Quote:

Exactly, it doesn't use continuity. I'm glad there's space for books like that outside the sporadic Elseworlds line.



Mxy, what they’re talking about doesn’t suggest them picking and choosing what they should keep OUTSIDE of continuity. They want the consistent characters to operate without guidelines. This is much different than a Graphic Novel, Prestige Novel, or Elseworlds.

Quote:

That's where you're wrong. They CAN, if they don't WANT TO, then there's no reason why they SHOULD. If continuity gets in the way of the story they wanna tell then fuck continuity. If, on the opposite case, continuity helps make the story better, then yay for continuity. I'm not against continuity. What I'm against is a forced continuity for every book.



You’re completely overlooking my statements of principle and disharmonious recourses created by that shit. AGAIN.

Quote:

If by "using continuity in the first place and then screw it" you mean "using some elements of continuity and ignoring others", then it's just that. Just like they ignored a part of continuity (that in your mind is "screwing it") someone after them may choose to ignore what they did and reinstate the part ignored in the first place (that in your mind SHOULD be "fixing it").



NO. Not what I said AT ALL.

I said that the inconsistencies (be they intentional or mistake) should be fixed through justification of said past inconsistencies through an entirely new plot device. Ignoring anything (be the ignored element inappropriate or crucial) isn’t going to do diddly shit and all it does is perpetuate the mistakes I’m talking about. Things have to be dealt with or one writer won’t ignore what the other writer didn’t ignore and therefore the writer who caused the original ignoring factor just spans into more ignored aspects…….I think I worded that right. Just reinstating something doesn’t make up or create reasons for the past nebulous actions of the character.

Quote:

Why? What you don't like can be deleted. You can have a perfect continuity in your mind, if you want.



The very same thing could be asked of you if you really want to get into ignoring things. Basing what I gather from your principles, me being pissed about inconsistencies in the larger part of continuity is really no different than you being pissed for writers creating past justification. This is taking into mind the fact that continuity is just one huge gargantuan story. How exactly is it that you can condemn me and tell me to ignore things when you can’t do that yourself? You CAN take or leave the explanations I want just like I CAN ignore the stories that forfeit the explanations.

Remember, this is your reasoning, not mine.

As to the answer to your question:

“In my mind” isn’t good enough. I can create full on stories and such myself “in my mind”. I want to see OTHERS’ depictions of my favorite characters. Those writers create the situations that give my character the defining moments I need as basis to set up those stories in my brain.

Quote:

Why add that when it's unnecessary, or when the writer simply doesn't want to do it? That right there would be useless forced dialogue (those explanations are often long), and that's a great source of lameness and mediocrity.



*sigh* That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Using these types of excuses as substitutes for methods of story telling that could be invented to destroy the boringness. I’ll toot my own horn and say I got plenty up my sleeve that aren’t being used. Hell! I already mentioned one that would make having to go over past stories void. Notice that I know this and I’m not one of these writers. They can figure things out. Obviously they know the problems with too much explanation, so it becomes apart of their job to find ways around it. There’s a word for this………HA! Now I remember! “Creativity”.

Quote:

Imagine if, for some reason, Moore had been forced to set Watchmen into the DCU. All the explanations required to do so would have ruined the book. Maybe you find pleasure in reading explanations like that, but they annoy the fuck out of me, especially when you can tell the author doesn't really want to add them.



Feh! Moore would have found a way to bypass the boringness. I trust him. And if he didn’t, he should’ve.

Quote:

What I meant is this: okay, we have forced continuity and optional continuity.



Everything you said after this sentence I went over very thoroughly and true to form, the argument this is meant to refutiate isn’t affected by it at all.

I’ll make small response though:

Start judging the talent of a writer through their ability to mesh a situation with another and not JUST their ability to write good stories, because really, neither is different from the other. Continuity of that one story is no different than the conglomerated continuity of all the stories surrounding it. And screwed up (in your case) distended continuity within a story sucks. It’s no different but even worse than continuity violation on a grand scale. That’s almost half my point on this line of debate.

Quote:

Bear in mind that these characters are icons. There can be multiple interpretations to how their personalities are. These are not real people, these are fictional characters.



