Continuity in comics

[The Doctor]

I agree with every word.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

I also agree and its a pain when you read about one character being in one place when he is seen in another place at exactly the same time in another comic. I know they're superheros but they're not that fantastic. The problem seems to arise from different writers writing individual issues without first reading previous issues or writers given a deadline by the publishers to run off a story in a matter of days.

Retcon's don't work in such situations because, although it ties up a few loose ends and fills in a few holes there are people who don't consider retcon's as cannon and ignore them completely.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Unsurprisingly, I disagree profoundly.

Well-written characters are more than just how they behave. Well-written characters are lives, with birth/childhood at one end, death at the other, and experiences in between through which they evolve and grow older.

Good, polished story-telling (not TMUK-type fan stuff whose primary purpose is to be fun for the writers) is planned, and consistent, and continuous. Not necessarily linear, but coherent.

The fact that the major comic universes are unplanned, unstructured and hop from one issue to the next, with characters staying the same age forever, is one of the main reasons I have no patience with them, and don't buy any of them. The fictional universes I respect are ones with a single writer at the helm, Tolkien, JMS and so on, who have plans and treat their characters as having complete lives rather than just being sets of behaviours and attributes appearing in a pick-and-choose fashion in stories by different writers with different styles who only pay casual attention to what each other does.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

Continuity in comics and superhero comics (which is primarily what Keith Giffen is referring to) is a different beast altogether though Martin. There are inherent limitations, I don't agree with them but they are nevertheless there. Batman must always be Bruce Wayne and no older than 35, Spider-Man should be in his twenties (at his oldest) and single and so on.

With that in mind, continuity as it would be applied in the works of Moorcock, Tolkien, JMS' Babylon 5 goes out the window as it simply isn't workable over the extended lifecycle of these comic book properties. Hence the reason for reboots and the cleaning house of older fiction every so often.

As for the major comic book universes being unstructured and unplanned. That's not entirely true, there are structures in place but long term plans are not always possible. Creative teams change for all sorts of reason and being sales driven means sometimes that books don't get long enough to see their plan through.

I'd argue that Transformers is one of the comic franchises that in theory has the ability to avoid most of the problems a comic franchise can have based on the near immortal status of the principle cast, meaning stories can advance over a great timeframe without worrying about the fact you've taken the characters too far away from their premise.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

But doesn't it frustrate any fans of Batman, Spider-Man, and so on that the characters will never go anywhere? If their ages, long-term maritals statuses, etc. are fixed forever, why bother keep writing new stories about them, when nearly all the current readers haven't read most of the old ones? Without complete lives, they're just like James Bond - vehicles for spectacle and cheap thrills. How can you care about someone who can never have a definitive biography?

Oh well, they're hugely successful franchises, so it must just be me.

Yeah, at least in Transformers they had Spike grow old and have a family.

Martin

[Andy Turnbull]

At times it is incredibly frustrating to be honest. I've long felt that the Bruce Wayne version of Batman should have passed on and the mantle properly passed to another. In a situation similar to The Phantom where the sons carry on the work.

Spider-Man is a more difficult proposition in that Peter is Spider-Man, whereas the Bruce Wayne character is a cypher in the hands of most writers and someone sufficiently driven could pick up the mantle of the Bat. That being said they do have a title called Spider-Girl detailing the adventures of his daughter and a future Marvel universe.

It's why comics often produce Elseworlds/What IF's showing a possible future for the characters - Dark Knight Returns/Reign and so on. And why these types of books remain popular.

Andy

[Deleted]

Without complete lives, they're just like James Bond - vehicles for spectacle and cheap thrills.

It just depends which James Bond you are referring to. Ian Flemings literary James Bond isn't immortal but the movie version who has had more reincarnations than Doctor Who is and he is just used for the fans who want a stuntman who never seems to age.

[charlesrocketboy]

Generally I take the view "continuity is good" because it means things like the Decepticons going "oh crap, Starscream is back! He tried to kill us all! You suck, Scorponok!", Cyclops in New X-Men still dealing with being possessed by Apocalypse or half of Don Rosa's seminal Life And Times Of Scrooge McDuck.

It doesn't inherently mean J Jonah Jameson has to list in detail every previous time the Daily Bugle has had financial trouble, just that someone mentions it has been repeatedly (either as a "cheer up Jonah, we got through it before" or "bankruptcy is your DESTINY" thing).

[Philip Ayres]

martinm said:

But doesn't it frustrate any fans of Batman, Spider-Man, and so on that the characters will never go anywhere? If their ages, long-term maritals statuses, etc. are fixed forever, why bother keep writing new stories about them, when nearly all the current readers haven't read most of the old ones?

I think what frustrates comic readers is when the reset button is pressed going back to a previous status quo.

But you make a good point. There's some comic characters who's story was long done yet have just been persisted with to death. They'd have been better off left well alone. The happy ending to the story comes along - Cyclops marries Madleine Pryor is a good example - but because they need to do more Cyclops stories there turn Maddeline bad and kill her harming the original (superb) story.

Here's a pt: from the time Cyclops married Madeline to the start of X-Factor he's hardly seen in comics. Secret Wars, X-Men/Alpha Flight and then X Men Annual 9, X-Men 200 & 201 into X-Factor

There are others who've just been overdone: I have a theory that a good Wolverine solo story is few and far between, that a W monthly series produces much dross, and that it'd be better just to have occasional LS when a good W stiory comes along - Enemy of the State and W:Civil War are the only 2 good solo uses of him in the last few years.