The weak has been much busier than I thought, so this comes a bit late. I summarized everything up as neatly as possible but I didn’t skip out on everything else, so that means that a lot of stuff is going to be repeated….Go figure.

Christ Mxy! You won’t bend to anything that speaks against your method of reading no matter how clearly it illustrates its fallacy AS WELL AS the fact that it’s already incorporated in the terms that you wish. You have a story (hit or miss for quality as always) and you have the basis of character that you desire when you read said story. The writer’s interpretation comes from how he makes the character act towards his new defining moment that the writer perpetrated. What’s worse is your deliberate and misleading characterization of me as someone who holds comicbook characters and comicbooks of higher importance than REAL people even after I already explained to you that I want the characters intact because they are the entire reason that people (me included and you because you already admitted it) read these books in the first place. Trying to destroy my validity by using incredulousness when addressing the way I enjoy my comics. Making room for only your opinion by shouting down what I expect from DC—What I expect from their product—What they’re SUPPOSED to give me for my money! Don’t insult me just because you want to take away the fun I get from comicbooks and because I want to KEEP that fun. Then there’s your fending off my arguments with straw mans. You’ve drifted way off the main points in most of those refutations (shame on me for allowing you to perpetuate them). Not only that, but you constantly denigrate my POV on comics and elate yours without examination of it in the first place. Not everyone sees comics the way you (or the others on this thread) do Mxy. There are a lot who like their comics to be A story like it is SUPPOSED to—Fanboys, non-plussed readers—Whatever. What do you think was one of the main reasons I started reading comics myself? What do you think is the main reason OTHERS started getting into comics? Oh that’s right, you don’t care about that tilt of the axis do you? You’re only going over your bloody preferences and how unfair it is for people who think like you and (again) not taking into account the people who read comics and DON’T think like you—Of course you’re saying we all get sizable bites of enjoyment out of selective continuity—But that’s just not true. You also go on to say that we’d be better without continuity because people bitch and moan about it anyway. This may be general lip service, but other people like what other people don’t like. The general populace of comicbook readers doesn’t consist of whiny fanboys, and more to point, people who are in it for story whine too.
I reiterate, one of the founding principles for comics in the first place is based upon that continuity you hate and many were attracted to it in the first place because of this.

Mxy, basically what you keep saying when you use the word “interpretation” with all of these other arguments, you say that the origins of the characters, which writers are “INTERPRETING” in the first place should be up for review. It doesn’t seem like your intention after looking over 90% of the replies. Maybe you don’t know it, but that’s what’s going on here. Next, there’s the fact that NEW characters can’t be born with this policy. Perhaps new writers could recycle them, but the problem would be that they had NO real origin. The new character can’t be “interpreted” properly by any writer. Perhaps not even the one who made it. And why exactly SHOULD the characters be open for “interpretation” anyway? The system of continuity (what mainstream comics was designed for), the fact that the characters’ origins/style/characteristics are constants that act as guidelines to follow for any character, and the fact that characters are ALREADY interpreted through their past ACTIONS voluminously speaks against your definition of “interpretation for these characters.



Quote:

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



Those guidelines are what help to keep us interested in the character in the first place. Without those guidelines you could very well take away everything about the icons that makes them intriguing.

Quote:

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.



Yeah, exactly, you’re not going to glance at it from any other POV but yours. You don’t think there’s even a slight chance that you’re wrong, yet you won’t even help substantiate your lack of fallacy by looking at this from a different angle just to be sure.

This is where the principle comes into play again. You may not want to accept that making exceptions in continuity by isolating mistakes is no better than rearranging panels in different orders and having displaced information, but that's the reality of it.

Quote:

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.



Why exactly should I change from different books because a writer doesn’t feel like respecting the character continuity that I (and others) have adored for years? What’s more. Why should you have the right to redefine the definition of mainstream comics? You yourself just said that there will always be room for each different type of comic story. The continuity violating ones and the continuity abiding ones. And you also acknowledge that this is already the case. We have the graphic novels. Why should continuity not be a rule for an extremely long story that was SET as an extremely long story in the first case?

Quote:

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.



Really? So if the writer has the sky literally raining down cats and dogs or has a side note of a man having his period or just maybe skyscrapers falling upward like it was just a regular routine you won’t care? Even if it effects the characters, you wouldn’t care?

Quote:

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.



