Quote:

Pariah said:
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.



That's an assumption made by you. The fact that a writer chooses not to use continuity doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't know how to use it. Example: Waid. Big continuity freak there. Used continuity succesfully in Flash. Now chooses not to use it in Birthright (note: I haven't read Birthright. I have no opinion on Birthright. This is not about Birthright. I won't talk about Birthright with you. Is that clear?), not because he doesn't know how to (he's proven he can in the past), but because of his own reasons.
The fact that a writer chooses to do something you don't agree with doesn't mean he's suddenly turned into an idiot, believe it or not.

Quote:

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.



So the next guy doesn't agree with what the previous writer did, but he uses it anyway? He knows it taints his stories, but he uses it anyway? Just like the first guy chose to ignore continuity the second one may choose to ignore what he did and continue where the story was left before he started.

Quote:

There's no difference or palpable extremity between continuity violating stories. Violating continuity in any shape, size, or fashion is violating continuity. PERIOD.



That's the problem with continuity. No, with continuity freaks. They leave no space for anything else. It's continuity or nothing. If someone likes a character but not what's going on in his title he's fucked forever. The next writer can't ignore the mess because "that would be violating continuity", and he can't undo it because that always ends up being lame. Sure, there's Elseworlds, but those are esporadic.
If the writers are allowed to choose wether they want to apply continuity or not, then lack of continuity would co-exist with the use of it. Continuity freaks can just ignore what violates their sweet precious continuity (yummm!) and those who value a good story above all else finally get to read good comics without useless continuity getting in the way.
Yeah, I know there are writers that can make a good story using continuity, and I value that. But there are also writers that can make a good story without using it, and I see no reason why the first category should be the only one to be published in the main line of books.

Quote:

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.



Crisis would never have happened if pretty much all the stories published back then hadn't sucked. In my opinion, there should be an event of that type whenever that happens. There was no point in holding on to an old continuity back then and there's no point in doing it anytime, if that's not producing good stories.

Quote:

How the fuck can you denounce the one thing that actually CREATED the characters that we love and read every weak?



The creators?
If you mean that continuity is the reason why we like those characters, then speak for yourself. I liked Superman before I knew what a continuity was, and while I enjoy the work of Byrne and those who followed it, I think the story started in Man of Steel should be put to rest before it gets any worse, if that's possible. That won't be necessary if DiDio was being honest in that interview, though, because it means writers can use what they want instead of being forced to use the good and the bad.

Quote:

The one thing that allows our characters progression into something cooler than they are.



That's the writers. It can be done with continuity or without it. As I said in another thread, Superman, The Bat-Man and Wonder Woman have evolved as icons in comics history more than they have in any single continuity. I find that change and adaptation over the years more fascinating than the permanent status quo we've been fed for years.

Quote:

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.



I'm not sure what you mean, because I don't read Wonder Woman. But if you're saying what you think I'm saying (that writers interpret Wondy's interactions with other characters differently), then I don't see how that fucks up the character in any way. You can enjoy interaction A and interaction B independently. Or, if you don't like interaction B you can stay with A.

Quote:

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.



If they were writing the same character that lived the moments they ignored, then yeah, but since those moments are being ignored then the character is diferent in that aspect, and the reaction isn't as much "screwed" as it is "different".

Quote:

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.



Not anymore, thank Gob.

Quote:

"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.



I really don't understand what the problem is. Selective continuity means the things you like can be ignored, but it also means the things you don't like can... Like, ignoring something in the first place. Thanks to selective continuity you may have your Catwoman and your Montoya back one day, maybe soon. With strict continuity that would never happen, you'd be stuck with the one Brubaker created in his book.

Quote:

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.



But what if the writer doesn't want to? Why the fuck should he? Because part of comic fandom likes it that way? So in 20 years people can say "this story wasn't good because the writer couldn't do what he wanted, but at least it follows continuity"?
This is the main thing you and MOTA have in common: You guys think that any writer that does something you don't agree with is an idiot with a secret agenda. I literally laughed my arse off when MOTA told me about the "anti-continuity conspiracy", but it's stopped being funny and started being incredibly pathetic.

Quote:

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.



And, thanks to selective continuity, future writers may ignore that instead of being forced to deal with it.

Quote:

Aw DAMMIT!! Now you've made me into a beaurocrat. FUCK YOU MXY!!



WOO!

Quote:


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.



But the kind of continuity you want would demand making references to past events, because they marked the character's life. For example, if The Bat-Man had a back problem the logical thing would be making a reference to the time it was broken, but that opens up a load of questions for new readers who haven't read Knightfall.
You're right about TV shows, I've done the same thing. But how long do TV shows last? A highly succesfull one may last 10 years, and if it's big enough to last that long it's probably part of pop culture, so it's not as hard for new viewers to get into since everyone knows what's it about. And even so, the earlier you get into the show the easier it is for the new viewer.
Now, is it that easy to get into, say, Superman comics? (in the perfect continuity you want). The story started 17 years ago and there's been about four books each month. That's a lot of chapters for that story. A TV show with that many episodes would be almost impossible to get into.