|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 19:24:37 GMT -5
The topic title is a slight exaggeration. I don't think comic fans are unique when it comes to devotion to continuity. Nor are comic fans a collective like bees. For every person who is pedantic about continuity, you'll find someone who doesn't care much for it. I also don't doubt that Star Trek and Doctor Who fans care much about continuity.
But although we aren't a collective, I have come across many comic fans, online and offline, who can be pedantic about continuity. And, no, I do not exclude myself.
However, and maybe I'm mixing in the wrong circles, are fans of other franchises perhaps less pedantic? Some of the time?
I don't exactly mix in the social circles pertaining to James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. That said, I was on a 007 forum years ago, and I was a member of a forum where there was a Sherlock Holmes sub-forum.
And I got the impression people really didn't have the slavish devotion to continuity that fans, including myself, have to comics. I know of a guy who has watched every Bond film. He likes some, he dislikes others. But in all my years of knowing him, he has never once brought up continuity. I am sure there are continuity issues pertaining to Bond (it's inevitable, really), but the Bond fans I've known don't seem to care.
Years ago, I watched Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942) on DVD with a friend. Holmes and Watson were active during WWII in that movie. As the film ended, and it is a good movie, I was picking holes with the fact that Holmes and Watson were active during WWII despite earlier films having featured them in the 1880s. But my friend didn't care.
Is there something about comics that can make people like me pedantic? Again, we're not a collective. And I realise I am painting with a broad brush in this topic. Generally speaking, though, I do find us comic fans can be slavish, pedantic and a little bit obsessive about continuity. And we can do it on a level I don't necessarily see with fans of other franchises.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Feb 7, 2019 19:47:50 GMT -5
Personally, I've become indifferent to continuity within the Big Two's comics. Way I see it, you can't have true continuity within a sliding timeline. Either the Chameleon was a Soviet spy in his first appearance, or he was a spy for whatever totalitarian/autocratic regime happens to be an international boogeyman at the moment; trying to having it both ways is absurdity itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 20:02:26 GMT -5
I don't pay much attention to continuity ... All I want is a good story, good art, and if the book has that, any book ... I'll read that book and enjoy it as much as possible.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 7, 2019 20:43:25 GMT -5
Star Trek fans have the same arguments we do about reboots and continuity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 20:48:45 GMT -5
Is there something about comics that can make people like me pedantic? Again, we're not a collective. And I realise I am painting with a broad brush in this topic. Generally speaking, though, I do find us comic fans can be slavish, pedantic and a little bit obsessive about continuity. And we can do it on a level I don't necessarily see with fans of other franchises. Thoughts? I think Star Trek fans are obsessive about continuity. Look at how they try to explain why the Klingons looked different in the various series. Or why the Romulans started using Klingon battle cruisers. Or timelines. How warp factors are calculated. How star dates work. And so on.
Other genres? I think it depends on the body of work and what the majority of fans consider canon.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Feb 7, 2019 20:58:14 GMT -5
At the risk of being a continuity pedant, the first two Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film were made by a different studio to the later twelve (known as the Baker's Street Dozen). So most fans regard the Dozen as separate continuity where Holmes and Watson were active during WWII.
So, no, comic book fans are not unique when it comes to continuity. I have seen Harry Potter fans debate how Dudley could have had a PlayStation a year before they were released in the UK. Holmes fans are notorious for it. In fact most of the modern traits associated with fandom began with Sherlock Holmes.
It is probably a little more obvious with comics fans as it is our fandom (or one of them in my case) so we are exposed to it constantly. Additionally, the comics book companies (and Marvel in particular), used to make a huge deal out their continuity, so we cannot be blamed for assuming it must be important.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 7, 2019 21:02:05 GMT -5
I have found the same behaviors an attitudes in an storytelling based fandom, be it comics, Star Trek, Dr Who, Game of Thrones, Sherlock Holmes, sci-fi novels and short stories or pulp novels. Phillip Jose Farmer wrote two fictional biographies (Tarzan Alive! and Doc Savage, His Apocalyptic Life) which tried to create a chronology to those stories and reconcile inconsistencies in continuity. There are entire Holmes societies that debate the stories and novels, the pastiches and adaptations and continuations. It's a trait of fandom, rising from the root word of fanatic, which is to obsess about a subject. Sports fans are just as bad about statistics and team histories, the merits of one players skills in carrying or aiding the team or anothers, etc, etc. Continuity arguments come with continuing stories, in all forms.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 7, 2019 21:12:51 GMT -5
As a long time soaper I'd say there are a fair number of continuity buffs for soap operas, some are very into the history and details to a degree that is impressive. I'm just enough of one that when they go totally against character as established without solid reasons I get disgruntled the same as I might with comic book characters. I don't watch U.S. soaps though (unless vintage Dark Shadows counts) but I do like a good parody (Mary Hartman, Soap). I can put up with a different actor taking over a role much easier than writing that does harm to the known character's credibility. Soap fans don't seem to get as many places to express themselves as comic readers however.