Then what are you going on about? Continuity stories and stand-alone stories are BOTH hit or miss in the enjoyment and intrigue department. The only difference between the two in this case is that continuity BELONGS, and not only that, it’s a good workable system. You can go on and on all you like about it being a leash on the writers’ necks and how their abilities are tampered with (even though it’s not true in the slightest), but the fact still remains that there are sucky stand-alone stories just as there are sucky continuity shaped ones.

Quote:

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.



1) You keep saying that and overlooking the fact that good stories do in fact work their way into continuity WITHOUT violating it. I mean, you acknowledged it before, but you don’t take that into account when you make these arguments.
2) Because the good stories are spanned from the character that was in the bad stories. Not only that, the bad stories can, in fact, be turned into good ones because the writer felt like justifying the actions made by the character in the bad story by using the situation he creates to his advantage.

Quote:

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.



Dude, this wouldn’t leave ANY space for readers like me and you already have plenty of space with the GNs, PNs, Elseworlds, and the fact that continuity churns out good stories. You acknowledged all of this before but you continue to contradict yourself by implying that all of these facts are formality/continuity isn’t going to give us anymore good stories/people who have opinion’s which care for continuity don’t matter. Selective continuity would be a constant shot in the dark. It wouldn’t allow any evolution of characters, which is what creates the interest to continual stories in the first place.

Quote:

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.



Pssh! And a good story can’t always happen either.

Quote:

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.



Just means he can’t write adaptively very well. Being told to write things in a certain way is no different than making sure you follow guidelines on the character you’re assigned to. With your reasoning, you could very well say that a writer would feel that his skills and freedom are being smothered because he’s not allowed to have Batman or Superman kill anyone.

Quote:

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.



Selective continuity would have that too you know.

Quote:

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?



Waid was able to do it splendidly with Batman in JLA. He hates that character, but he characterized him just fine and gave him fair/logical amount of inclusion.

Quote:

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.



I had a job I hated a few days ago (I quit). But just because I hated it doesn’t mean that I did everything half-assed. I’m not going to excuse “human nature”. Sorry.

Quote:

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.



Yes they are. They’re hired to follow continuity just as they are hired to write stories. If they tell them to, then they’re hired to.

Quote:

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.



It doesn’t have to.

Quote:

Maybe justifying everything is a top priority for some when they read comics, but that's irrelevant for others.



I’m not saying they have to devote as much time needed to justify something, because that could take awhile (already explained that too). I understand the situation. Relatively speaking, if they don’t much they need to explain, just go on and explain as briefly as possible. If they have they have a lot, do as much as you can briefly as possible without ruining the story. Or, if you feel like letting your talent show, just write your explanations with subtlety throughout the book without letting the story go bland. It’s been done. The best example is the first arc for Lucifer. Carey explained everything using that Navajo girl as a mouth piece for the questions from the readers. That’s one of the most basic types of written justification. There are plenty more and others just waiting to be invented.

Also, You’re only thinking only of your side of the equation again. Discounting what other people think holding your opinion above theirs in a broad fashion.

Quote:

It would have been a different story. Radically different.



You really don’t know that. And even if it would have been; if he made it fit, and it was still good, where’s your room for complaint? Like you said before; you just want a good story.

Quote:

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.



I don’t buy that. Moore could have just used Manhattan’s godhood to change everything back. Not the only option I see either…

Quote:

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.



I don’t know if you ignored the fact that I already went over how violating continuity in comicbooks and all around killing the movement of one story (as I explained comicbooks as being) is just as potent a mistake as disrupting the order of words or pages in a singular book. It is after taking this into mind that we draw to the conclusion that merit comes from organizing continuity just as much as making a story.

Quote:

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.



I know many many people who don’t agree with Gaiman on that.

Quote:

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.



Your right, it was great, and while it was and felt like a forced inclusion for whatever reason I don’t know (note: not the same as being told to FOLLOW continuity), I thought he handled it splendidly. The book didn’t disappoint me. And even if I and everyone—And I do mean EVERYONE—Felt the latter of those inclusions, those are a few instances. I know MANY more situations where story alone (without continuity) failed me (Legends of the Dark Knight).

Quote:

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.



Managing the movement and placement of the situations in the stories is a part of the job too Mxy. I heard Chris Nolan had a hell of a time organizing Memento. If he screwed it up in one place…The movie would have been screwed.

Quote:

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.



They’re inter-related.

Quote:

But the problem with that is that in that case there can only be one valid interpretation of the character.



