It's not gonna work for the more flaming reasons as well. He has good intentions, just like the next writer who decideds to nurse his story and get rid of the continuum because he can't at least eventually figure out how to MAKE it work. If this guy doesn't want to follow continuity, guess what's going to happen later on: Someone else WILL based off of his fallacy. THAT'S going to create huge problems. There's no difference or palpable extremity between continuity violating stories. Violating continuity in any shape, size, or fashion is violating continuity. PERIOD. Have we all forgotten how the crisis happened? People decided to keep on making mistakes and disregarding them because their stories were so good (in their own my minds most of the time) they didn't need to be continuous. Later on, they found out they were wrong.
How the fuck can you denounce the one thing that actually CREATED the characters that we love and read every weak? The one thing that allows our characters progression into something cooler than they are. To overlook continuity's movement is like slowly (or swiftly depending on the method) killing those characters. Look at what happened to Diana. The writers all followed continuity story wise, and that's a good thing, but look at the huge problem they created not only with the fans, but with Wonder Woman's character. Each time someone moves onto her book, her dynamics continually change and morph in importance and size. They didn't get those dynamics wrong, but they HIGHLY overaccentuated them. This was all because they wanted to tell a story too--With THEIR character. This is no different than what other writers do really. In overlooking the past continuity and defining moments that the character had, they're screwing up the characters reactions to the story they're making. This all keeps going on and on and on because we take turns and the wrters have to stick to a policy that makes them follow what the past writers did while making his/her mark with his/her run.
"Continuity omission" (as Loeb calls it) just forms wretched problems. When Rucka made Montoya ALWAYS gay, he decided it best to leave out the fact that Montoya was prepared to spend the rest of her life with a man she loved before he died. Lark and Brubaker handed me shit saying, "gay people do that." Montoya is too strong and independent a person to suffer for someone else's benefit--And Rucka CONTINUED to characterize her like this. This kind of carlessness with a character you've been working with FOR YEARS is no different than Brubaker not reading Last Laugh and making that Joker Antarctica mistake. It just made the fact that he's seen the most as a cameo in books worse. It's also no different from him overlooking Selina's tragic defining moments (critical to Catwoman's always been character) as a child and growing up so he can make room for HIS Selina--And look. Even though this Catwoman is obviously someone not compatible with Batman anymore, LOEB decided to make it work by changing her character back to the way it was. If Killing Joke wasn't such a famous book, I GUARANTEE you that someone else would have over looked Barbara being crippled and had her still be Batgirl.
Continuity isn't impossible OR hard to follow. I said this before and I'll say it again: Writers MAKE it hard to follow/impossible. No matter what the tale may be, it's beyond easy to make your story fit properly. There are a lot of writers who make this excuse, but I have one in particular I like to bring up: Loeb....Do I really have to say much here? Within in the last two years, he has completely disavowed continuity, character, AND believability because he's the equivilant of a ten year old fanboy (no offense Kristogar). "Team BS can beat ANYONE,"
. When exactly has Batman not had trouble beating Shiva before? Why is it that in Rucka's story, "Death and the Maidens", that Batman said he WANTED Talia while Loeb keeps making out Catwoman (Brubaker's Catwoman) to be Batman's only true love THROUGH HIS OWN ADMISSION? When has Batman ever spoken or thought about Superman that way (Team BS)? Why exactly would any of those heroes CONVINCIBLY agree to hunting them down while the past speaks against it--Hell! People who denounce continuity even look at this and go, "What the Fuck?! Why the hell would they do that?" Lois knowing Batman's identity--The MANY holes in Hush that speak for Hush being one big (comparative) mini-continuity with tons of UNcontinual flaws--Forced Brubaker to bend his Catwoman in response to Hush--I could go on and on here. This man has affected superhero continuity the most, and I picked out some of the most major league screw-ups he made. This will not lead up to something good or even indifferent to comicbookdom. I very much assure you of that.
Aw DAMMIT!! Now you've made me into a beaurocrat. FUCK YOU MXY!!
Quote:
Bob Wayne: ...And footnoted with references to comics that the average reader doesn't have a copy of or doesn't have any access to, so it's an exercise in frustration.
Then don't footnote it. Make the story be enjoyable to the point where people won't care what happened prior but sure as hell don't discount it for the people who look for continuity/the characters who rely on continuity for proper evolution. I mean, I've watched TV series' that I never watched before because I liked one episode of em'. I didn't feel I needed any continuity for-knowledge because the premise of the stories of those one episodes themselves were stand alone for me. TV series' don't do footnotes. I didn't need footnotes for a bunch of Dredd comics, Wolverine comics, Sojourner, Tarot--The stories and premises of said stories succeeded in being made stand alone. Continuity in such a case wouldn't be impeeding on enjoyment because of that all on its lonsome.
