Comic Book Resources

Getting beaten up by those three seems pretty unlikely.

I support the guy who said “drama’s not as important as continuity”. When you’re a lifelong reader (42 years for me!) continuity is very, very important. That’s what kept me coming back to the comic book store all these years.

When foolish editors allow longtime HEROES to be ruined (Hal Jordan, Tony Stark, for example) they remove my reason for buying. I stopped buying Green Lantern when Jordan turned evil and I stopped by Iron Man when Stark became evil during Civil War. I may never purchase another issue of those two. Ever.

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20070611.html

“It’s called drama; look into it!” heh. Great line. Sadly, I have no need of it in my daily life but oh if I did!

Looking at what Truth said, it left me wondering: How did Iron Man’s fandom react to The Crossing anyway? Maybe it was ended too fast (and then it was “fixed” pretty fast as well), but were there any groups like HEAT about all that cluster?

“I support the guy who said ‘drama’s not as important as continuity.’”

Whereas I want him to be hit by a truck.

Thank you, Michael. Now I didn’t have to say it.

”

“I support the guy who said ‘drama’s not as important as continuity.’”

Whereas I want him to be hit by a truck.
”

The reasoning is flawed either way you look at it, because drama and continuity go hand in hand. If I don’t have a proper grasp on the history of these characters and the conflicts that drive them, why should I care what happens to them? Where will the drama be generated from?

If I don’t have a proper grasp on the history of these characters and the conflicts that drive them, why should I care what happens to them? Where will the drama be generated from?

So, how did you manage to get started with comics, back when you didn’t know anything about their history or conflicts?

That said, I’ve been a touched unimpressed with this arc (mainly because the people the main character has been railing against are all straw men with one dimensional arguments, and the main character isn’t exactly much better.)

Ideally, from what’s going on in the comic in front of you, as opposed to what went on in comics from twenty years ago. A comprehensive knowledge of a character’s past is not necessary to understanding what they’re doing and how they’re feeling here and now.

Well, I thought it was funny.

“Why can’t we ALL get along?”

I used to be in the camp of ‘continuity over drama’ but not any longer (33 years of reading, by the way).

As long as a story is internally consistent, I don’t care if it doesn’t agree with who sneezes in another title.

Starman was a brilliant series for me and a prime example. The characterizations of Shade, Solomon Grundy and even Ted Knight (his affair during the fifties, for instance) go against huge amounts of prior continuity…and I didn’t care. At all. The story was internally consistent and, for me, was a terrific series. It didn’t affect my enjoyment of reading other stories that contradicted it.

That level of continuity that a lot of fans demand is exactly why I gave up on the Dark Reign series…and not just the mini’s and one-shots. I gave up on nearly every single series that is a direct part of it. I don’t want to get mired down to a dozen writers doing service to one story. I want each writer telling their best story about the characters they’re writing.

So, yeah, for me, story-telling and drama top continuity any day of the week.

If you were watching a play and suddenly one character started acting completely inconsistently with how he’d previously been acting all along (say, Hamlet makes up with Claudius) you’d fell betrayed and it would ruin the drama.

Why should that be any different with comic books? The guys writing Civil War and Emerald Knight or whatever it was called didn’t suddenly come up with those characters. And you wouldn’t be buying them if not for the history and the work by previous writers.

i figured sooner or later the writers would have josh reach is breaking point with the three and finaly blow though did not think he would wind up with them getting violent

“And you wouldn’t be buying them if not for the history and the work by previous writers.”

Completely untrue for me. I don’t give a flying shit about their history. I care about the writer and artist working on it now. If I like them, I’ll read it. If not, who cares?

But there’s only an Iron Man or a Daredevil or a Green Lantern and your favorite writer or artist only get paid large amounts of money and be superstars (in comic book world) to work on them because of all the stuff that came before.

Otherwise all their creator owned stuff would sell as well as their Marvel and DC stuff.

That would suggest to me an obligation not to break the toys. Or at least tell good stories from a dramatic point of view.