The interpretation can change with each defining moment. Because the characters change like real people (we try to make it this way anyway), the interpretation becomes dynamic. It is in this instance that a writer can go over his interpretation without breaking the barriers of continuity and excercise his "creative liberty".

Quote:

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.



You know, in some cases, shit like that SHOULDN’T be done. Things can’t get to critical, like redefining what makes the characters in the first place. As I explained before, they could very well take the “Bat” from “Batman” or the “Super” from “Superman” and more than likely the “Wonder” from “Wonder Woman”.

Anyway, when you say it’s “impossible” and “not revertible”, you are dead wrong. And again, you’re taking the want for interpretation of the characters as real people TOO literally. I realize I want them to be followed very closely, but I’m not saying the characters should have no dormant features to be propped with whenever they’re unattended. I mean, I was lenient enough to accept all of the Wondy history as palpable because of the inclusion of defining moments by the writers—ESPECIALLY when they made dramatic changes which would effect the character.

Quote:

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.



Obviously other people want them to act with as much realism as possible to feed their enjoyment theme. To disregard this would be like asking for writing in comics that resembled the campy 50s-70s styles.

Quote:

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),



Sorry, but that’s improper argument.

First, you’re only speaking for the icons in this case, because they’re the only ones known so well. If you’re going to use this as a pillar, you’d have to include ALL the characters.

Second, the basics of the character aren’t everything. All of the icons started out with relatively memorable beginnings and origins, but contained STATIC and complex details that go beyond interpretation.

Third, speaking for everyone like you’re doing is unacceptable, especially since you were just lecturing me on speaking for myself.

Fourth, there are other interpretations that just won’t fly—ESPECIALLY if they’re unjustified. Review: Serial rapist Batman, mass murderer Superman, pedophile Wonder Woman…

Quote:

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.



No it wouldn’t. It would be stupid and unfair for the readers if the writers wouldn’t do their jobs.

Quote:

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.



Obviously, since you’re speaking for the characters having STATIC and CONSISTENT characters by referring to them as “characters” in the first place, meaning that their ideas wouldn’t be right.

Also, who’s to say they’re acting unrealistic? If those powers were in play, and the people had those kind of backgrounds, then it really wouldn’t be all that unrealistic now would it. You see, that’s the beauty and value of justification. You only perceive these characters the way you do because you refuse to look at them with a POV that’s anything other than……….(aw hell! I said it before) Obtuse.

Quote:

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.



You know, I’ve gone over this so many fucking times, I’m beginning to think there’s worms in your ears. The fact that the character has previous defining moments would not make ANY difference by your desired standards. You just want A character. You’ve testified to this. A character that is dressed in a certain type of costume. PERIOD. After that, the character is made from the story and then that’s it…Until someone feels like going off of that story. I mean, you could just as well make that complaint EVERY story because the person reading the book is only in it for said story and knows nothing about the characters—And don’t try to lean on popular reference or knowledge again because that’s total bullshit—Especially here. It is proper assumption to say that people are reading for story and don’t give a shit about the characters. Therefore, For each story you have a different Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman who is shone in whatever light the writer chooses. People who are looking for story only who don’t feel like interpreting the character’s actions obviously wouldn’t care about that. Just like they wouldn’t care about regular continual stories because really, there’s no difference from the POV you’ve put forth.

You know, there’s another detail that’s been negated for reasons I forgot: Selective continuity would eventually have the stuff you’re complaining about too…

Quote:

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.



It’s a job. And really, they wouldn’t have to if the writers followed continuity in the first place. If this were the case, the current writer could just go off the one that came RIGHT before him. I’ve already explained how he could add his creativity with the character’s persona.

Quote:

Believe it or not, there can be a real love for the character without ever reading an in-continuity comic of it.



Even if they’ve never encountered the character before?

Quote:

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,



The GNs and PNs don’t pull in higher sales than regular back issues you know. A few select ones like DKR for example but that’s a horse of a different color because that actually took time to justify itself AND make a good story at the same time.

Quote:

and if he succeeds I assure you a lot more people will start or resume reading comics.



……..Why do I care?

Quote:

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



When you’re hired to write them and further them along, you must interpret their actions through their persona and the situation at hand. You can look at it from that angle all you like, but I guarantee you—Selective character continuity or not—Every writer looks at them with much more depth.

Quote:

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.



Just keep ignoring everything I say don’t you?

Quote:

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.



