Marvel continuity: I'm Lost

[vitruvian]

I have a question for you, because I'm a longtime reader and I tend to have a different view on continuity Han many other longtime readers. So I'm genuinely curious about this difference in view.

My question is do you think that the Marvel that you would prefer...meaning the best example of the type of editorial oversight that you can think of, whether that was 1968 or 1985 or whenever...do you think that approach can or could have existed in perpetuity?

How many years worth of stories need to take place for characters who are timeless before a strong continuity approach just doesn't work anymore? Do you think that if Marvel was still around in 2115 that they'd still be able to maintain the same continuity right down to every detail?

I think that they have to change their approach to every aspect of what they do from time to time. They have to examine it and decide what's for the best. Anytime anyone says that they need to just keep doing what they've always done, I get a little confused. Why would you expect that approach to work?

I hope I am not being too argumentative because I genuinely am curious.

I don't think most of those arguing for stronger continuity (there may be some exceptions) are really asking for rigid continuity that takes strict account of every story ever published. I really don't.

What would be nice, though, would be editorial tracking of current storylines to the extent that the theoretical ideal Marvel customer who buys every title every month, if reasonably savvy about how different stories may take place over differing periods of time (some happening over a day in 14 issues, others having week or month long gaps between issues), won't get confronted with any contradictions or inconsistencies where it's impossible to figure out which story happens first. That doesn't strike me as too big of an ask, not when they need to coordinate when all of the writers and artists turn in their pages and things get scheduled for the printers anyway.

[MajorHoy]

To address the specific Hulk question. The first issue in which Doc Green appears is the most recent Hulk #5. Banner's brain damage is cured in #4 using Extremis, which has a knock-on effect of making Hulk super intelligent. There's a time gap of a few weeks between #4 and #5, which seems to have caused your confusion, and when Hulk comes back in #5 he has cut his hair and is calling himself Doc Green, but this is all first explained in Hulk #5 itself.

How many times has Marvel pulled the "intelligent Hulk" bit? I remember Peter David also ran with that idea back in the early 1990's for a while.

[VJ.]

I have a question for you, because I'm a longtime reader and I tend to have a different view on continuity Han many other longtime readers. So I'm genuinely curious about this difference in view.

Me too - my personal view is more or less "screw continuity if it gets in the way of the story". An example of this is in the latest spider-woman (#4). In which Carol Danvers features quite prominently despite the fact that off in space doing cosmic stuff in her and a number of other comics. When I read it, I didn't think "Carol's meant to be in Space", I loved the exchange and it worked brilliantly IMO. If Marvel editorial had blocked the use of Carol in that story, it would have been a worse story. So sod strict continuity if it means we get fewer great moments with good characters and fewer good stories. Those are far more important to me than some notion that all Marvel comics have to be edited into a perfect timeline.

[jackolover]

There is generally no need to line things up THAT tightly, unless the books are closely related (such as Avengers and New Avengers, a couple of the X books, the Asgard books, and such. But they only tend to line up with other books in their little 'family' and usually not all that closely. and there are usually notes in the front if an issue takes place prior to another issue or after or whatever) but most books aren't that tightly tied together, and you can just read through them without really worrying about what is going on elsewhere too much. When an event comes along most books that participate will suddenly snap to about the same timeframe, then they will drift away again afterward. So read a book until an event comes up, read the next until it reaches the same event, and so on until you get all the books you are following to the same event, read the event, and then just do it all over again, i guess? But not all books participate in all events, so...

I had a bit of trouble deciding Bendis' Secret War was after Avengers Disassembled, and so was Wolverine EOTS. It took me awhile to fit the Avengers and New Avengers issues of Secret Invasion in with the stories before Civil War as well. You would realise reading these, that even though Wanda was in a coma after AD, Wanda was still active in making the Red Skull Attack Cap, and, some alien race we've never heard of, try to kill Sue. If you read them in continuity, you see a much scarier story than if you bunch them together in their little trades.

[jackolover]

I don't think most of those arguing for stronger continuity (there may be some exceptions) are really asking for rigid continuity that takes strict account of every story ever published. I really don't.

What would be nice, though, would be editorial tracking of current storylines to the extent that the theoretical ideal Marvel customer who buys every title every month, if reasonably savvy about how different stories may take place over differing periods of time (some happening over a day in 14 issues, others having week or month long gaps between issues), won't get confronted with any contradictions or inconsistencies where it's impossible to figure out which story happens first. That doesn't strike me as too big of an ask, not when they need to coordinate when all of the writers and artists turn in their pages and things get scheduled for the printers anyway.

I'd even like a note saying "All these Cap books from 1-23 happened between a panel in Avengers 6 because it all happened in Dimension Z in 30 minutes, or, all these Uncanny Avengers (12-23) became obsolete at UA #11 because of time travel. That would be helpful.

[jackolover]

Me too - my personal view is more or less "screw continuity if it gets in the way of the story". An example of this is in the latest spider-woman (#4). In which Carol Danvers features quite prominently despite the fact that off in space doing cosmic stuff in her and a number of other comics. When I read it, I didn't think "Carol's meant to be in Space", I loved the exchange and it worked brilliantly IMO. If Marvel editorial had blocked the use of Carol in that story, it would have been a worse story. So sod strict continuity if it means we get fewer great moments with good characters and fewer good stories. Those are far more important to me than some notion that all Marvel comics have to be edited into a perfect timeline.

