|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 10, 2015 12:59:25 GMT -5
That might be a false dichotomy because it's entirely possible to write good stories set within a defined continuity, even when a comic-book has several decades of back story. One simply has to avoid directly contradict what has been established before, and ideally one would also resist the temptation to constantly refer to the minutiae of what happend thirty-seven years ago. On the other hand, sometimes there's a good story to be told with some established icon, but for it to work one must disregard continuity; even recent continuity. Should the good story be scrapped, or made into an "imaginary story" that's not supposed to really matter, for the sake of continuity?
I am curently reading the god butcher and god bomb story arcs of Jason Aaron and Esad Ribic's Thor, god of thunder, and those are frankly darn good comics. The overall plot is cool, the characterization is fun, the art is fantastic, and it's just the kind of thing that would bring a new reader in again and again each succeeding month, wanting more of the excitement. I love that story.
On the other hand, I also loved Michael Oeming's Thor disassembled storyline from a few years ago.That one had been at the same time a loving tribute to the entire Thor series (which was appropriate, since that tale brought the series to its end) and an exciting story in its own right.
What is unfortunate is that the two stories cannot be reconciled. Of course, it doesn't matter if you read each of them in isolation; just as it doesn't matter if the new James Bond movies don't quite fit with the older ones, despite having Judi Dench in several of them. But unlike Bond movies, American comics, for a good long while, have played on the idea that each series was one long tale, one that could be read from begining to end while still making sense. And so even if it shouldn't matter, I find that I am distracted by the story elements from new stories that clash with older stories.
Granted, that's a problem for a very small part of the readership: not even all "older" readers, but older readers who are actually concerned about continuity issues. That's, what, fifty-six people overall?
In such a context, I find myself less saddened by the constant restarting of comic-book numbering. I used to favour things like Daredevil #463 and Action comics #945, but if the way of the future is to quietly disregard past continuity, I thing it makes more sense to periodically start again with a #1. New or casual readers won't care, and continuity-minded readers can then entertain the idea that the old character they see in a new first issue is basically the same as the one they knew at the end of the preceding run, but might be from a slightly-different comic-book reality where not everything we have seen previously might actually have happened.
It's also pretty neat when an entire volume (from a new #1 to the final issue) fits in one hardcover, has one main creative team, and features one extended storyline that has an actual conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Jan 10, 2015 13:12:39 GMT -5
Ideally we could have both, but realistically that doesn't happen as much as we'd like with The Big Two.
A Good Story is A Good Story is A Good Story, and isn't that really what we're all looking for, so I would say that's what comes first.
I love continuity as much as the next guy, but if it's a good story I simply chalk it up to whatever Hondo-continuity I want.
For example, I love Valiant, pretty much all versions, and consider the current Valiant V3, the original V1, and Acclaim V2; all related but on different planes. No problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 13:20:15 GMT -5
since this forum mainly focuses on "classic" comics. . I would assume that "good story" is gonna win every time.
as an example, look at all those classic Teen Titans stories? (heck. . look at "Wonder Girl" -- the character was CREATED as a continuity mistake).
they never made any sense continuity wise, but they are wonderful stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jan 10, 2015 13:27:48 GMT -5
I'm a stickler for respect to continuity as far as superhero comics go at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 13:43:26 GMT -5
I would only accept both. Why make an ongoing story if continuity is an issue? Why is continuity only an issue in comics? If a movie or TV show had continuity issues, or if you had to completely ignore continuity for a story to work, it would kind of be considered bad by default. Unless it was a goofy comedy I suppose. If you have a good story and it doesn't work with Spiderman, make a comic without Spiderman in it and tell the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 10, 2015 13:56:37 GMT -5
A Good Story doesn't need Continuity, but it can be ruined by ignoring it. Continuity can make a medicore story worth reading, and a good story great.
