opposed to restricting yourself to single, non-continuing stories that don't have any explicit connection to each other), it's a tool that's sorely needed in order to follow through on that premise. This is the case in any sort of continuing fiction, whether it be a series of novels following the same character, an episodic television series, a series of movies, or indeed serialized comic books. Having made the Pledge, the magician (or writer in this case) then needs to show the audience not only the Turn (having nifty things happen in the story), but also the Prestige (making the story fit into the larger narrative, tying things together, as promised explicitly or implicitly in the Pledge).

Sure, and I agree with most of that to a large extent. I would argue that the comics have always had retcon-ability built in to them, and that is actually part of the Pledge, to use your example. If we look at it as an agreement between the publishers and the readers....."hey, these stories all take place in the same world"....then I would argue that part of that agreement is very clearly "this world is subject to change in small or occasionally drastic ways".

I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth on either side of the discussion, but I would think if canon and continuity were not things readers cared about, good or bad, then the idea of Marvel doing a reboot would not scare a certain segment here as much as it seems to.

I think people care, sure, and I think that's fine. But I think what they care about and to what degree varies.

I also think that sometimes there is a real world explanation for continuity contradictions....timing of different books and so on....and readers won't accept the real world answer. They demand an in-universe explanation, and then when that explanation isn't up to their standards, they complain. It's pretty remarkable.

I think it's needed - canon and continuity. There are some continuity gaffes that I can let go or ignore - but showing an old Steve Rogers in one book and an aged one in another is one of the things that makes it tough to ignore or take the promotion seriously. How can I invest in the concept of a shared universe or a mega event in a shared universe, when each line pretty much ignores what goes on in the other titles.

See? This is an example of there being a real world explanation. Yes, the timing of Cap being aged varied a bit from book to book. The reason is that it is difficult to coordinate the timing of that kind of story element across several books, working with several creative teams, any number of months ahead of the actual publishing date. It really is that simple.

If readers can't accept that as fact, and accept that as the nature of shared universe storytelling, then in my opinion, it's on them. Instead, they demand some in-universe explanation, which won't ever be sufficient because it's not the actual reason.

[Viteh]

What stuff?

Cassy came back from the dead, and it looks like the book wont even mention that.

[Mark]

Those stories with Scott and Maddie and Reed and Sue are from 30 years ago. And I'd say that's about when this shift started happening in earnest.



Good points. I think that circumstances dictate behavior much more than readers want to acknowledge. The idea that Character A would never ever do Action B is pretty limiting. It may be fine for something aimed at a younger audience, but most superhero comics have moved passed that stage. Whether or not that's a good thing is a whole other discussion.



I brought all those examples up because they all succeeded and they all did so because they did what the creators wanted with the canonical material. The 60s show never once mentions Bruce's parents' murder as his motivation for being a vigilante. Burton had Joker be his parents' killer. Year One allowed Miller to restructure Batman's past, purging anything unwanted. And so on.

I can understand wanting to have a biographical type of character history, but it's not something you're going to get. If you took ALL of the published material about Tony Stark and boiled it down into a biography it would be the most ludicrous thing ever. The characters don't age, yet they have 50 some years worth of stories. So some amount of retooling with canon is needed from time to time. It's been happening for decades already. Trying to say it is a new phenomenon specific to today's writers is a bit extreme.

Actually in the pilot of the 1960's Batman show Batman mentioned is parents death. It was a brief mention and only once.

I know given the non-aging part of the comics that I'm not going to go with a definite biography, but as I recall Mike Hammer went from Korean War Vet to Vietnam War Vet and it didn't change the essence of the character. I can't think of a major event since Dissasembled that hasn't twisted a character to fit the storyline and since events dominate the land right now that means that every character beyond the new Ms. Marvel has been twisted. To me you can't twist them in the events and then go back to normalcy in the normal titles.

