Quote:

Pariah said: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.



Yes, that's what I meant before. And...?

Quote:

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



I guess it's because I don't share your definition of "disharmonious" and "shit" when it comes to stories. And if DiDio and the people running DC don't share it either, I don't see any reason why they should ALWAYS follow the anal retentinve rules of forced continuity. There's always space for books that respect and use continuity in a good way, like Flash or JSA, and if you're unable to enjoy them because of what's going on on a different book then that's your problem.

Quote:

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.



Again, I see no reason why the writer should justify ANYTHING if he doesn't want to. You see not doing that as laziness, I see doing it when you don't want to as a source for lameness and mediocrity.
It's obvious that I have a different view of comics than you. I just wanna be able to pick up a book and read a good story, that's all. I don't care how the writer does it. Use continuity, don't use continuity, whatever. Only good stories keep me buying a comic. This is why I don't understand people who continuity to buy one or four comics they don't enjoy simply because that once upon a time it produced good stories.
If things were the way I propose there would be a space for readers like you, but if things were the way you propose there would be very little space for readers like me.

Quote:

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.



Only if it makes the story lame. If he somehow manages to fit in the justification in a way that makes sense and improves the story I see no problem with it. The point is that that can't always happen.

Quote:

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.



I don't wanna buy a book I generally enjoy and suddenly find out that the whole issue has been dedicated to nothing but please continuity. An example would be Green Lantern. Ron Marz said in a recent interview that many times DC's yearly crossovers were imposed on him, and that it showed in the quality of the stories that he didn't really want to write them. He could have used that issue for something that actually mattered for the character. Or maybe the issue is right in the middle of an arc or a sub-plot and it ruins the whole pace of the story. Another example in the same book would be Kyle's relationship with Donna Troy. Marz invested a couple of years in developing that relationship and making it something special, but he was forced to end it because out of the blue because of what was going on in Byrne's Wonder Woman book. The fact that shit like that happens pisses me off.

Quote:

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.



If the writer's view of the character coincides with yours then that's what you're gonna get. If the writer's view of the character is different from yours, then how can you expect him to write a decent story using a view he doesn't share?

Quote:

*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”.



I guess that's human nature. If you force someone to do something he doesn't agree with, he won't do it or he'll do it reluctantly. In this case, there's damn good writers that don't always agree with absolute forced continuity. I mean, they're not getting hired to follow continuity. They're getting hired to write good stories about characters every comics fan knows, and sometimes continuity can get in the way of accomplishing that. Maybe justifying everything is a top priority for some when they read comics, but that's irrelevant for others.

Quote:

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



It would have been a different story. Radically different. I mean, there's only so much you can justify. For example, the changes in society that resulted from Dr Manhattan's creation wouldn't have existed because Moore wouldn't have been free to toy with the DCU THAT much. And that's a big part of the story.

Quote:

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.



I disagree with that. Their ability to write good stories is what MAKES a writer. That's why they're called WRITERS and not CONTINUITERS or something. For example, Gaiman's effort to fit Sandman into the regular DCU (Superhero books) resulted in what he considers the weakest issue of the whole run. He even has to justify why he wrote that issue and why it came out like that in the introduction to the first TPB.
A similar thing happens in Moore's Swamp Thing, though to a lesser extent. In the first arc he uses the Justice League very tangently. They appeared in the cover of one of the issues, but the truth is that they don't have a mayor purpose in that story. In the introduction to the first TPB Moore finds himself in the same situation Gaiman would be a few years later: he knows that since he's a respected author his book is gonna be read by people that don't normally read superhero comics and he feels the need to justify the inclusion of the JLA in that arc. I think Moore did a great work in those issues, but, let's face it, the characters ARE pretty out of context with the atmosphere of the comic, and the fact that Moore, like Gaiman, felt the need to justify their presence suggests that he's not 100% happy about that and that maybe it wasn't his decision.
A story if the sum of its parts, and adding one part the writer doesn't really want to add damages the final result.
So I'd say to you: Start judging the talent of a writer through their ability to write good stories, because that's the whole point.

Quote:

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.



I agree that there needs to be an internal continuity for each story, but I'd say that being forced to be consequent with the stories that came before doesn't help that at all.

Quote:

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.



