The Green Lantern #1 Discussion (SPOILERS)

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Agreed on all fronts. I think some fans are also yearning for a return to the past where continuity was "tighter", but I'm not so sure they are remembering correctly. Things have NEVER fit together perfectly and it only gets harder to keep it together as time passes. Even if we go back to whatever time period is held as having great continuity, my question is "Did it really, though"?

Neal Adams has a beloved run on Batman. That run jarringly and completely shifted tone from the previous status quo. We went from camp to horror/gothic. It was a complete tonal shift. Many things from the previous decade were totally ignored in favor of a new status quo and direction. (I get that tone, status quo and continuity are all different things, but for the sake of argument and brevity I'm not separating them totally here).Would we have been better served if "The Secret of the Waiting Graves" included a callback to giant typewriters and Ace, just to tie in better with continuity? That's an absurd example but my point is that's a case where paying little attention to old continuity and focusing on creating good, new stories absolutely paid off.

Precisely. If there was ever a time during DC's 80 year history where the continuity all made sense, I could somewhat sympathize with people who are more zealous about inconsistencies in continuity, but DC continuity has always been an ever-shifting, ever-evolving organic thing since Superboy was introduced in 1945 and, even then, there was no internal continuity until Julie Shwartz imposed one on his family of titles in the late 50s/early 60s.

DC was never Marvel, nor should they try to be.

[thetrellan]

Precisely. If there was ever a time during DC's 80 year history where the continuity all made sense, I could somewhat sympathize with people who are more zealous about inconsistencies in continuity, but DC continuity has always been an ever-shifting, ever-evolving organic thing since Superboy was introduced in 1945 and, even then, there was no internal continuity until Julie Shwartz imposed one on his family of titles in the late 50s/early 60s.

DC was never Marvel, nor should they try to be.

Actually, DC did used to be more consistent, despite being prone to gimmicks like 'imaginary stories'. But it wasn't due to being more intent on continuity. It was just that creative assignments sometimes lasted longer. That will not likely ever be the case again. Not when no writer stays on a book more than 2 years.

I remember one time I wrote to Thor's letter page about Simonson's contradiction of Roy Thomas' (at the time very recent) additions to the thunder god's past. I was surprised to get a letter from Walt himself, but I figure he had it ready for the expected objections. I did get a kick out of that. He basically said that the vehicle used to tell the tale was unreliable. "After all, would you believe what a floating eyeball told you?" Yeah, the story was told to- I think- Odin by his own eye after he plucked it out. Or was that to Thor?

Sure, writers get a pass if they step on something unintentionally. But if it's absolutely on purpose, come on. Some explanation should be had. We're talking about writers, for crying out loud. It they can't come up with a way for something to make sense, doesn't that say something about their abilities? Isn't that a failure of imagination? And shouldn't such a failure be unacceptable in someone whose entire purpose is to imagine stories?

Although I do get that such speculation is entirely academic. Even if I had pull to get stuff like this sorted, I wouldn't want to interfere in the creative process. I don't believe writers should be answerable to the fans any more than they should let what's going on in the movie industry affect story direction.

That's right, I'm talking to you, Marvel. And no, you are never living that one down.

[Daniel22]

Precisely. If there was ever a time during DC's 80 year history where the continuity all made sense, I could somewhat sympathize with people who are more zealous about inconsistencies in continuity, but DC continuity has always been an ever-shifting, ever-evolving organic thing since Superboy was introduced in 1945 and, even then, there was no internal continuity until Julie Shwartz imposed one on his family of titles in the late 50s/early 60s.

DC was never Marvel, nor should they try to be.

I think when some fans say "tighter continuity" what they really mean is "more like it was when I was twelve".

[JBatmanFan05]

Found this Morrison interview I hadn't seen at first:
http://thegreenlanterncorps.com/excl...on-liam-sharp/

Grant: So, [Hal] he’s a weird sort of character whose doesn’t quite fit into the planet but as I said we don’t want to make that a melancholy thing. This isn’t a guy who seems wistful about the planet Earth or, you know, he doesn’t fit in, he just lives on a way bigger scale, you know, he lives in a canvas that’s gigantic and the planet Earth is a very small and provincial and kinda dumb place as far as Hal Jordan’s concerned. He still loves it and he’s got a lot of friends here.

So we’re not playing his as the kind of guy whose got problems because I think that I wanted to do this as a superhero, you know a guy who’s been through a lot and has dealt with and is over it and is now, well who’s this guy, as I’ve said before it’s getting into the head of that guy, the test pilot, the astronaut, The Right Stuff [astronaut film], the guy who’s seen it and done it and whose not traumatized and not dealing with issues, it think is really exciting about Jordan I think that’s who he is, he’s a very different type of character, you know? He gets it done and he doesn’t scare and he doesn’t have, you know, he doesn’t woe in his feelings.

[LordUltimus]

I think when some fans say "tighter continuity" what they really mean is "more like it was when I was twelve".

No, that's when creators talk about going to the more "iconic" iterations.

[Daniel22]

No, that's when creators talk about going to the more "iconic" iterations.

Hah, yeah, that happens too sometimes for sure. Crazy how "iconic" and "true core" of the characters so often lines up with "the way they were when I was twelve" for fans and creators alike, huh?

[Frontier]

I think when some fans say "tighter continuity" what they really mean is "more like it was when I was twelve".

Probably depends on what kind of twelve year old we're talking about.

Assuming they were even reading comics to being with, I imagine a 12-year old reading in the Silver Age would probably have a different perspective on continuity then someone in the 90's and beyond (assuming they were even reading titles that had any kind of shared continuity going on).