[Mark]

See? This is an example of there being a real world explanation. Yes, the timing of Cap being aged varied a bit from book to book. The reason is that it is difficult to coordinate the timing of that kind of story element across several books, working with several creative teams, any number of months ahead of the actual publishing date. It really is that simple.

If readers can't accept that as fact, and accept that as the nature of shared universe storytelling, then in my opinion, it's on them. Instead, they demand some in-universe explanation, which won't ever be sufficient because it's not the actual reason.

It's difficult? Email, landline telephone, cell phone, twitter... all more or less instant and they have trouble communicating and coordinating?

[cyberhubbs]

Cassy came back from the dead, and it looks like the book wont even mention that.

According to the interweb, she was resurrected during Axis.

[vitruvian]

According to the interweb, she was resurrected during Axis.

And the book does in fact mention that Scott and his ex-wife just 'got her back', although I forget just how explicit the lines are... but it plays into the plot, because not wanting to lose Cassie again is precisely why the ex is being really tough about custody and visitation issues with Scott, on the basis that just being around him might place Cassie at risk.

See, while I definitely believe that some level of consistency and continuity is a must once the creators have indicated that you're dealing with a continued or shared universe, I also don't think that the errors and flubs and gaffes and retcons are as all-encompassing as some do. It varies from series to series, and there have definitely been some nits that I've picked, but it's not at all the case that continuity is dead... and some of the fans arguing here that continuity hampers good storytelling and should never be a concern at all are being much more extreme than Marvel ever actually is.

[gurkle]

Cassy came back from the dead, and it looks like the book wont even mention that.

Why does it need to? Is that important to the story?

Kurt Busiek is a big continuity buff, but when he wrote Iron Man, he completely ignored what had happened to Tony Stark before the "Heroes Reborn" fiasco - becoming a killer and turning into a teenager. He didn't explain how he's become a man again (he later explained it in a backup story in an Avengers annual) and he didn't refer to The Crossing, because all the stuff that happened to Tony in the '90s would just have confused everybody and had nothing to do with the story he was telling. When it did have something to do with the story (Avengers Forever) it was brought up.

The rule most writers claim to follow is that they give you as much information as you need to know to understand the story. Some do a better job of it than others, providing too much information or too little. But how does it really matter to Ant-Man that Cassie was dead for a while, unless her reaction to having been dead is part of the story? It's not like being dead is a unique thing that sets her apart from everyone.

[Viteh]

Why does it need to? Is that important to the story?

Kurt Busiek is a big continuity buff, but when he wrote Iron Man, he completely ignored what had happened to Tony Stark before the "Heroes Reborn" fiasco - becoming a killer and turning into a teenager. He didn't explain how he's become a man again (he later explained it in a backup story in an Avengers annual) and he didn't refer to The Crossing, because all the stuff that happened to Tony in the '90s would just have confused everybody and had nothing to do with the story he was telling. When it did have something to do with the story (Avengers Forever) it was brought up.

The rule most writers claim to follow is that they give you as much information as you need to know to understand the story. Some do a better job of it than others, providing too much information or too little. But how does it really matter to Ant-Man that Cassie was dead for a while, unless her reaction to having been dead is part of the story? It's not like being dead is a unique thing that sets her apart from everyone.

I don't know, coming back from the dead must be pretty shocking to a 15 year old. It matters to Ant-Man because he's her father. Shouldn't he be trying to help her through it? And if she's just OK with it all...well that's just lazy.

[gurkle]

I don't know, coming back from the dead must be pretty shocking to a 15 year old. It matters to Ant-Man because he's her father. Shouldn't he be trying to help her through it? And if she's just OK with it all...well that's just lazy.

Not if that's not what the story is about. Particularly in this universe, where coming back from the dead is only traumatic if the characters choose to treat it as traumatic.

And anyway, not addressing something isn't violating continuity, it's just not mentioning details that aren't important to the story.

[vitruvian]

Not if that's not what the story is about. Particularly in this universe, where coming back from the dead is only traumatic if the characters choose to treat it as traumatic.