But the problem with that is that in that case there can only be one valid interpretation of the character. If a new writer comes aboard that has a view of the character radically different from the previous writers justifying that change as if the character was a real person is gonna be nearly impossible and probably not revertible. My point when I said that these are not real people is that they are tools to create stories and just that. In my opinion expecting them to behave in a realistic manner considering ALL their previous adventures is just silly. But most of all, and this is a fact, doing that would limit the number of people willing to read the comic (since, thanks to the character's exposure through the media, everyone knows the basic concept and has a different interpretion of how they should be, and if that view is radically different from the one presented in the book odds are the reader won't like it), and the number of writers with good stories of this character in them (for the same reason), and doing that would be stupid and unfair.
I'd say a character has more possibilities of behaving like a real person the less popular he is. With icons like Superman, The Bat-Man, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and Aquaman, everyone has a different idea of how they should be.

Quote:

It creates interesting and consistent dynamics that allow the characters to grow on us in general.



But only if you've read every fucking comic! If every "big" moment, and there's a lot of them in comics, affects the character, then a reader would have to read pretty much every fucking comic with the character to understand his personality. This raises another problem: In order to write the character's personality properly, the writer would be forced to read every comic and this, again, would limit the number of people willing to write the character. Only fanboys would write the characters. And that isn't always pretty.
Believe it or not, there can be a real love for the character without ever reading an in-continuity comic of it.

Quote:

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.



That's what's so great about it: everyone gets what they want evenually instead of just one group getting their version. DiDio says he's looking for writers that have good stories in them, and if he succeeds I assure you a lot more people will start or resume reading comics.

Quote:

Those fictional characters may be fictional characters, but that’s no reason to consider them any less different than regular people.



I think the fact that they're not real is a pretty good reason.

Quote:

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.



Now you're just talking crazy. "They aren't open for interpretation..." Geez!
I think you're prone to obsessions, and continuity isn't a healthy one. It's only okay as long as you're having more fun than bad times because of it.

Quote:

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.



Appealing to you. The fact that he dresses up as a bat may be what's appealing about the character for someone else. As I said, there can be multiple interpretations of the characters, and yours is just one more.

Quote:

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 ).



But someone else might think Jimenez ruined the good the previous writers did and Rucka fixed that. If it's being published it's because SOMEONE likes it.

Quote:

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.



What attracted me to the character as a kid was the fact that he could the impossible, and that remains the aspect I like the most about the character. Truth, justice? Sure, they're there, but I don't see them as what defines him. American way? I can barely see that, and I like it that way. Never kills? Depends on who you ask.

Quote:

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



I like him mainly because his life was torn into pieces, so he became a man with nothing to lose and everything to do. I like him for the same reason I like Two-Face: the corruption of a good soul.

Quote:

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 pick tutu backup info. Make Supes a fuckin’ killer. Make Wondy a slut. Make Joker *shiver* SANE!!



Neat.
And, it would also give writers the freedom to do things the way you like em. The way you want things to be, it's your interpretation or NOTHING.

Quote:

:?!:

Mxy, my “conception” of the characters is based off of the course that they’ve already taken through continuity.



Yours maybe. Not everyone shares that idea. Someone may worship The Bat-Man and only know him through the movies and TV shows.

Quote:

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.



I don't understand that. Are you saying the writer doesn't have authority over the character's path?

Quote:


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.



I was giving an example. The point is that it's a story that he uses an interpretation of Superman I disagree with, but I'm capable of enjoying it nonetheless because it rocks. Same could be said about Watchmen: the characters are interpretations of the Chartlon characters. I can understand how someone may not agree with some of the interpretations, but they should be able to enjoy the story anyway.

Quote:

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.



That's not what I'm arguing here. He uses an interpretation of the character I don't agree with. As simple as that.

Quote:

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.



No, that's creative liberty. You should be able to understand that not everyone thinks like you.

Quote:

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.



The point is that the characters are different. The fact that the character is different may make the story. Add to that the quantity of previous knowledge required on the writer's part to write the character in a way that is consequent with his past.

Quote:

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).



But say something from a previous story specifically contradicts or negates something that happens in the new one. Then, if it's in the same continuity, it MUST be addressed, and not just tangently.
That's the kinda thing John Byrne likes to do. Going out of his way to give a long winded explanation on how such thing is possible, and by the time it's over you realize the mood of the story is broken and the characters themselves are saying "So, uh... where were we?" or "What was that all about, Reed? We know all that, we were there..." "I don't know, Johnny, I guess all this fighting is really getting to me..."