I had the same trouble with Iron Man in space, and there he is on Earth all of a sudden. I had to guess where I could fit those issues.

[VJ.]

I had the same trouble with Iron Man in space, and there he is one Earth all of a sudden. I had to guess where I could fit those issues.

I don't have trouble though (as I thought I made clear) - the story is more important than wider continuity (to me).

[vitruvian]

I'd even like a note saying "All these Cap books from 1-23 happened between a panel in Avengers 6 because it all happened in Dimension Z in 30 minutes, or, all these Uncanny Avengers (12-23) became obsolete at UA #11 because of time travel. That would be helpful.

There's space for it. Pretty much every continued story has a recap page as the first page these days anyway, so below the 'catch up' text, include a little paragraph along these lines where there's a point. E.g., for the current Last Will and Testament of Charles Xavier story in the X-books, a little footnote on the recap page that this is before Death of Wolverine and that's why Logan may appear.

[Atari]

Hold out a few months more because then everything ends!
No more being lossssssttt!
THANK JACK King KIRBY!

lololololol

[vitruvian]

lololololol

Rabum Alal is just The One Above All feeding his original artwork through the shredder... and Hickman just meant it was nobody we've seen before because we haven't seen ol' Jack in that ratty bathrobe he wears when he's depressed before.

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think most of those arguing for stronger continuity (there may be some exceptions) are really asking for rigid continuity that takes strict account of every story ever published. I really don't.

What would be nice, though, would be editorial tracking of current storylines to the extent that the theoretical ideal Marvel customer who buys every title every month, if reasonably savvy about how different stories may take place over differing periods of time (some happening over a day in 14 issues, others having week or month long gaps between issues), won't get confronted with any contradictions or inconsistencies where it's impossible to figure out which story happens first. That doesn't strike me as too big of an ask, not when they need to coordinate when all of the writers and artists turn in their pages and things get scheduled for the printers anyway.

Yeah, I mean the current stuff more than the past stuff. I think it's safe to not incorporate all the minor stuff from the past. But for the current events....do they need to tell people that a story like Last Will takes place before Wolverine died? Doesn't his presence in the story display that?

That's what I meant earlier...it's not as complicated as we make it. The real issue is when three or more things come into question. Because then it isn't as simple as B following A. Then you have to worry about C following B following A....but then you realize that one book C takes place before A, and in another B takes place before C, but in both A is before B.

In those cases, you just have to go with it. Or No Prize it.

[shgs]

How many times has Marvel pulled the "intelligent Hulk" bit? I remember Peter David also ran with that idea back in the early 1990's for a while.

Oh sure, sure. Its the nature of the beast that is superhero comics. I think this is the first time he's used the Doc Green name, but I'm no Hulk expert.

To be honest I was really enjoying having Hulk at the more or less well-behaved level of the Avengers film and the 'Hulk destroys, Banner builds' premise was working really well. I don't know why they threw that out all of a sudden after a relatively short run, it felt like a very forced change of direction and the new Hulk volume has been somewhat middling.

[THANOSRULES]

I have a question for you, because I'm a longtime reader and I tend to have a different view on continuity Han many other longtime readers. So I'm genuinely curious about this difference in view.

My question is do you think that the Marvel that you would prefer...meaning the best example of the type of editorial oversight that you can think of, whether that was 1968 or 1985 or whenever...do you think that approach can or could have existed in perpetuity?

How many years worth of stories need to take place for characters who are timeless before a strong continuity approach just doesn't work anymore? Do you think that if Marvel was still around in 2115 that they'd still be able to maintain the same continuity right down to every detail?

I think that they have to change their approach to every aspect of what they do from time to time. They have to examine it and decide what's for the best. Anytime anyone says that they need to just keep doing what they've always done, I get a little confused. Why would you expect that approach to work?

I hope I am not being too argumentative because I genuinely am curious.

It just all depends on how its executed. (IMO the further down something is, the more forgiveness I have for that stuff) But a lot of stuff isn't being kept straight these days even at the same time.

Certain aspects probably need to be changed every now and then ..other things like showing a spaceship full of Korbinites in need of rescue, the fact that there are no Korbinites because Beta Ray Bill and the mate Galactus created for him are the last Korbinites?

The problem I have is when stuff is not explained or there is no real bridge to show readers how they got from "here to there". ..or when things are blown off.

Certain aspects probably need to be changed every now and then ..maybe even drastic stuff.

Other things like Duggan showing a spaceship full of Korbinites in need of rescue, the fact that there are no Korbinites because Beta Ray Bill and the mate Galactus created for him are the last Korbinites? Wasn't that one of the big hooks of Beta Ray Bill, that he was the last of his race? A lot of these things come off as fan nit picks or fans being too geeky, but really, if your going to write a Nova series or a GOTG series, how much is it to ask to be up on the last couple years?

