Is the dc you continuity bothering you?

[Tayswift]

Considering the state of most of their solos, I think it's wonderful the Justice League comic is pretty much ignoring them. So glad I can avoid that terrible Wonder Woman costume

that is a good thing, I can avoid the terrible wonder woman costume and superbroman too

well I would care more if I was reading both books, I'm just reading jL

[Tayswift]

I like a well-constructed, well-thought-out fictional setting. I like a good-faith effort at continuity. DC's abandonment of that doesn't "bother" me so much as it makes the stories less engaging and interesting to me.

I realize this is no longer a popular view. I'm not sure if that's because it's, well, just not a popular view - or because DC has driven away any readers who might have found continuity valuable, so they're no longer around here to talk about it.

Anyway, that's just me.

well judging by dcyou and dc sales loose continuity doesn't seems to be the thing that people love.

I think there is some appeal if used in very small doses

[Ascended]

I'm more interested in the entertainment value of the book I am holding in my hands, not whether it lines up with stuff happening in other books.

I do want continuity respected, but it doesnt have to be a hard and fast rule. Speaking very broadly, for me it boils down like this; the origin and basic status quo matter, general outline of events matter, but the details, not so much. I am not fond of contradictions to continuity at all, but can easily accept additions.

The fact that Justice League is ignoring things like TRUTH, Gordon-Batman, and the other solo titles is fine. Those are all just short term changes to the status quo and not meant to become the new norm. If they did become the new status quo, then reflect that in the League, but otherwise, whatever. Those sort of things are sort of like bad weeks in the superhero world, and just as easy to forget and ignore and never talk about again.

I am not okay with Johns getting the origins wrong; the rocket was not in the Kents' barn in this continuity and Diana wasnt the only child her age on the Island. If Johns was unaware of those things he should have done his research. This isn't post-Crisis. If Johns couldnt do that, then his editor should have. You want to add things in, like how Soule's Superman/Wonder Woman title added in Doom's Doorway on Themyscria? Great. That addition didnt rub against any of the continuity Azzarello established in Diana's solo title. But suddenly saying that she didn't train and grow up with other girls her age goes against the current origin. And like the current continuity or not, I dont believe that retcons fix problems, I believe they just make them worse.

[Colossus1980]

I know I started a separate thread but what do people feel about bringing back dead people without an explanation and working them into a story arc? Like the Kents? Barry Allen's mom?

If the story is what matters the most what's wrong with contradictions if the end result is a good story?

[PurpleGlovez]

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect basic continuity between books that are officially taking place in the same universe. And the "story over continuity" mantra is largely irrelevant when DC injects bizarrely specific continuity-related details into their stories which have no relevance to the quality of story whatsoever. In post-Flashpoint continuity it's been stated that Bruce was 10, 8, and 14 when his parents died. Call me crazy, but that's kind of like, you know, not possible. Such a thing should be an established fact that writers and editors have to adhere to. Imagine jumping from one Harry Potter novel to the next, or one episode of a TV show to another, and facts established in one installment are contradicted without explanation in another. It's unprofessional, lazy, stupid, and pulls me out of the story no matter what.

Also, people talk sh*t about Bob Haney's Brave and the Bold but he was more aware of continuity than most people realize. In the early installments he would go out of his way to explain where Alfred and Robin were, and he even dealt with the Earth-2 dichotomy when Black Canary came around. (I don't see why it's so hard to imagine there could've been an Earth-1 Wildcat.) And when Haney did ignore established continuity, it was for legitimate story-based (and often awesome - like Batman teaming up with Sgt. Rock) reasons.

[Starchild]

People who are obsessed with continuity bother me far more than inconsistent continuity does.

I wish fanboys had never learned the word "continuity."

This, this, this. A great story with great art to match is all I care about.

[MajorHoy]

I know I started a separate thread but what do people feel about bringing back dead people without an explanation and working them into a story arc? Like the Kents? Barry Allen's mom?

As I've said in the other thread, having the Kents be alive isn't necessary, and I hate that Geoff Johns felt the need to retroactively kill off Barry's Mom when Barry was younger. (Heaven forbid that Geoff try to write about a superhero who had a normal, happy childhood with a minimum of angst in his life!)