Dammit! Every time I try to use the very applicable basis of character as focal point, I always get the lip service, “They’re fictional characters.” WTF? So what? Because they don’t exist, they aren’t designed to at least attempt to be like regular people (what they’re framed as)? They’re humans Mxy, albeit paper humans, but they’re SUPPOSED to go through what WE do personality wise. It creates interesting and consistent dynamics that allow the characters to grow on us in general. What they’re proposing is lack of this possibility. You’d have your favorite character for like what? A month and then you lose him because a writer that came after wasn’t a fan of the other writer’s stuff. Those fictional characters may be fictional characters, but that’s no reason to consider them any less different than regular people. They are BASED off of us. BASED on humans. They ARE human. They have defining moments JUST. LIKE. US. They aren’t open for interpretation. They only change through the writer because of the STORY.

Batman was given a static origin as a dark depressed and mentally unbalanced individual who was traumatized and it has been repeatedly gone over that he has split personalities. These are the only things that can be changed (and ARE changed) because they’re the most flaming characteristics of Batman—His aspects that make him appealing. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

Wonder Woman started off as a representative of her island by George Perez. She was given a proper balance of politician, warrior, feminist, and hero. These were the bricks that created her foundation, they were not up for interpretation in the fashion that you or the writers suggested. It was because other writers thought she was up for interpretation, that her character became shit (luckily Jimenez helped them all fit with her character……..Which Rucka screwed up ).

Superman has always been set as the greatest hero of all time because he stands for peace, justice, mercy, and the American way. It’s because he believes that all life is precious that he doesn’t kill. His colors, his name, his actions all accentuate him in this light and always have. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

Joker……….Do I really need to say much here?

Yes, these icons are icons, and they’re REACTIONS to certain stories are up for interpretation BASED off of their static characteristics that make them who they are (review above). This suggested interpretation would call for more than merely what the first sentence depicts, it would also give writers the freedom to put Bats in a pink tutu without backup info. Make Supes a fuckin’ killer. Make Wondy a slut. Make Joker *shiver* SANE!!

Quote:

Your idea of the character might not coincide with my idea of the character. Why should the conception of the character you like have more priority than mine?





Mxy, my “conception” of the characters is based off of the course that they’ve already taken through continuity. Dude, this is the morbid equivalent of asking why the writer of said characters should have any authority over their paths. It’s a flawed argument.

Quote:


I think there can be emphasis on the plot, the character, or both. As long as the result is good I'm happy. You can have an excellent plot with a lame character (or a lame interpretation of a character) or vice versa. I hate Miller's interpretation of Superman in DKR, but I love that book.
If you open a book with a preconception of the character in your mind and that's not the same conception the writer used, then obviously you're gonna think the book is lame. I prefer to be open to new and different interpretations. I don't look at the comic as a continuing story started decades ago unless that's how the writer looked at it.



1) Frank Miller’s DKR isn’t set in continuity. It is, in fact, an elseworlds and not a proper example.
2) I also already said that I had no qualms with this BECAUSE it is outside continuity.
3) The interpretation of Superman in this story was set many years after his retirement. Interpretation, in this case, was entirely in Miller’s court because a lot of situations (that contained defining moments) could have happened within those many years. FYI, he MENTIONED some that would coincide with his interpretation.

Quote:

Those justifications may take one panel, but they also may take 10 pages. They may fit into the story nicely and even add to it, but they may also ruin the story. For that reason, making the justifications should be an option and not a requirement.



I reiterate: It is up to the writer whether his use of past stories will suck or not.

I realize that this fact doesn’t make it better. But what makes it just as usable here is the other fact that writers can lose continuity AND good story at the same time.

Also…

If here, you’re saying it should be an option to REFERENCE then fine. If you’re saying it should be an option to ignore then that’s just bullshit. If you want a stand-alone story with the character at hand, then what are those guys complaining about in the first place I ask? They say people want stories and what they’re proposing is the hex of character (past) FOR story because people know nothing about said character. Newsflash: They know nothing about the current character used for story alone. In this case, character would be character either way, the reader who just wants story would learn about either version of character through said character’s actions, and they’d still have their stories that HAPPEN to be in continuity.

Like I said before, if it’s THAT much trouble and the writer feels like being a lazy shit, then don’t reference (unless the story’s in relation to one prior).

Quote:

Why? If it was a real universe, I can see why that would have. You'd have paradoxes around every corner. But this isn't. This universe is, literally, in your mind. It's what you make of it. That's what's so great about it, and why there's so many disagreements about how things are and how they should be.
Is it so hard to take, I don't know, Hush or Last Laugh and say to yourself "this never happened" and move on?