I’m not for anyone “breaking the toys” but I’m also of the mindset that if someone does, you can ignore it and move on, like Ennis did with Angel Punisher. Did writers really fuck up Hal Jordan? Yeah. But you don’t have to have a boring mini-series explaining why it didn’t really happen. Just say it didn’t happen. It’s all fiction anyway.

No such toy has ever been broken. Clone saga? Fixed. Onslaught? Forgotten. Spidey Devil Deal? Temporary, or at least as temporary as his marriage. He’ll be re-married and re-un-married several times in the future. It really doesn’t matter in the long run.

I’m thankful for a world where I can read Jack Kirby’s Losers AND Robert Kanighers’. I don’t care for Gerry Conway’s Legion but there’s always Jim Shooters. Find the writer you like, you’ll always be happy.

Yes, if a character in a play suddenly started acting differently in the play than he had before, I’d have a problem. That’s why I reference ‘internal consistency.’ If, in the telling of a story, from start to finish, the characters, plots and all the paraphernalia are consistent within the bounds of the story, but if they contradict some small item from a previous appearance: zero problem.

To continue to use Starman. The Starman of the 1950′s was, if I remember properly, an alternative ID for Bruce Wayne. In the Starman series, they referenced the character as someone completely different and unrelated to the first story.

Did it show proper continuity? Nope. Did it need to in order to tell a story? Nope.

Now, if on page 5 of that issue it was Bruce Wayne and on page 7 it was someone else, I would have a problem. That’s internal consistency.

I’m on the side that says “Fuck continuity.” I don’t give a shit about what Tony Stark did 20 years ago to prove he would never have supported the SHRA or whatever. I didn’t read the comics 20 years ago. I don’t care to read the comics from 20 years ago. I’m just gonna read the ones that I heard were really really good like Lee/Kirby’s FF or Lee/Ditko/Romita’s ASM. And I’m gonna keep enjoying the current comics I’m reading.

Heck I don’t even care if the comics weren’t even 20 years ago. So the fuck what if Bendis’s Marvel Boy is different than Morrison’s? I’m enjoying what he’s doing with the character even if the character has a few slight differences.

“If you were watching a play and suddenly one character started acting completely inconsistently with how he’d previously been acting all along (say, Hamlet makes up with Claudius) you’d fell betrayed and it would ruin the drama.”

Exactly.

…maybe we should define what we mean when we say ‘continuity’? Because internally consistent portrayals of characterization are a factor of that; without solid characterizations, stories are just a series of events with no emotional impact.

If you were watching a play and suddenly one character started acting completely inconsistently with how he’d previously been acting all along (say, Hamlet makes up with Claudius) you’d fell betrayed and it would ruin the drama.

Yes, but a play lasts a few hours and Spider-Man’s been published consistently since the 60s, with a constant, illusionary sense of change to keep readers coming back but with nothing every really evolving. What you’re talking about is not a remotely similar situation.

Honestly, guys, this argument again? I thought we were all past this.

The play metaphor would be more accurate if plays were never ending with new writers every act who had no discussion with the previous writers about what was intended for the character. THEN we can compare American superhero comics to classic plays.

“Yes, but a play lasts a few hours and Spider-Man’s been published consistently since the 60s, with a constant, illusionary sense of change to keep readers coming back but with nothing every really evolving. What you’re talking about is not a remotely similar situation.”

True, but people still have a general idea of who Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, et. al, are, and the majority of these preconceptions are in-synch with each other.

If Superman suddenly ripped a bank robber’s head off, people would be right to say that would be wholly out of character for Superman, no matter how well-written the story was.

If continuity is so important for the enjoyment of established characters, what makes an Elseworld story worth reading? Isn’t the entire point of those out-of-continuity stories that they’re in some way different? Does the fact that Frank Miller’s Batman in Dark Knight Returns is nothing like the supposed ‘in continuity’ Batman make the story any less enjoyable?