[thetrellan]

I think when some fans say "tighter continuity" what they really mean is "more like it was when I was twelve".

I started reading comics at 11 in 1972. Even then the rampant stupidity of DC's silver age was a turnoff. I waited over a decade for that to change. So no, am not, never was interested in seeing DC return to those ways. Pretty dismissive of you.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I started reading comics at 11 in 1972. Even then the rampant stupidity of DC's silver age was a turnoff. I waited over a decade for that to change. So no, am not, never was interested in seeing DC return to those ways. Pretty dismissive of you.

Dial it back a bit, he said "some fans", which is totally fair, not you specifically.

[liwanag]

Found this Morrison interview I hadn't seen at first:
http://thegreenlanterncorps.com/excl...on-liam-sharp/

Green Lantern would have a different/wider perspective for a "guy who’s seen it and done it" what the universe had to offer. I can see what Morrison meant with Hal as "a very different type of character, you know? He gets it done and he doesn’t scare and he doesn’t have, you know, he doesn’t woe in his feelings" type of character, when compared to "grounded" characters like Batman or Green Arrow.

That said, I still hope the local earth stuff won't be seen as too "provincial", mostly because I would still love to see Hal spend time in Coast City, his family, Ferris Air,and Carol.

[thetrellan]

Dial it back a bit, he said "some fans", which is totally fair, not you specifically.

I'm looking for a .5 setting, but it's just not there. I was using myself as an example, and as an example I should feel this was aimed in my general direction. But I didn't claim to be targeted, just that it was dismissive. I've got way more reactive material here for the big guns. Not that I really use it. I tend to feel worse than the other party.

I shouldn't have ended the comment with the word "you", though. I will try to avoid that kind of targeting in the future.

No, seriously. I get that there is no easy answer for the issue, aside from creating a new job category of Continuity Police. But I think it is a problem sometimes, that writers get things wrong and no one comments, no one cares. So you get things like the world wide eclipse in Forever Evil. A few minor edits and a rap session with the tie-in writers would have headed that one off. But because it's comics, no one gave a damn. It just gets ridiculous.

Speaking of that eclipse, there's also something of an attitude that comics don't need to make sense. Because it's already an impossible scenario- the supposition that human beings can have super powers and do impossible things- that anything goes. I don't feel this is the case. If you're already being asked to suspend disbelief, it's more important than ever that every effort should be made to adhere to common sense within the impossible framework. Otherwise you end up with Superman hauling entire star systems around with a ginormous chain.

[Daniel22]

Probably depends on what kind of twelve year old we're talking about.

Assuming they were even reading comics to being with, I imagine a 12-year old reading in the Silver Age would probably have a different perspective on continuity then someone in the 90's and beyond (assuming they were even reading titles that had any kind of shared continuity going on).

Yeah, for sure. There's all different types of readers and I agree the time period would make a huge difference. We also defined continuity differently in the past so that's a part of it.

[Daniel22]

I started reading comics at 11 in 1972. Even then the rampant stupidity of DC's silver age was a turnoff. I waited over a decade for that to change. So no, am not, never was interested in seeing DC return to those ways. Pretty dismissive of you.

I wasn't directing that at you specifically, just to clarify. I was speaking very generally. If it came off as being targeted at you, I apologize, it really wasn't my intent. I recognize there's all kinds of fans with different tastes.

There wasn't any shade being thrown at people who DO want things just like they were when they were twelve. I don't have anything against nostalgia, or however strong people like their continuity for whatever reasons. It was just a thought that I had that sprang from my convo with Bored and others. No ill will intended.

Tolkien had some really interesting thoughts on verisimilitude that you might find interesting. You can find the interviews and articles online. It's really fascinating hearing a master (maybe THE master) worldbuilder give his thoughts on internal logic and having believable stories in an unbelievable setting. I think you'd dig them, if you haven't already read them.

Again, I'm sorry for any negative feelings my post caused. It wasn't my intent.

[thetrellan]

I wasn't directing that at you specifically, just to clarify. I was speaking very generally. If it came off as being targeted at you, I apologize, it really wasn't my intent. I recognize there's all kinds of fans with different tastes.

There wasn't any shade being thrown at people who DO want things just like they were when they were twelve. I don't have anything against nostalgia, or however strong people like their continuity for whatever reasons. It was just a thought that I had that sprang from my convo with Bored and others. No ill will intended.

Tolkien had some really interesting thoughts on verisimilitude that you might find interesting. You can find the interviews and articles online. It's really fascinating hearing a master (maybe THE master) worldbuilder give his thoughts on internal logic and having believable stories in an unbelievable setting. I think you'd dig them, if you haven't already read them.

Again, I'm sorry for any negative feelings my post caused. It wasn't my intent.

If you're trying to guilt me into backing down, it's working. Accepted. I was just throwing a mirror up, though. I can see you seem like decent folk.

[j9ac9k]

As a side note to this discussion, it brings to my mind what it seems Morrison did in Batman and that he's stated he's doing here - to take everything he read when he was young but rather than re-create it and cement it as "reality" the way a child would, (i.e. "This is the reality that was presented to me then and I just want those stories to mature with me.") Morrison seems to be taking those stories and reveling in the childishness of how it actually was (or how it seems to an adult) in a way that a child would not want, because children want to experience things that make them feel older, or more mature which was the impact those exact stories had on a twelve-year old mind. It's an interesting way to tackle funny-books in that endlessly loopy self-referential and self-conscious way. I feel like I'm talking in circles, so I will stop.