So is it really 'Year Ten'?

[Triniking1234]

It's effing Mathematics and History class up in here.

[Jordan D. White]

The X-Men were founded 6 weeks ago in 1927. I would have thought that was obvious.

[jwatson]

The X-Men were founded 6 weeks ago in 1927. I would have thought that was obvious.

Is that 1927 in marvel time or 1927 in real time?

[Electricmastro]

Also, Galactus' explanation in Ultimates Vol 2 #5 that events that are usually thought to have happened a long time ago are actually a handful of years in the past:

[FUBAR007]

The X-Men were founded 6 weeks ago in 1927. I would have thought that was obvious.

In all seriousness, I don't know why Marvel editorial doesn't just openly declare every decade or so that the prime Marvel timeline has reset. Have Eternity fart or something, and the timeline rolls up behind the present with previous continuity compressed and changed to fit into whatever span of time (e.g. 5 years, 7, etc.) editorial decides at that moment. Some stuff still happened; other stuff has been thrown out. Specifics will be revealed as necessary in future stories.

The "sliding timeline" is clunky and kind of absurd and has been for decades. Everybody--fan and pro--already knows that so it's not like it's essential to suspension of disbelief. For example, when I re-read the Lee/Kirby run on X-Men, I neither can nor do pretend it's set in the mid-2000s (as the sliding timeline would demand), and I doubt anyone else seriously does, either.

For the purposes of differentiating the Marvel brand from DC, I understand not wanting to do overt, Crisis-style reboot events. But, at this point, what's the business case/creative argument for maintaining the pretense that everything back to FF #1 still makes sense as a single, linear timeline? Is it just tradition? Inertia? Risk aversion? At this point, what value does it add?

[Jordan D. White]

In all seriousness, I don't know why Marvel editorial doesn't just openly declare every decade or so that the prime Marvel timeline has reset. Have Eternity fart or something, and the timeline rolls up behind the present with previous continuity compressed and changed to fit into whatever span of time (e.g. 5 years, 7, etc.) editorial decides at that moment. Some stuff still happened; other stuff has been thrown out. Specifics will be revealed as necessary in future stories.

Because, generally speaking, we're trying to do stories rather than stories about how and why older stories do or do not make sense. At least when we're at our best.

If, as you say, you are capable of reading Lee/Kirby FF stories and somehow wrapping your mind around the idea that while these are the "same characters" even though you simultaneously can understand that they are not almost 60 years older than they were in 1961, then you have just shown that it's not a problem. You are able to handle it. And you know what? I am confident that the large bulk of our readers are smart enough to understand that as well.

The "sliding timeline" is clunky and kind of absurd and has been for decades.

You know what else is clunky and absurd? The concept of a lot superheroes. Either you buy it or you don't. If you're reading comics because you like being a historian... you should probably become a real historian instead, you're far more likely to be able to put together a timeline that will hold up to scrutiny.

[Electricmastro]

But, at this point, what's the business case/creative argument for maintaining the pretense that everything back to FF #1 still makes sense as a single, linear timeline? Is it just tradition? Inertia? Risk aversion? At this point, what value does it add?

I think it has to partially due with them not being sure how to reconcile Marvel's World War II-era comics with their post-1961 Modern Era, such as:

Marvel Mystery Comics (Marvel Tales) - 1939-1957
Daring Mystery Comics - 1940-1945
Human Torch - 1940-1954
Mystic Comics - 1940-1942
Red Raven Comics - 1940
All-Winners Comics (Teen Comics) - 1941-1950
Captain America Comics - 1941-1954
Sub-Mariner Comics - 1941-1955
U.S.A. Comics - 1941-1945
Young Allies (Hedy De Vine Comics) - 1941-1952
Comedy Comics (Margie Comics) - 1942-1950
Millie the Model - 1945-1973
Patsy Walker - 1945-1965

What Marvel seems to have done is basically made it so that their Golden Age comics exist as fictionalizations in the Modern Era, and that the fictionalizations often got details wrong. Considering how many Marvel writers probably don't aim to write stories while constantly keeping track of what happened in the older stories to begin with, then not having to really keep track of what happened in the Golden Age stories probably isn't a huge loss for them.