Quote:

:izzatso: 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…



This is the key. Different but equally important. My view lets yours exist, while yours negates mine 100%. The logical thing would be going with my view, don't you think?

Quote:

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).



I see them as indepentdent books that can be linked if the story calls for it. Linking them for the sake of linking them (with forced fights/team ups and such) is just innecessary.

Quote:

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!!!!!



...Huh?
You did that on purpose, didn't you?

Quote:

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.



I don't think it mimics the "actual real movement of a universe". I don't think it gets anywhere near that. In spite of all the Crisis and multiple timelines and time travel and whatever, that fictional universe doesn't and will never get anywhere near the complexity of real life.
Yeah, those elements are tied in continuity... in the story's own continuity, which doesn't necessarily have to be related to the continuity of another story.

Quote:

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.



But in some cases 20 pages may be required. I remember an issue of Superman that was a Legion crossover when Byrne (when he wasn't a hack) was asked to explain the happenings of the previous Legion issue so the readers didn't have to buy the Legion books (the Superman part of the crossover was self-conclusive), and it took him more than half the comic to explain the whole thing.
But even so... some writers may agree that it needs to be done, but others don't, and if they simply don't want to THEY SHOULDN'T DO IT. Even if it would take them one panel to explain it, they shouldn't.

Quote:

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?



I'm not blaming continuity. I'm blaming forced continuity. I think it's a stupid and outdated idea. There will be a time when people look back at the 90's and think "Boy, those guys were really anal retentive about continuity, weren't they?". The sillyness of the Silver Age is gonna be NOTHING compared to the continuity anal retentiveness of the Modern Age.
I'm not defending anyone. I simply judge a writer on the quality of the stories he's able or produce, because that's what writers do, and that's what attracts me about comics.

Quote:

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.



"One huge story separated into different book"? The first time that was done consistenly was with the beggining of the Marvel Superhero line in the 60's. Before that the DC comics constanlty contradicted each other and themselves, because it didn't matter. With Marvel the potential of making the heroes share a consistent universe was revealed. But that's not the only option. That's only ONE way of looking at superhero comics.

Quote:

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.



I'm simply stating my opinion, just like you're saying it happened because of continuity.

Quote:

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.



Creative liberty. Look, if a writer wants to use your view of The Bat-Man he's free to do so. If the writers are given freedom to choose what version to use and nobody uses the version you like, there must be a reason why no writers like him. If you're so convinced about the greatness of your version you shouldn't be worried about the writers being given creative freedom, because odds are most are gonna choose the best one.

Quote:

They followed the creators based on the continuity.



As I said before, the biggest evolution happens outside continuity, because it takes all the progress that happens in each continuity.

Quote:

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).



In your opinion, a sex change would OK if it was justified. I think he'd call himself Not-a-man.
I agree that the premise pretty much stays... but the writers can also build on it WITHOUT using continuity.

Quote:

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……..



Again, that is YOUR view. I have a completely different view on Superhero comics that is just as valid as yours. You've got no right to tell me I don't care about this, because if I didn't I wouldn't be here. You just gotta accept the fact that your opinion isn't the law and that writers aren't gonna go out of their way to please you and those who think like you. If all writers thought like you this problem wouldn't exist. If all readers thought like you this debate wouldn't exist.
Having said that, I'll go back to my main point: your view negates mine, while mine lets yours exist as long as there are writers and readers willing to let it live. It's incredibly selfish of you to think that things should be done your way and your way only forever. You must admit that continuity is a problem for a substantial number of readers and writers, and it should be addressed instead of being ignored.

Quote:

Wait a tic…..No it’s not!! You’re in it for story 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.



"any character plucked out of a drum within said story"? The character happens to be a vital part of the story. I don't take the election of the character used lightly. A Superman story is a Superman story for a reason. A The Bat-Man story is a The Bat-Man story for a reason.
I believe I've given several examples of the things that annoy me through my posts. Maybe not about footnotting... I don't know how we came to that. If I don't have more examples it's because I'm one of those crazy people that stops buying a comic when they don't like it. I couldn't bitch about something like you bitch about Hush and Catwoman, for example.

Quote:

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



Actually, the characters follow the writer's ideas. That's how it works in books and that's how it works in comics.

Quote:

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.