And anyway, not addressing something isn't violating continuity, it's just not mentioning details that aren't important to the story.

If it would logically be important to the characters, then it is important to a story featuring those characters.

But luckily, Cassie having returned from the dead actually is addressed in Ant-Man #1, if a bit obliquely. It's dealt with more from the perspective of her parents than her own feelings about it, but then we don't know what her experience of resurrection was like yet, or if she even clearly remembers being killed by Doom in the first place.

[Viteh]

Not if that's not what the story is about. Particularly in this universe, where coming back from the dead is only traumatic if the characters choose to treat it as traumatic.

And anyway, not addressing something isn't violating continuity, it's just not mentioning details that aren't important to the story.

The story doesn't have to be about that, but that doesn't mean it musn't be dealt with. It's part of her history, and not the kind of thing you can just ignore.

[cyberhubbs]

If it would logically be important to the characters, then it is important to a story featuring those characters.

But luckily, Cassie having returned from the dead actually is addressed in Ant-Man #1, if a bit obliquely. It's dealt with more from the perspective of her parents than her own feelings about it, but then we don't know what her experience of resurrection was like yet, or if she even clearly remembers being killed by Doom in the first place.

Do they really want to spend the entire first issue sorting out Cassie's return, after all? You wanna hook readers with varying elements the overall story will deal with. Maybe Cassie has a breakdown later and dad has to deal with it when he thought he wouldn't have to, just being happy to have her back.

[Viteh]

Do they really want to spend the entire first issue sorting out Cassie's return, after all? You wanna hook readers with varying elements the overall story will deal with. Maybe Cassie has a breakdown later and dad has to deal with it when he thought he wouldn't have to, just being happy to have her back.

Yeah, that would work. Let's see if it does.

[hawkeyefan]

Actually in the pilot of the 1960's Batman show Batman mentioned is parents death. It was a brief mention and only once.

I know given the non-aging part of the comics that I'm not going to go with a definite biography, but as I recall Mike Hammer went from Korean War Vet to Vietnam War Vet and it didn't change the essence of the character. I can't think of a major event since Dissasembled that hasn't twisted a character to fit the storyline and since events dominate the land right now that means that every character beyond the new Ms. Marvel has been twisted. To me you can't twist them in the events and then go back to normalcy in the normal titles.

Ha okay, I didn't know they mentioned the Waynes' murder in the pilot. It certainly wasn't continually brought up as his ongoing motivation the way it is in other stories. But thanks for the info.

I think plenty of stories since Disassembled didn't twist anyone out of character, even the big events. I get criticisms of Civil War and AvX for the characterization, but plenty of others didn't have that going on. Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, Siege, and Fear Itself didn't really rely on different interpretations of the characters. There are perhaps other criticisms for those stories, but I wouldn't say they're the same as Civil War and AvX.

I think it's a case of you not liking those stories that use drastic takes on characters....which is fine, that's your opinion....and then attributing those attributes to all stories just because you're angry. It's not the case, though.

It's difficult? Email, landline telephone, cell phone, twitter... all more or less instant and they have trouble communicating and coordinating?

All those things enable communication, but that's just one aspect of it. We're talking about coordination and publishing, which is a lot more involved. The writers and their respective editors are working months in advance. So their stories are already well under way by the time they may find out another team on another book has plans that affect their own. So at that point when they do realize, they then have to decide how to handle it. Do they ship one book later than expected? Does the writer re-work the issues that are already done? Have they caught it prior to the art being done? If it's a purely cosmetic change maybe it can be corrected at that stage. Again, this is all possibly weeks or months before we see the issue, but could be right at the time it's going to press.

I have very minimal publishing experience, but even with the little I know I can tell you it is incredibly difficult to coordinate everything. Addressing it with a comment like "they don't have a phone?" trivializes the process and implies that you aren't really familiar enough with it to judge.