[pandafarmer]

Well I know I certainly don't envy your jobs at trying to keep all of these characters straight let alone the timelines. But you're absolutely right here... it's not your job to connect all the dots so long as these books make a generally cohesive and satisfying storytelling. We DON'T need to know that Moira had some conversation written 30 years ago by someone who had zero idea this plot was going to happen. We just need to know that the sum of the whole comes together and let the little dangling eye-rollers slip now and again.

[jwatson]

In all seriousness, I don't know why Marvel editorial doesn't just openly declare every decade or so that the prime Marvel timeline has reset. Have Eternity fart or something, and the timeline rolls up behind the present with previous continuity compressed and changed to fit into whatever span of time (e.g. 5 years, 7, etc.) editorial decides at that moment. Some stuff still happened; other stuff has been thrown out. Specifics will be revealed as necessary in future stories.

The "sliding timeline" is clunky and kind of absurd and has been for decades. Everybody--fan and pro--already knows that so it's not like it's essential to suspension of disbelief. For example, when I re-read the Lee/Kirby run on X-Men, I neither can nor do pretend it's set in the mid-2000s (as the sliding timeline would demand), and I doubt anyone else seriously does, either.

For the purposes of differentiating the Marvel brand from DC, I understand not wanting to do overt, Crisis-style reboot events. But, at this point, what's the business case/creative argument for maintaining the pretense that everything back to FF #1 still makes sense as a single, linear timeline? Is it just tradition? Inertia? Risk aversion? At this point, what value does it add?

Personally i don't even really see the big deal about it at all. I don't even really think about how time flows in real life compared to a story. For instance in manga Luffy has been the same age for well over a decade aside from a time skip that was a few years. Well the book has been around for 20 years. Maybe because the story is told from the point of one writer that does something to people so it doesn't become as confusing but the basic concept is the same imo. The real issue comes in because people in a way are trying to take "ownership" of someone elses work and try to cram whatever they want "head canon" into everything instead of just following the story as it is.

[FUBAR007]

Because, generally speaking, we're trying to do stories rather than stories about how and why older stories do or do not make sense.

That reminds me of Quesada's statement against "comics about comics" when he took over as E-i-C.

Decades ago, writers/editors such as Mark Gruenwald and Roy Thomas had the opposite view, often getting years of stories out of deep-cut continuity patches and retcons. In your opinion, were they wrong to do so? Or, do you think times have changed and such an approach, while it worked fine in the past, is inappropriate for today? If so, why?

Why the distaste for clarity and coherence when it comes to continuity? Why the hostility to some level of rules? What was it about "comics about comics" that is so awful? It's not like those kinds of stories didn't sell. Crisis and its successors always sold well. Claremont/Harras-era X-Men was dense AF, and it was the top-selling comics franchise for two decades. Outside comics, look at Star Trek, Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, and other franchises--all granular worlds with thick histories. Readers/viewers eat that kind of stuff up.

Is it just that you and the rest of Marvel editorial don't like that kind of storytelling? Or, due to the atrophied state of the market and the industry, is it that contemporary Marvel just isn't staffed or resourced to curate continuity the way Gruenwald did?

If, as you say, you are capable of reading Lee/Kirby FF stories and somehow wrapping your mind around the idea that while these are the "same characters" even though you simultaneously can understand that they are not almost 60 years older than they were in 1961, then you have just shown that it's not a problem. You are able to handle it. And you know what? I am confident that the large bulk of our readers are smart enough to understand that as well.

It was Lee/Kirby X-Men, not FF. And, I think you interpreted me backward. My point was that, when I read those Silver Age stories, I DON'T seriously consider them the same characters even though, officially at least, Marvel still does.

DC doesn't have a problem with explicit break points in continuity (Crisis, Flashpoint, etc.). Marvel does. Why? Is there a reason beyond brand differentiation?

You know what else is clunky and absurd? The concept of a lot superheroes. Either you buy it or you don't.

So, in your opinion, incoherent continuity is just a genre convention and therefore bucketed as suspension of disbelief?

[Havok83]

Personally i don't even really see the big deal about it at all. I don't even really think about how time flows in real life compared to a story. For instance in manga Luffy has been the same age for well over a decade aside from a time skip that was a few years. Well the book has been around for 20 years. Maybe because the story is told from the point of one writer that does something to people so it doesn't become as confusing but the basic concept is the same imo. The real issue comes in because people in a way are trying to take "ownership" of someone elses work and try to cram whatever they want "head canon" into everything instead of just following the story as it is.