So basically it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s Bruce Wayne they’re writing about, just some Joe who dresses in a Bat-suit…Whoever only “interprets” going off of this singular characteristic is an idiot.

Quote:

But someone else might think Jimenez ruined the good the previous writers did and Rucka fixed that.



Dude. Phil was the only one who felt like combining what the first four writers did into one harmonious plot. People didn’t like it for two reasons: 1) A large majority didn’t like the previous writers’ runs and 2) It was because the large majority didn’t like those runs, that they didn’t like Phil’s conglomeration. Rucka didn’t fix anything, he just made his own separate universe with elements NITPICKED from the original Wondy era. The lip service as justification for this obvious cop out is, “he has great quality to his writing skills.” The past writers (except for Luke IMO) did too. The most I talked too seconded this BEFORE Rucka came on board. That’s telling me something. Anyway, OT…

Quote:

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.



So basically, if you’re writing him, you’d have him kill left and right, lie, and not stand up for justice?

Quote:

American way? I can barely see that, and I like it that way. Never kills? Depends on who you ask.



American way: Attributes to his “iconhood”/comicbook is made for

Kills: All circumstancial. Really think he’s going to do it again if selective continuity doesn’t go through?

Quote:

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.



Scenario: Someone leaves this origin behind because they want to go off of his more base characteristics (killer/*shiver*clown [only because the writer would be idiotic enough]). He has no motive, no exact origin, there’s no guarantee that he’s REALLY crazy. What’s worse if they don’t Joker’s origin in the first place.

Quote:

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.



Yep, haven’t been listening.

It’s [I]continual interpretation[/I] or nothing, which spans from the writer’s ability to put whatever characteristic he wants in said character. If the character hasn’t shown any signs of characteristics that would be correlative to the aspiring comic writer’s “interpretation”, then it means the character has never had it before. Part of interpreting what a character is means going off of current character. If the character didn’t exhibit signs of whatever the fuck the writer wants to put there in situations prior, It means that the characteristic doesn’t belong with the character in the first place.

Quote:

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



*shrug* Yeah, pretty much. They don’t read comics—WHERE THE CHARACTER REALLY CAME FROM. We’re arguing books, not movies.

Quote:

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



No, I’m saying they do. Which is why I’m saying that you can’t ask that question and try to produce any sort of discovered selfishness from it. I go off of what the writers write.

Quote:

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.

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



*nods* Haven’t been reading. I already described how he created his interpretation (the same technique I described for other writers). He JUSTIFIED it by using his newly built continuity from his own DKR Universe.

My description of how writers should do it is almost opposite to yours. You want them to do interpretations based SOLELY on origins. If you’re using your same pretext of selective continuity for your example of Miller and DKR, then it’s wrong and speaks against you in this area.

Dually realized that you were talking about how much you loved the book, but if your explanations consist of this kinda fallacy, well……..

Quote:

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



No one thinks exactly like anyone, which is why it calls for justification. You’re just plain arrogant if you think “creative liberty” explains what you were trying to do.

Quote:

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.



Really Mxy, how much does that effect the enjoyment of the book if it’s a character born of continuity and NOT the interpreting writer?

Quote:

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..."



True enough…..A better solution off hand would be to represent elements of past story in small doses throughout the book at times when fragments of said story are addressed while the current story moves. This is if it’s large. If it’s small enough, it can fit into a dialogue bubble. If it’s REALLY huge and I mean Crisis huge……*shrug* Extra(optional read) secret origins issue along with a teensy bit of story movement that doesn’t really effect anything (Last Laugh did this actually).

It may be a suggested system, but it’s a system.

Quote:

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?



No, the way you want stories to be made is already incorporated in regular continual stories. My views negate nothing accept aimlessness. Since you think that’s not true, then realize (rather than refuse to believe) that it CAN be.

Quote:

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.



*shrug* The way you see them isn’t the way they’re made…..*sigh* Supposed to be made. From 86-02 my favorite books were doing splendidly with very few errors. Also, they’re not linked just for the hell of it. We keep talking about how much one story could impede on another when we forget that another past story could very well help the current writer’s story.

Quote:

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



*nods*

Quote:

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.



Mxy, I’m obviously not talking about x-ray vision, crossed time lines, inter-galactic deities, aliens (speculative), etc.. I’m talking about regular character and how it’s effected by different happenings conceived by the writer. That piece of attempted realism (character) being intermixed with the unrealistic elements of the comicbook world is what makes superhero comics so appealing and fun to people. They want to see mainly how a regular person copes with such out of this world stuff and later how it effects them. With their powers (if they have any), the Armageddons here and there….Mxy, when have you heard me argue anything other than character effects while go over the pros/cons of continuity?

