quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
Great thread by the way, King. Good stuff. If only more posters were like you.
Somehow I don't think that would be a good thing.... [eh?]

quote:
What's a Sycophant?
Someone who's obssessed with something to the point where it consumes them. In the case of my admitted heated rant, it's the ignorant, whiny, bleating egomaniacs who whine and cry about ultra-rigid continuity not being followed to the tiniest, most useless detail (and their offshoot, the zealots who loudly demand that everything must conform to Byrne thru Jurgens and that nothing before or after that has any merit).

In short, I have no use for such "fans," or their selfish, self-serving arguments.

quote:
I think continuity can be a cool thing or an useless limitation imposed to creators, depending on how it's used. The DC Universe is too big to have a consistent continuity (unless the universe is rebooted often, but that would be even more confusing than a convulted continuity), so it's just silly to expect every detail to fit in, and it's even worse to restrict writers because of continuity.

Another silly thing is trying to mantain the current status quo of big character (a status quo that, ironically, wouldn't have been reached if a previous status quo hadn't been changed). Sticking to the same thing forever is fucking boring. Every idea, eventually, gets old. The Superman books are a proof of that. They started gradually gettting worse until they reached a point where they can't be enjoyed. The 99 "reboot" may have made things seem more fresh for a while, but, in the end, it was just the same thing, and the books ended up being even worse than the worst years of the Jurgens era.
Like I said, I honestly don't care about continuity anymore. Maybe when I was 9 or 10, I would have, but not at this point in my life. Whether or not a story is "in continuity" is meaningless. Further, it's stupid and pointless to demand that everything that doesn't fit into a rigid, lockstep, keep-everything-exactly-the-same-or-else continuity get slapped with an Elseworlds label. That's just retarded. In effect, you'd be demanding that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan be tagged as an Elseworlds because the "Space Seed" episode didn't explicitly feature a an encounter between Khan and Chekov. Then again, they never said Chekov WASN'T on the Enterprise at the time, so there still could have been a meeting between the two men, but in all honesty, does it really matter? No. Nicholas Meyer, the film's writer and director (he lost the script credit to Jack Sowards--long story), admitted that it was a continuity hiccup, but he pointed to Conan Doyle's comments regarding his gaffs on Sherlock Holmes as proof that little mistakes like that don't matter so long as the story is good.

And I have to agree with that. I don't care if Mark Waid changes things up from Byrne's version if it makes for a better story. I don't care if Wagner plays fast and loose with post-'86 DC lore in order to fashion a strong yarn that depicts DC's icons in their best light. And it doesn't matter to me if Kia Asamiya fudges with the Batman timeline a little to tell a story he's passionate about. IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. If the characters' essentials are messed with (*cough* Jon Peters and JJ Abrams *cough*), THEN I have problems with it. But as long as the essentials remain intact, who cares if they vary things or do away with meaningless details that don't do anything to impact the characters?

Just give me a good story, regardless of "continuity." The rest of that junk I can do without.