It becomes issue when it comes to progression. Scott being 27 forever is fine and dandy if there isnt supposed to be progression in this world but it becomes ridiculous when they introduce 3-4 generation of students behind him and he and all the other characters are still the same age. This stagnates growth and isnt conducive to progression or development of those characters. Almost 20 years later, its silly that the bulk of the kids introduced in the Morrison era are still students for example.

[jwatson]

It becomes issue when it comes to progression. Scott being 27 forever is fine and dandy if there isnt supposed to be progression in this world but it becomes ridiculous when they introduce 3-4 generation of students behind him and he and all the other characters are still the same age. This stagnates growth and isnt conducive to progression or development of those characters. Almost 20 years later, its silly that the bulk of the kids introduced in the Morrison era are still students for example.

But then if someone cleared that up and came out tomorrow and was like. "Well all that stuff happened in a different timeline of Moira" Let's be real the reaction would be even worse. People put these writers in Lose/Lose situations where we both know they can't win unless they acknowledge everything and they shouldn't be forced to do that. If Scott is 27 and has been an X-men for 10 years just an example, how do you know Monet or the other young mutants weren't for instance 16 when he was 20. That would mean monet is 23 now so she isn't a child any longer she's a young adult. Peopl in their own heads assigned how old they assume someone to be. Time is still moving, just not the way people assume it is.

[Havok83]

But then if someone cleared that up and came out tomorrow and was like. "Well all that stuff happened in a different timeline of Moira" Let's be real the reaction would be even worse. People put these writers in Lose/Lose situations where we both know they can't win unless they acknowledge everything and they shouldn't be forced to do that. If Scott is 27 and has been an X-men for 10 years just an example, how do you know Monet or the other young mutants weren't for instance 16 when he was 20. That would mean monet is 23 now so she isn't a child any longer she's a young adult. Peopl in their own heads assigned how old they assume someone to be. Time is still moving, just not the way people assume it is.

Monet wasnt 16 when he was 20 though. Canonically, Scott had already passed that during the O5 days in the 60s. X-Force was portrayed as being the college aged group around the time Monet debuted. Scott was about 27 when she was introduced. Even if I were to accept that Scott was 20, that makes too much overlap between the O5, Giant Size team, New Mutants/X-Force, Gen X, not to mention New X-men, WATX kids and Gen Hope kids. Its more acceptable for Scott to be early 30s. 15 years gives the X-franchise and the characters more breathing room that makes sense than cramming it in about 9-10. Those 5 years make a big difference.

[jwatson]

Monet wasnt 16 when he was 20 though. Canonically, Scott had already passed that during the O5 days in the 60s. X-Force was portrayed as being the college aged group around the time Monet debuted. Scott was about 27 when she was introduced. Even if I were to accept that Scott was 20, that makes too much overlap between the O5, Giant Size team, New Mutants/X-Force, Gen X, not to mention New X-men, WATX kids and Gen Hope kids. Its more acceptable for Scott to be early 30s. 15 years gives the X-franchise and the characters more breathing room that makes sense than cramming it in about 9-10. Those 5 years make a big difference.

See and that's where it becomes your problem. Because your head canon is saying he was this exact age and that too much was fit into a bunch of time. But if Marvel is saying that since 1962 only 12-13 years passed and that's their canon and it's their product it is what it is. You can't force your narrative on someone elses work as though it is fact when they are telling you it's not. X-men appeared in 1963 so under all circumstances marvel is saying `15 years has not passed despite that being what you want. Moira went to college at 16. I went to college at 18. So 16-18 is college age, just freshmen usually.

[Havok83]

See and that's where it becomes your problem. Because your head canon is saying he was this exact age and that too much was fit into a bunch of time. But if Marvel is saying that since 1962 only 12-13 years passed and that's their canon and it's their product it is what it is. You can't force your narrative on someone elses work as though it is fact when they are telling you it's not. X-men appeared in 1963 so under all circumstances marvel is saying `15 years has not passed despite that being what you want. Moira went to college at 16. I went to college at 18. So 16-18 is college age, just freshmen usually.

No, Im not saying he's an exact age. I said early 30s which is fairly vague. Whether he's 30 or 33 doesnt matter all that much. The only one giving him a hard age is the ones declaring that he is currently 27.