Mxy. Please.

You completely forget my previous arguments that mention the writers’ affinity for including things that others don’t.

Approaching this from a different but equally important angle…

Comic books are like one HUGE book that is separated into smaller ones. One huge book needs to stay unquestionably harmonious. I don’t know how you like the books you read, but I like mine to stay in sync with itself. If War and Peace wasn’t a consistent story, my grades would be fucked right now (I’d also be even more pissed off about trying to understand it and failing due to inconsistency after having to just read it in general).

You SAY it didn’t happen but it’s referenced and it ACTUALLY didn’t happen but it’s later referenced but it’s gone over in great detail in another story so it’s going to be referenced by someone going off of popular demand and then he references something that doesn’t exist then there turns out to be a story I like that has reference to another story which I before decided didn’t exist but because it served to make this story cool it must now exist and my imaginary universe WHICH IN REALITY IS IN THE WRITER’S HEAD AND NOT MINE is fucked all to hell because my selective continuity contradictory ass backwards philosophy of how I see continuity’s movement has FAILED ME!!!!!

If something’s going to mimic actual real movements of a universe, I’m gonna grade it on quality of mimicry. Not only that, but it’s not what I make of it. It is in fact what someone else creates for me to enjoy (going off of its original themes of course). You enjoy it based on many deciding factors. Sense, creativity, talent, etc.. All of these are TIED IN with continuity and not ALL on my interpretation.

Quote:

No. In some cases, maybe the could. But there are also cases where they continuity is nothing but a big fat cow on one side of the row. Should the guy get off the car and push the cow outside the road and ruin his whole fucking trip (he's gonna be late! the wife's gonna fucking chop his head off! and he's got a bad back, he could break the fucking thing while pushing the fucking cow!), or should he simply change lanes and continue his trip?
You think he should get off the car, and in some cases that may be the best option (maybe it's a hot chick dressed as a cow), but not always, so there's no fucking reason why the writer should say "Yeah, I'm gonna add 20 fucking pages to explain how this fits in with Crisis so that Pariah guy on the boards doesn't bitch".



Dude! I reiterate: It doesn’t have to be a big fat cow and it doesn’t have to be twenty pages. There’s no trouble involved at all.

Tell me something: Are you blaming continuity for these woes and giving immunity to the writers? What’s more; are you giving the writers who were supposed to follow continuity and make a good story at the same time but didn’t (and are the ones who made this whole cow problem in the first place) immunity?

Quote:

That's how you look at them. I look at them as monthly books that should be producing good stories but in most cases aren't. The only reason why I call them "main" books is because they're monthly and open ended.



Mxy, maybe you should read regular novels more often, because the definition you just gave is the exact same one for the paper-backs that hit the stands every few weeks. One of the founding premises for comic-books is the fact that it’s one HUGE story or book separated into smaller books like I said before. The characters were meant to evolve through the continuum that ALL books contain. You’re probably only fooled into thinking that the comic continuum is any different because you take it for face value, which is something I just don’t get.

Quote:

The general consensus was that they sucked, otherwise Crisis wouldn't have happened. Most writers and the readers found that the multiverse got in the way of telling good stories, so it was dealt with. Had the multiverse been loved by most people back then, there would have been no reason for removing it.



My point was that you can’t go off of popular reference or what you think is popular reference. It’s your opinion that it happened because the stories sucked, but your making it sound like fact that it wasn’t for continuity’s sake more so.

Quote:

The writers who followed the creators.



Eh?

What a completely open ended phrase. It sounds like it’s giving room to change Batman into a serial killer and such. Like the main idea for the character’s main traits is void when met with the fancy of a writer.

They followed the creators based on the continuity. Batman’s entire standard is a crime fighter driven by vengeance and because this was his founding characteristic, THAT’S what they followed. I mean, do you see room for them to have him get a sex change and call himself Notman? Back to point, do you think they kept Kane/Finger in mind when they continued? The premise stays the same because that’s the whole point of the character’s existence and they BUILD on to it using the continuity. They obviously didn’t follow any Kane bible and taking after an individual writer’s example doesn’t seem likely (I also haven’t seen it done).