I’m all for the idea of internal continuity as ellequently expressed by D. Erik. As long as a story stays true to itself, I have no problem with it. I can enjoy both Clarmont’s X-Men and Morrison’s X-Men, I don’t need to expect Morrison to write Clarmont’s version or visa versa. I think too many comic fans get caught up in supposedly “THE” story of any particular character, and when that story ends, instead of enjoying what they have, they project the need for MORE of that story onto the next author, despite the fact that that author has his own ideas and can’t possibly be expected to do exactly what was done before.

“If you were watching a play and suddenly one character started acting completely inconsistently with how he’d previously been acting all along (say, Hamlet makes up with Claudius) you’d fell betrayed and it would ruin the drama.”

Actually, this is the best example of how long-term continuity can be sacrificed for good. With Shakespeare, the plays are often mutated and twisted in order to make them fresh and interesting for a modern audience. This can include the removal of scenes or alteration of a character’s gender, which is a pretty major change to make. The point is, this is all usually done with the intent to represent the play in a way that is true to the perceived author’s intent, but add something different to the presentation and make you consider the original material differently.

All the same can be said about any of the contentious continuity changes. While you or I may think that it is a wrong-headed move or incorrect for the character, you have to figure that the people who came up with the idea think it’s an intriguing and fitting way to make the character interesting and relevant again. Which you can’t really fault them for, at it’s root.

Essentially, the Green Goblin getting Gwen Stacy pregnant is the same as an all-female production of Romeo and Juliet.

“I support the guy who said “drama’s not as important as continuity”.

And that’s how you should know you’re wrong.

Honestly, guys, this argument again? I thought we were all past this.

I’m a little awed that a comic making fun of people who can’t get past this is accompanied by a comments section full of people who can’t get past it. it’s sort of a mobius strip of conceptual nerdity or something.

It boggles the mind doesn’t it, Greg?
But then again, the reason this strip is funny is because it’s completely true, so it should be AS surprising as it is.

*”shouldn’t” be as surprising as it is.

Essentially, the Green Goblin getting Gwen Stacy pregnant is the same as an all-female production of Romeo and Juliet.

Oh, I love that.

Hilarious work boys!

And you wouldn’t be buying them if not for the history and the work by previous writers.

Rubbish – someone’s already used Starman as an example, but I love that series, and I’d never read a single thing about any of the other characters before, and if I had, it wouldn’t have mattered as Robinson just shifted things around to suit his own stories.
There are heaps of superhero books I’ve picked up solely because of the creators – most of the time there may as well not have been an issue published before hand, as far as I could care.

Did writers really fuck up Hal Jordan? Yeah. But you don’t have to have a boring mini-series explaining why it didn’t really happen. Just say it didn’t happen. It’s all fiction anyway.

And shit, they didn’t even do that – they went ‘yes, this happened, but now the characters are all moving on’ -The book itself has now moved on more than those who got their panties in a knot over the initial mini.

(And too any Hal fans still upset by his initial death – it had to happen. The book and character had gotten stale as. Absence made the heart grow fonder.)

You should be able to appreciate quality storytelling whether or not you agree with the portrayal of the character. I understand that Magneto has become the fascist he hates, but I think that open genocide is a line he should never cross. That doesn’t make Planet X suck. The story is still one of my favorite X-Men stories. It just isn’t my favorite Magneto story.

And that’s a healthy attitude to have about it. You don’t have to love how they portrayed a character you like, but that doesn’t mean it affects the quality of the story itself.

“Drama is not as important as continuity” is exactly backwards.

That is not to say that continuity isn’t important, but it is less important than actual drama.

Continuity is important only if it helps the writer/illustrator remember just what the heck it is they’re trying to do. Lynn Johnston over in her “For Better or For Worse” comic strip made the mistake of trying to revamp and retcon strips from all the way back in 1979-1980 in order to bring them in line with her current view of the characters WITHOUT reviewing or researching her old stories…and has pretty much rendered the entire strip a garbled hash. There’s been no less than seven increasingly desperate attempts to reconcile whether a supporting character was married or not when she had her son…resulting in lots of boring, stilted, unfunny strips.

Nobody really enjoys “sorting through the laundry” stories.

“You should’ve used you repulsors.”
Ha-ha-ha-ha!!..Great stuff.