IMO, if you have a Good Story, and it doesn't fit into Continuity, write it with your own characters, don't try to cram it into a universe it doesn't fit it. THATS the problem with today's Marvel Universe, IMO, they solicit 'pitches' from writers, and pick the ones that sound good... so writers are pitching story ideas first, then making them fit into an existing character. Slott's Silver Surfer, for instance, or Hickman's Avengers.
There's alot of reasons for this, I know. The main one being why make a new character for Marvel/Disney, when you could do it with Image keep all the rights if it hits big. Thus, the best story ideas go to small presses, and Marvel and DC are left with the rest, shoehorned into their existing characters.
I feel like back in the day, it was more like 'we need a new writer for Iron Man, give us ideas', or 'Gambit is hot and needs a book, sell me your Gambit story'. Now, it's more like writers do what they want, and the editors pick among them.
The difference is subtle, perhaps, but seems important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jan 10, 2015 15:11:32 GMT -5
Good Story every time.
Continuity can enhance a good story, but the number of writers that can use continuity is probably in the single digits.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Jan 10, 2015 17:12:15 GMT -5
IMO, if you have a Good Story, and it doesn't fit into Continuity, write it with your own characters, don't try to cram it into a universe it doesn't fit it. THATS the problem with today's Marvel Universe, IMO, they solicit 'pitches' from writers, and pick the ones that sound good... so writers are pitching story ideas first, then making them fit into an existing character. Slott's Silver Surfer, for instance, or Hickman's Avengers. Pretty much exactly what I was going to post. A lot of books these days seem to constructed by writing a plot/thinking up 'cool' lines of dialogue first, then assigning them to a book almost as an afterthought. The characters in the pre-written plot are then 'skinned' with a relevant costume belonging to someone in the book, and the cool dialogue shoehorned in with little thought as to whether it makes sense for a character in the book to actually say the line. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 10, 2015 17:16:54 GMT -5
Story every time. Continuity is a crutch to make excuses for bad writing. If every writer picked up the pen to write a story to entertain with just that particular story comics would be a good as picking up any random novel.
Edit: What other medium than comics, except probably soap operas, do fan demand to be entertained without any change? It's redundant to expect a character to exist for 50-60+ years and still adhere to the reader's whims. Continuity retards growth in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 10, 2015 18:12:18 GMT -5
This isn't necessarily a simple answer.
Continuity is really a means to the end of good storytelling, so in theory, the answer should obviously be a good story. These are works of fiction, so there's no moral obligation to respect "the truth" of established stories. It's made-up.
But I find the supposed brilliance of a continuity-disrupting story is often overestimated. Certainly, continuity can generate into an obsessive-compulsive tic. But there's a beauty to characterizations, character relationships, shared history, etc. that has developed over many issues under different creators. It's more than the ideas of a single writer or editor. In some ways, an iconoclast who ignores continuity can also be a conformist. Comics are able to use continuity to develop a huge epic in ways that some other media can't. So ignoring continuity willy-nilly can detract from a distinctive element of comics.
This can vary from situation to situation. It can be a cyclical. It can be fun to see the continuity build up in a new series. When you've followed a series for a long time, the continuity is really rewarding. When new creators first start messing with the continuity, it's really irksome. Then, when they've messed up the series so bad, I want them to ignore lots of bad past stuff to allow a fresh start. For me, X-Men would symbolize that cycle.
On the other hand, I've never followed Marvel's cosmic character much aside from buying a bunch of Ron Lim Silver Surfer comics in the early 90s. One of few new titles I follow is Dan Slott's Silver Surfer. I don't mind so much if that series puts continuity on the back burner.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Jan 10, 2015 18:29:15 GMT -5
The importance of continuity is something that changes the longer a story goes. Obviously you need continuity from panel to panel and page to page. But do you need continuity from issue to issue? Not really. The recent Adventures of Superman and Legends of the Dark Knight series all had self-contained short stories and both series were acclaimed. Generally speaking though, issue to issue storytelling is pretty important to superhero comics. The next level is author to author. Does the change of authors change the continuity? In the old days no, the baton was tossed and things carried on as normal. But now every time theres a switch in authors the title is relaunched and the previous run is ignored (this is mostly at Marvel).