Furthermore…

Mxy, trying to justify something by using the writers an excuse and not the stories and characters in general (the whole point of this argument) is….Extraordinarily cheap. Continuity for comic books is what takes eyes away from the fact that someone else is outlining the character’s actions (exception made for a few writers of course). The actions of the character and the interpretation of the reader is supposed to be transcendent of the writer and his intentions (sometimes it becomes void because of continuity itself, but that’s a horse of a different color). Your complete disregard for the way a story is supposed to move and the way characters are supposed to be explored is speaking volumes to me on how much you really care on the subject……..

Wait a tic…..No it’s not!! You’re in it for story and any character plucked out of a drum within said story…….Why the hell do you even care if you have reg. continuity or selective in the first place if you get a story either way? I realize we were talking about reference and footnoting before, but going right into the meat of the matter, I don’t see that being done as often as suggested in the books. So what are you going on about? What’re your main complaints? Give me examples please.

Quote:

No, they were made by whoever is writing the book now.



They follow the characters’ actions Mxy. Get over it.

This entire disagreement is stemming from the fact that we have exactly opposite point of views. You refuse to look at comics for the characters’ POV and don’t want to bother yourself with understanding why the characters are the way they are in the first place. I would like my story to actually envelop me so I can FOLLOW the characters and try to understand how the story moves BECAUSE of them and how the scenario CHANGES them.

Quote:

I'm indifferent to wether the writer chooses to make his interpretation be consistent with the previous ones or not. I think a good characterisation that happens to be consistent with the character's continuity is as valid as a good characterisation that isn't.



Why? Obviously this ongoing story can’t properly move or take the character anywhere without having compatible continuity through and through. I realize that you’re speaking more on a grander scale, but as I said other times before, it’s exactly the same as violating the continuity of the story within a single issue.

Quote:

Evolution? What evolution? I can't speak for The Bat-Man or Wonder Woman, but Superman hasn't evolved in about a decade. In fact, the same writers that made his latest evolution (the Jurgens squad) were the ones that undid it.
What I meant is how the character has changed through the decades. The 80's and the 90's are just another step.



Not what I meant. While Batman and Wonder Woman have evolved over the past decades in the extremity you’re describing, I was speaking in general terms of their movement through continuity. I mean, they remained consistent in the sense that their actions were based off actions made previously that had consequences, which affected them. The defining moments that allowed them tiny facets to use as justification for other smaller actions. As you say I can speak for Wondy and Bats in this department more because I haven’t read the Supes comics since after 98. I sincerely doubt big blue was put into any situation that would have him do anything controversial which would have an outcome that would serve as proof of that evolution since then. Anyway, this is apart from Wondy and Bats who have evolved much from what I read.

Anyway…

Mxy describe to me these changes please. If you’re talking popular culture and difference in era changing the path of the characters than that summation is wrong for Batman. The Batman we have now is pretty much the same proposed one from years and years and years ago. There was forced inhibition of the character then, but the stops have been pulled out now. Pretty much anything can be approached. While the times have changed the intensities of the books and the taboos of the stories, they never really effected character much during the eighties and nineties. As for Superman, I never really saw his standards or original concepts change during any of the eras. And no one really understood Wondy before her reboot *shrug*.

Now, if you’re talking through regular continual channels that they changed. Bats was doing fine post crisis until 02 and Supes started REALLY degrading around 96 I think then Wondy was making moderate sense until Simonson.

Quote:

I was talking about evolution OUTSIDE continuity. Example: How Superman changed from the 60's to the 90's. That evolution didn't happen in continuity. It happened in the stories, but it didn't happen in continuity.
I know that evolution can also happen within continuity. I'd cite the first years of the post Crisis Superman as an example of that.



I probably know what you mean, but then again I probably don’t. Please elaborate on your meaning here.

Quote:

However, that evolution is nothing when compared to how the character has evolved out of continuity.



This is where you’re citing your opinion as fact again.

Quote:

So those characters haven't changed outside continuity?



No, not really. Superman I can’t really vouch for, but I got tons of back issues for Wondy and Bats during the earlier and later part of the last century. And from a lot of Green Lanterns I read, there wasn’t much detectable change.

Quote:

Completely ignores the point raised in Superman/Aliens).



Are you implying that it couldn’t have been worked around rather than just merely ignored.

Quote:

There have been some changes, the possitive ones thanks to the occasional great writer, but to make up for it even more changes have been undone. That's what I call a permanent status quo.



Please make this a little clearer. I’m a bit vexed as to your meaning and how it ties in with lack of adaptation.