No, I can look at comics from the characters' point of view, I just disagree with you in what a character is. You think they're real people. I think a character that appears in 1000 comics is as real as a character that appears in one novel.

Quote:

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.



And you can have that if there's a writer willing to give it to you.

Quote:

Why? Obviously this ongoing story can’t properly move or take the character anywhere without having compatible continuity through and through.



It can. When I read a comic I don't think about the "big ongoing story" unless the writer wants me to.

Quote:

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.



As I said, I can't confirm or deny that.

Quote:

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*.



I'll only speak for Superman, because I'm no expert on The Bat-Man and Wonder Woman and because this is getting too long. Everything about Superman has changed through the years. The costume adapted for decades until it reached the form it has now. The powers started as minimal and through the decades started growing in power and diversity until he was virtually a god. In the 70's he was depowered for the first time, and then again in the 80's, reaching a middle point between the impotent Superman of the origins and the omnipotent Superman of the Silver Age. That's stayed pretty much like that since then. His personality has evolved in a similar way: at first he was a vigilante willing to kill his enemies. As time passed he started turning into an idealist and getting more naive all the time. In the 70's he developed a social conscience and lost some of his naivety. In the 80's he became more "man" than "super", making Clark Kent and Superman the same person instead of being the first one a mere disguise for the second. That's stayed pretty much like that since then.

Quote:

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.



Funny how they get worse the further they get from the beggining of their continuity.

Quote:

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



The evolution that happened OUTSIDE continuity is the one I explained very briefly above. The one that happened inside he current continuity is the one from 1986 from around 1993, after which all evolution stopped, though continuity was being respected.

Quote:

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



EVERYTHING I say is my opinion. Unless I indicate it's a fact, it's not.

Quote:

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.



I seriously doubt that.

Quote:

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



It could have, but that would have completely ruined the mood of the story. It's a very hermetic story, the references to other stories are kept to a minimum. That gives the book an atmosphere the regular Superman books didn't have. Superman is going to space to hunt Doomsday and deal with his fear and the fact that the story is so hermetic helps put yourself in Superman's place and feel like you're embarking on a journey to the unknown too. It's truly a remarkable story.

Quote:

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



I went over the changes and the undoing of changes over the past decade on another thread where I was debating MOTA, and I won't do it again. This is getting too long and it barely has to do with the topic.

Quote:

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



For you.

Quote:

:izzatso: Are you trying to make me out as some sort of spas fanboy or sumthin’?



No, you're doing that to yourself.

Quote:

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



Okay, look, if the writer doesn't want to make his take on a character consistent with what comes before and explain how that's possible, then you probably have no business reading that writer. I'd suggest you refrain from reading his story arc and wait for a writer that has your same concerns.

Quote:

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.



Maybe it's not "too seriously" for you, but it's certainly more seriously than the average reader takes a topic like that.

Quote:

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.



I guess that's what makes you saner than MOTA. He'd stick around if continuity didn't exist and continue to buy the books only to bitch about them and harass writers.

Quote:

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.



Is it so hard to look at the stories as individual continuities, then?

Quote:

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



No, it can be done without it.

Quote:

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



As I said, I've enjoyed stories that use continuity... just like I've seen others get ruined by it (like Green Lantern), and it pisses me off that something like that could happen. What's the point of having these rules if only half the writers and half the readers believe in them?

Quote:

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.



I read Hank Henshaw's origin, I read the exile saga where Superman vows not to kill, but still I was able to enjoy the story where Superman goes after Henshaw willing to kill him even though I was aware of the contradiction. When it became apparent that that point wasn't gonna be addressed I stopped worrying and sat back and enjoyed. I'd only be asking for explanations if he was a real person and the stories were real facts.

Quote:

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.



Or, you ignore it and hope the reader understands it.

Quote:

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



So, in other words, you ARE calling me a dumb fuck and an asshole. That's great. That's fucking great. That's how much you "don't take it too seriously".
If I started writing our comics I'd deliberatedly do things to annoy you and MOTA, though not much so you don't get a heart attack.

Quote:

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



It's funny that a Fight Club fan follows rules so closely and expects everyone to do the same even if they don't agree with them.

Quote:

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.



Agreed, we're getting off topic.

Quote:

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.



Same as before. This is long enough as it is.

Quote:

I say again with.

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.



But the way you want things, new readers would only be able to enjoy the story on a certain level. There would be a whole separate level for old readers only, and that would be unfair.