My big question is if a writer is going to blow off what other writers did before him, why do I bother even reading? Continuity is part of the reason readers even show up for a book.

We've seen guys like Bendis have problems with stuff going on concurrent with other books. Bendis concept of Knowhere was far different than Duggan's being depicted at the same time. Bendis used a different smasher in his Imperial Guard Jim Starlin, who was commissioned to write a Thanos OGN , was not even told about what was going to happen in Infinity w/ the character he was using.


A lot of these little things tell me the writer just has not read any of the prior material and the love for marvel and its history just doesn't bleed onto the paper for me.SO many of them could be diffused by simple lines of dialogue.

Example:

Bug and Mantis disappear from GOTG roster between Avengers Assembled Bendis arc and Bendis GOTG#1- fine, no big deal right? Except there was no explanation why? It's solved by having Gamora in 1 simple line of dialogue say "Damn, wish we had bug and mantis here but they had to run back to the microverse!" or something.. a solid editor notes that and makes a writer put something like that in.

When the writers lack of adherence to even there own continuity causes more problems. It makes me concerned the stuff I'm reading doesn't even matter. That's what happened during Duggan's Nova run for me.

There were some rocky continuity moments with Annihilation as well, but overall it was just very cohesive. It certainly forged new territory and reset some things.. but the end product was all tightly wound and well done.

[hawkeyefan]

Okay, gotcha. I can understand situations where things are ignored or contradicted. Sometimes that stuff bugs me too. Especially within a specific writer's own work....that bothers me a lot.

But when it comes to multiple series fitting together over a good amount of time and several different creative teams, the longer the Marvel Universe exists, the harder it's going to be. They have to loosen the reins on that stuff. I think they have, but not nearly as much as many other readers see it.

To use your examples....the Korbenite thing is bad, unless it's explained in some way...a previously unknown group of surviving Korbenites, etc.

Mantis and Bug...maybe it's as simple as Bendis not wanting to commit to a certain path for those characters? Maybe he wants to keep them on the table, and wants the freedom to bring them in however he might want. This way he doesn't have to say oh they went to the microverse, and then later on wants them to show up working with a group of intergalactic pirates. Why make the writer commit to something when it makes more sense to leave things open.

I guess I don't mind unanswered questions as much as contradictions. Especially when we know the real reason....they wanted to keep the cast to just the movie characters.

So I understand a lot of what you say even if I don't always agree. But I don't get the "why even bother reading" attitude. For entertainment. If the lack of continuity interferes with you enjoying the book, then you definitely should drop it. And I know that's not always an easy decision because we all have our favorite characters and we've been reading or collecting certain titles forever....but if you don't like it, definitely don't buy it.

The topic of continuity really interests me so thanks for taking my questions how they were meant and talking about it.

[THANOSRULES]

Okay, gotcha. I can understand situations where things are ignored or contradicted. Sometimes that stuff bugs me too. Especially within a specific writer's own work....that bothers me a lot.

But when it comes to multiple series fitting together over a good amount of time and several different creative teams, the longer the Marvel Universe exists, the harder it's going to be. They have to loosen the reins on that stuff. I think they have, but not nearly as much as many other readers see it.

To use your examples....the Korbenite thing is bad, unless it's explained in some way...a previously unknown group of surviving Korbenites, etc.

Mantis and Bug...maybe it's as simple as Bendis not wanting to commit to a certain path for those characters? Maybe he wants to keep them on the table, and wants the freedom to bring them in however he might want. This way he doesn't have to say oh they went to the microverse, and then later on wants them to show up working with a group of intergalactic pirates. Why make the writer commit to something when it makes more sense to leave things open.

I guess I don't mind unanswered questions as much as contradictions. Especially when we know the real reason....they wanted to keep the cast to just the movie characters.

So I understand a lot of what you say even if I don't always agree. But I don't get the "why even bother reading" attitude. For entertainment. If the lack of continuity interferes with you enjoying the book, then you definitely should drop it. And I know that's not always an easy decision because we all have our favorite characters and we've been reading or collecting certain titles forever....but if you don't like it, definitely don't buy it.

The topic of continuity really interests me so thanks for taking my questions how they were meant and talking about it.

With Mantis and Bug..I agree with you, but not really for as long as it usually drags on..and in the end it really depends on how it comes off...and that one more or less came off as flaked off.

Does something come off as "Sloughed off/ Forgotten" or does it come off as still something noteworthy and strung out by device. Sometimes its not so clear..these things are unique to serial fiction, and they are all important to the question will I come back and support the brand/property?, even if its a off month or fill in writer/artist?...they become important issues to subscriber/pull based readership who make commitments more than an idle purchase.

With the second part, the chief reason for building it up is quality control, i can think of a lot of good story lines / books I think were killed off over the years because folks didn't perceive it as important. It all goes to the label on the front, the company and the brand. Marvel's Spider Man means something etc.. doesn't mean you can't be bold and different and branch off in wild new directions...but it helps when you show the connections.

Not enough of that is being done...and its so easy to do.

(BTW agree this is getting harder to do, especially with movies and cartoons out there, DC is doing a worse job than marvel IMO, so I don't see that as a model)