Quote:

So the writers didn't go through the trouble of explaining how their interpretation came to be? Good for them, I say. Don't push that fucking cow, skip it.



If you wanna use that kind of reasoning, then fine. Their credibility was shattered in the process of those runs.

Quote:

Dude, none of this is real. These are not real lives that are being tampered with. These are characters, characters made so that stories could be told with them, stories that are meant to be enjoyed.



Are you trying to make me out as some sort of spas fanboy or sumthin’? I want to be able to understand my stories and have them make sense. THAT. IS. ALL. And considering the fact that it’s required/It’s not such a hard task to comply with I’m in my right mind to be more than a bit pissed that my enjoyment is put on hold. I already explained this to you

Quote:

I just understood why you take Barbara Gordon's rape so seriously.



I don’t take things “so seriously”, I see them for what they are and then I type in my opinion for Chrissakes. I made a bunch of arguments that spoke against Barbara being raped. So fuckin’ what? Where’s this “so seriously” come from? I started that thread with the intention to get a point across, so I participated in it. Simple as that. No one handed me anything but shit as an argument, so I kept going with it.

Quote:

To me, this line sums up what you're saying:
"I'm not gonna overlook principle simply for enjoyment"

A principle?! A fucking principle?! And "SIMPLY FOR ENJOYMENT"?! What are you reading comics for, then? To get a fucking heart attack?



Mxy, I’ve been reading comics for more than a decade now. Mainly Bats and Wondy. Over that span of time, they remained very consistent and justified in their rights. Suddenly at the turn of the century, they changed without warning or reason. It’s been only a few years now and it’s going to take a few more before the lack of continuity is what drives me away.

And the reason I hold principle above the other elements is because it’s what keeps my enjoyment in the first place. Not principle alone of course, but what it upholds. Oh yeah; and the pretext was directed towards you and that’s why I worded it that way thus I left out the small facet being that I can’t enjoy something that doesn’t make sense.

Quote:

The point is that I shouldn't have to.



Yes you should. All plots of stories require it for any such depth or reason for movement in the first place.

Quote:

AH-AH! For you maybe. For me, and for most people in this thread, it doesn't work better that way most of the time.



You’re too stubborn and keen on the notion that it sucks to MAKE it work to its full potential. Work on that.

Quote:

Exactly like I said before: you're assuming that the writers are idiots simply because they have different views on comics than you.



Nope. I’m assuming they’re idiots because they’re not able to write with clarity or sense. I mean, if at the beginning of a book Clark decides to kill his wife (don’t I wish), I’d like to know why. Just like I wanted to know why Superman attempted to kill Hank Henshaw. They’re both equal in situation because they’re not telling me anything. If a writer automatically assumes that I’m gonna get EVERYTHING he does with the characters he uses and because of this informs me of nothing…I’m gonna be more than just slightly pissed.

Quote:

A. No, you didn't.
B. Being forced to respect continuity isn't being able to "do whatever they want".



I reiterate, continuity is extraordinarily flexible. It is only in the case that you THINK it isn’t that you encounter problems. You want to do something, but the past speaks against it, figure out a way to make a plot device fit efficiently into place and make your idea work.

Quote:

I suppouse I'm a dumb fuck and an asshole too.



If you start writing my comics the way being suggested, then yes. I will definitely call you a dumb fuck/asshole.

Quote:

That's called being intollerant to opinions different than yours.



It’s not opinion to follow rules. It’s requirement.

Quote:

We were talking about TV shows. It's easier to get into the X Files than it is to get into fucking Everybody Loves Raymond.



Raymond is a sitcom. It’s meant for comedy (I can’t see how). It wouldn’t focus on the things that X-Files does each episode without actually focusing on those things in such great detail.

Anyway, enough of that.

Quote:

If she hates the X-Files then she probably knows what's it about.



She only started hating it after I described the first ep. I’d ever seen to her. You guessed it: The Garbage Mutant episode. She avoided the show.

Quote:

But EVERY event shapes the character! How is anyone gonna understand the character if they don't know the events!



I say again.

The character is a going to be A character for the reader either way. This whole argument is on stand-alone story being enjoyed by ALL. If things go as I described, DiDio, you, the other readers shouldn’t care. And from the impression I’m getting NOW, you want character description in EVERY supposed to be stand-alone story. It seems like you’re contradicting yourself a bit here.

Last edited by Pariah; 2004-02-17 12:24 AM.