If you look back across eras you can see that lapses in continuity are common, and that both companies treat it differently. Marvel has had the same continuity for 50 years without any official reboot. However, stories have been twisted and altered and ignored. Marvel treats continuity like a bonsai tree. Stories come out and the tree goes. Periodically the branches are quietly pruned to help the tree grow. DC keeps up no pretense of continuity and reboots every 25 years or so, but does so in a way that technically continues the continuity (Earth-1 has been going since at least 1960 but has been altered during Crisis and Flashpoint).
Going back to Marvel, their bonsai tree approach is relatively recent. Until 1968 almost all titles were overseen by Stan Lee and they all progressed in real time. Continuity was very tight between titles and it's this closeness that makes the early Marvel universe so comfortable and fondly looked back on. Once they switched to a floating timeline continuity changed, eventually settling on the Fantastic Four having gone into space 13 years ago and compressing everything else into that 13 year period. The pileup of stories means this timeframe becomes more and more improbable but they don't want to increase the timeframe because that would age the characters "too much." The answer is to keep only the essential story beats and treat the rest like schrodinger's cat: There is only room for a certain amount of stories but nobody is saying what stories no longer happened, so they're all in and out of continuity until they get referenced or retconned. It's a remedial approach that takes away a lot of the joy of the Marvel universe but apparently someone decided that Spider-Man can never reach his thirties.
Oddly enough the opposite was once true at DC> In 1969 Robin graduated from high school and went to college. DC had been perfectly content to tell the adventures of Batman and Robin forever but by creating such a landmark story they inadvertently destroyed themselves. If Robin was in college that meant he grew up, which meant that time was passing. Robin was anywhere between 8 and 12 when Batman took him in so Batman could be in early 30s! And then more Robins started coming until Batman had to be in his forties! It didn't help that event after event kept coming. With a minimal amount of landmark stories continuity could last forever with no problem. Now Bane breaks Batman's back on Sunday, Bruce Wayne returns Monday and Gotham gets hit by an Earthquake on Friday.
What does this have to do with stories? A lot. There is just something magical about having all of the titles in a universe closely linked and moving forward in time. It's not a sustainable business model so that got scrapped, which I think is unfortunate. Now continuity matters to the extent that it is backstory. You know, the stuff that happened to characters that you hear about but never read? Thats what those old stories are and all that matters to the continuity is what has been published in the last five years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 10, 2015 18:32:53 GMT -5
I'll take both if I can get them, but I'd rather read a good story that breaks with established continuity than one that's faithful to the minutiae but reeks as a reading experience.
Cei-U!
I summon the best of both worlds!
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 10, 2015 18:38:48 GMT -5
I feel like back in the day, it was more like 'we need a new writer for Iron Man, give us ideas', or 'Gambit is hot and needs a book, sell me your Gambit story'. Now, it's more like writers do what they want, and the editors pick among them. The difference is subtle, perhaps, but seems important. Right. I have no interest in editorially mandated Gambit stories churned out production line stye with no other purpose than to sell units, but I'm interested in writers writing what they want to write. So hopefully the former goes away, never to return. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jan 10, 2015 19:33:34 GMT -5
Give me a good story of a new character and setting rather than the untold tale of what Captain Underpants had for breakfast last Thursday
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 20:10:49 GMT -5
Continuity can make a medicore story worth reading In my opinion that's when it's time to drop the book forever and never return. If continuity is important, and the quality is not uniformly excellent, I'm not reading it. I'm not reading issues #280-300 of something because that story was good. Good start to finish or I drop it, and don't bother coming back. That is of course unless I bought an entire run all at once and it goes to hell halfway through, like The Wake did for me recently. |
|