But, no, you don't just suddenly bring these people out of nowhere as part of a story with no explanation whatsoever of how they aren't dead anymore. (Unless Clark's father also goes by the name Snake Plissken?)

[Nite-Wing]

Some fans really do play continuity cop too much which is hilarious they whine about a character's history but at the same time want writers to cater to the history they like
sometimes it just doesn't matter telling the best story is all that matters the characters will always be around

[colonyofcells]

It would be heaven on earth if only the writers were as good as the customers at keeping track of several decades of continuity.

[byrd156]

haha +1.

Good story always comes first for me.

True, but we aren't getting either.

[Doctor Bifrost]

DC never kept really fantastic tabs on its continuity between books, except for maybe five months during the Bronze age (where Brave and the Bold still probably threw a spanner in the works). There's always flubs and uncertainty. There are always patches or minor erasures.

Absolutely true. Maybe that's why I said "a good-faith effort." A thoughtful attempt. Not perfection.

Art - particularly in a commercial, serialized medium - is never perfect. You try to write good dialogue, but sometimes you just have to write some clunky, exposition-filled dialogue. You try to do solid characterization, but sometimes it's disrupted by editorial command when a TV or movie characterization gets popular and is shoehorned into the comic. You try to do excellent pacing, but you're constricted by the format - once/month, 22 pages/issue (or whatever it is now).

Still, you try to do good dialogue, good characterization, and good pacing. And people appreciate the effort, even though it doesn't come out perfect.

I'm one of those people who feels the same way about continuity. I think a well-designed, well thought-out fictional setting can be, in and of itself, a beautiful literary object. I also think that it can feed into the story (or stories), which can feed back into the setting, in a way that many readers appreciate. So I'm not one who wants them to say, "well, there are always patches or minor erasures, so why not devalue the whole idea, and stop trying very hard?"

Some continuity changes are absolutely necessary, and lead to better stories that could not have been told otherwise. But I've seen a lot of continuity changes that seemed to be a product of laziness, lack or research, or apathy. And now with "story over continuity" (which makes, to me, as much sense as "story over dialogue" or "story over characterization") you have an official policy that says: don't bother.

For those of us who enjoy good continuity as part of a good story, this is a loss. And most of us are probably no longer reading DC comics, at least not at the volume we were previously. Whether DC makes up that business with new readers who could not have been drawn in without alienating the pro-continuity readers - well, who knows? But that's the business decision they made.

(P.S. I have no objection to parallel worlds. I have no objection to rebooting the DCU every 30 years or so. Creating a new, clearly-delineated, well-thought-out continuity can be just fine. But that's different than "just don't think about it.")

Again, that's just me. And also a bunch of other people I know, may of whom aren't reading - or buying - DC anymore.

[Doctor Bifrost]

People who are obsessed with continuity bother me far more than inconsistent continuity does.

I wish fanboys had never learned the word "continuity."

Wow. I would never say that fans who don't care about continuity "bother me more than bad stories do." People value different things in what they enjoy reading. That's okay.

I keep hearing over and over again "only the story counts." Well, with DC's current policy, the fans who value a stricter continuity aren't having any effect on the stories, so you're getting the "good [continuity-light] stories" you always wanted. So why do those fans bother you so much?

You've got "story over continuity." You've got "story over fans who like continuity." And yet you're still bothered

[andersonh1]

haha +1.

Good story always comes first for me.

Part of a good story is a narrative that makes sense. And that involves continuity. Continuity is nothing more than consistency.

[VanWinkle]

I've never really been interested in continuity, personally. I'm fine if a company sticks to it, but I also am fine if they don't.

[Colossus1980]

People who are obsessed with continuity bother me far more than inconsistent continuity does.

I wish fanboys had never learned the word "continuity."

For those who care about good stories and not continuity, does that also mean big differences like a dead character coming back to life without explanation? Or relationships that have been voided out and ignored? Really interested to see how many don't care about any continuity whatsoever.