What’s more, it’s blatant that the universe they created is not going to be able to mirror that of a real one to tee. And that’s not what I’m asking them to do. I’m asking them to follow it to the BEST of their abilities without missing such crucial things that are so bloody blatant. I’m not telling them to note every goddamn variable a universe can contain (because there’s an infinite amount). I just want them to follow history, which would coincide with the simple character and the character’s simple defining moments.

Quote:

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.



If the story’s continuity has nothing to do with rest of the universe (except character of course), then I agree.

Quote:

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.



See my suggestions up top. Here is would probably be a secret origins issue or something of the like.

Quote:

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.



Clearly disagree.

Quote:

I'm not blaming continuity. I'm blaming forced continuity. I think it's a stupid and outdated idea.



It’s what comicbooks are based off of. A continuous stream of information that coincides with its own self.

Quote:

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.



*Shrug* Whatever you say.
Quote:

"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.



As I said before, my favorite books were doing almost perfectly from 86 straight through the 90s.

Quote:

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.



I can’t tell if this is just an insult of my opinion or your excuse for allowing the writers freedom because they need that CERTAIN Batman (which they made up) so the story will go as they planned.

Quote:

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.



You really don’t know that

What’s with your affinity for calling it “MY version” exactly? I already told you that I’ll take a plethora of versions as long as they coincide with continuity.

Quote:

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



What your talking about here is not what I’m arguing. After reading this refutiation in full, I got a bit lower than this and it seems that you misinterpreted me at least thrice on the movement of continuity.

Quote:

In your opinion, a sex change would OK if it was justified.



Perhaps. Means I’d stop reading the book though.

Quote:

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.



A creator that had a choice probably wouldn’t use it at all after it was made…But that’s beside the point. The point is that building of character wouldn’t last. Prolly not even in the individual sometimes.

Quote:

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.



Dude. I’ve already looked at this from your angle a few times and described the books from it as well. Half of my point is the fact that you aren’t. You’re also forgetting that my whole argument is based on the preservation of character which is what I was referring to when saying you don’t care…You’ve already gone over in detail how you don’t care about that. You’ll take any character or VERSION of character as long as someone makes the character like one you’ve known about for so long.

Quote:

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.



There’s this “MY” business again. I’ve already explained this. I’m going off of policy, not my opinion here. I’ve also already gone over how continuity should be addressed rather than destroyed so it can become more of an ally than a foe. I’ve also already gone over this “unfairness” milarchy.

Quote:

"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.



In this case it would be a reason of costumes.

You’ve already acknowledged that you liked Batman’s character. The thing is, with what you’re proposing, Batman’s character wouldn’t be……That. “Creative liberty” takes that all away. Thus, you get a character plucked from a drum. Going off of that fascinating origin alone while making interpretations isn’t really enough. Especially when you disregard other things that would seem more likely. I’m not saying the Batman who’s a product of continuity would seem more likely, but I am saying it’s already been accepted through not only one writer’s interpretation, but situations made by others that support current character and speak for what’s left to interpret. They’ve covered many angles that seal character in place due to pre-set story lines (for one). Anyway, if you go off of your own version of Batman without referencing others as a template for some dynamics to your Batman JUST to get the character on paper, then that’s really sad.

Quote:

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.



Who says I’m buying these books now? I’ve dropped those titles until further notice. Since I work in a comic shop, I get ample opportunity to torture myself and not spend money while doing it. This gives me info on what needs to be said and suggested to idiot writers so they’ll get me to buy the books again.

Quote:

I couldn't bitch about something like you bitch about Hush and Catwoman, for example.



I made huge arguments on the DCMBs cuz’ I wanted TPTB to hear me. I say everything here because I either want to get a point across or am disclosing my opinion without really caring about anything else. And a side note: I like debate. Especially on this subject which I’m most acquainted with.

Quote:

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



The writers’ ideas go off of pre-set character in comics.

Quote:

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.



There you go again with your purposeful misunderstanding of my statements.

I think they should be TREATED like real people in the sense that a writer (and reader) should interpret their actions as they would interpret a real person’s actions if put in the same situation with the same circumstances as the characters in question. Not just words or a picture in a book.

Quote:

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



You’re forgetting character again.

Quote:

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.



Well, everything devoid of character importance isn’t the issue because that’s all I’m on, but I really don’t think history is going to repeat itself in the personality department.

Quote:

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



Oh, so you wanna switch the reasoning AND principles around now. Fine, I can do that too.

It’s also funny that the writers that I listed up top, who I noted as the biggest continuity violators, were the ones who took over at the point in time for Batman. I also already told you about Wondy’s fragile nature with writers who felt like capitalizing (Byrne, Luke, Loeb, and Simonson. Phil went off of the past writers’ interpretations added together, and then his run turned out to be among the best IMO).

Quote:

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.



*shrug* I take it you’re still speaking for Superman, if that’s the case I can’t comment. All I can say is that Wondy and Bats did some evolutin’.

Quote:

I seriously doubt that.



Well, not outside continuity. It was all on target for a long while.

It could have, but that would have completely ruined the mood of the story.

No use arguing that.

Quote:

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.



Give me a link to the thread then.

Quote:

For you.



Heh! You want second opinion. Go to the Wondy boards or visit my comic shop (Loads of Wondy fans in this area).

Quote:

No, you're doing that to yourself.



Heh.

Quote:

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.



I already told you that I don’t ignore things that are in continuity. They have direct effects on my future arcs and back issues.

Quote:

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



Hurm. That doesn’t sound like much of refute considering your definition of an average reader.

Quote:

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



Only if the stories aren’t following or attempting to follow any sort of continuity. Like GN. But selective continuity allows use of continuity when it’s intrinsically flawed and wouldn’t work right in the first place. What’s more, I want continuity in individual issues that are SET in continuity.

Quote:

No, it can be done without it.



Perhaps elsewhere, but in comic continuum.
Quote:

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?



Rules aren’t always upheld you know. This is no different than sticking gum under the school desk. Okay, they may differ in extremities, but that doesn’t mean you consider continuity any less of an enforceable rule or a rule that works (especially since it’s been proven to work). Anyway, just because rules aren’t upheld, it doesn’t mean they should be gotten rid of. Especially for something that would kill comicbooks altogether for the half that wants stories AND continuity. Also, these rules kind of derive from basic novel formation

Quote:

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.



More demotion of my outlook whilst you don’t give a fuck how I see things completely.

Quote:

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



On and on we go……

Quote:

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".



Mxy, a writer is EXPECTED to follow continuity. Just like someone is expected to make sure that toys won’t kill little kids, just like someone is expected to make sure their product isn’t defective, just like someone is supposed to make sure that a car looks good enough to catch the eyes of potential customers…If they don’t this stuff—Their JOBS—I’m gonna call them assholes and dumb fucks. M’kay?

What you think a comic SHOULD be is invalid when the fact comes to mind that a comic ISN’T the way you think it SHOULD be. Comics don’t row by the beat of YOUR opinion. They generally go off of continuity. That’s they’re fucking founding principle. To allow writers to move along the characters while taking into account that the process of doing so would be affected by their past. I’m not going to tolerate bias or people who want to get creative with their fucking job. They’re supposed to do what they’re not. You can elate them and say that they’re pioneers or what the hell ever, but this won’t change the fact that they didn’t do what they were supposed to.

Also…

You’re a bit hasty here. I’ll wait till you ruin my books (all over again) until I call you that. And I don’t think it’s “too seriously” to consider you as such if you take away one of the few pleasures I get from this world. I really don’t have any other favorite compendium of hobbies except for comicbooks cuz’ I try not get attached to a lot of stuff and I’m too busy with other things.

Quote:

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.



I’d deliberately follow continuity and make sure it is later followed. But not to annoy you. I’d do it so I could add on to the character and because it’s the easiest/best/required way to do it.

Quote:

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.



And how exactly is there any correlation. Is this about the rules of Fight Club and property damage? If so I could care less what you have to say’s so funny about it. Fight Club doesn’t effect the way I argue thank you very much.

Quote:

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.



Dude. No it is not. You want a bloody story, then take it. If all of your arguments are the case that you’re peddling here, then character would be mere formality. Things aren’t holding up on your side of the table Mxy.

Also, you really wanna talk about unfair? How about noting the readers who would still like a continuum to be followed in these books so they could add on to their one huge story and then taking your views into account along with their flawed conception of pure story that (in this instance) seems to be put on hold for new gibberish that seems to be telling me you want monopoly on character as well.

Last edited by Pariah; 2004-02-22 10:48 AM.