Also Doctor Who fans, of course! I'd even have said at one time they out-did comic fans in that area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 7, 2019 22:47:10 GMT -5
Is there something about comics that can make people like me pedantic? ... I do find us comic fans can be slavish, pedantic and a little bit obsessive about continuity. I remember a few letters printed in the Hawkworld comic of the early 90s - and I'm quoting from memory here - that went something like "I like this new Hawkworld comic, it's good, but I won't be buying it any more because it doesn't fit with the Post-Crisis continuity." Never mind that said continuity was only 3 or 4 years old, the creative team made the best possible attempt to address the continuity differences, some other characters had their continuity in flux to varying degrees as well, and it's not like Post-Crisis Hawkman had any real impact up to that point. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 7, 2019 23:11:12 GMT -5
I dunno. Some vocal fans care about continuity but all working professionals care about creating sallable product more than continuity. (If they don't they get fired for not doing their job,)
Hmmm...
I'm not an expert on Star Trek or the Young and the Restless (is that still on?) But I suspect they are exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 7, 2019 23:23:02 GMT -5
And, of course, comic book continuity in it's present form started at Marvel in the '60s, and it was originally nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Stan saw it as a way to get people who were buying the Fantastic Four to also buy, say, Daredevil or Sgt. Fury, but didn't give it more thought than that.
I suspect Roy Thomas was the first creator to take continuity seriously. (And probably the only Marvel editor in chief in history who cared much about continuity as more than a way to sell ccomics.)
It is interesting that fans have invested more in the marketing gimmick than in the quality of the product.....
.
.
.
Except now that I think about it, that is true of every aspect of American Culture. People get really excited for the advertisements during the Super Bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Feb 7, 2019 23:27:07 GMT -5
I'm asking this in complete seriousness: Are comic fans really concerned with continuity in 2019? Would the efforts of, say, Roy Thomas be appreciated if he were to attempt to reconcile/fill in the blanks/expand upon the history of the DC Universe with a lengthy Secret Origins, All-Star Squadron run today? Would The Untold Legend of the Batman get green-lit today and if so, would it be regarded as such a worthwhile venture that bringing superstar John Byrne over from Marvel to work on it seem the appropriate use of his talents?
What I guess I'm asking is, are comic fans unique in having a passionate interest for characters for whom no real background exists? Write a Sherlock Holmes story today (at least one that falls under the aegis of the Doyle estate) and you better know your Doyle. Star Wars - better know the films; Star Trek - Roddenberry. When Max Allan Collins took over writing duties for Batman in 1987, he was shocked that Denny O Neil couldn't provide him with a bible to guide his work. Although this might say more about O Neil than the industry as a whole, it's not as if Batman were some C level property in 1987.
I've often wondered if comics are the only medium where you can count on the fans to accept that one day history is this and the next it's this (or even, one day it's this and the next it's we're not sure ourselves and we're writing them). Holmes' history has its hiccups - namely with the status of Watson's wife, I believe - but I can't imagine there are too many fans who'd accept a story in which the detective is suddenly brothers with Lestrade or the son of Mrs Hudson, for example. Metallo might have killed the Waynes? Sure, we'll accept that if we have to. Superman has two or three different origins? eh, why not?
If comic fans are anal about continuity, what are they pointing to when they're arguing, "Here! This is canon!" What is their equivalent of 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, for instance?
Am I coming at this from too much of a DC perspective where there is no continuity? I know Marvel's never really had a Crisis, but at the same time, I'm sure I've read recent Captain America comics which completely discount the original material too, for instance and the fans don't seem too bothered.
Anyhow, it's a genuine question. Are readers today that interested in what Writer Y did while they're following Writer Z?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 7, 2019 23:42:58 GMT -5
I know of a guy who has watched every Bond film. He likes some, he dislikes others. But in all my years of knowing him, he has never once brought up continuity. I am sure there are continuity issues pertaining to Bond (it's inevitable, really), but the Bond fans I've known don't seem to care. That guy is rare, as I've seen Bond movie fans go to the extreme in trying to link everything from Bond's missions--how or why they should inform plots of other films, relationships, down to why Bond should not get caught in certain traps because of the invention / use of gadgets introduced 6 films in the past, etc. People do have some base need for their fictional worlds to make sense, and that need has never been limited to comic fans. Its just that in the larger realm of cultural analysis and the media, it makes it appear as if its unique to comic fans who (as we all know) are painted as nerds obsessed with connecting every little dot & detail, but its everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 8, 2019 0:45:21 GMT -5
My experience is that fans are most concerned about continuity within their personal experience. If they have never read a story, it doesn't enter in their frame of reference, until someone makes reference to it or draws from it and it somehow upsets their personal apple cart.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 8, 2019 1:10:19 GMT -5
And, of course, comic book continuity in it's present form started at Marvel in the '60s, and it was originally nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Stan saw it as a way to get people who were buying the Fantastic Four to also buy, say, Daredevil or Sgt. Fury, but didn't give it more thought than that. I suspect Roy Thomas was the first creator to take continuity seriously. (And probably the only Marvel editor in chief in history who cared much about continuity as more than a way to sell ccomics.) It is interesting that fans have invested more in the marketing gimmick than in the quality of the product..... . . . Except now that I think about it, that is true of every aspect of American Culture. People get really excited for the advertisements during the Super Bowl. I think you can extend this even farther: for example, it always struck me how people seemed to be more impressed by ex-actor Ronald Reagan's impression of a no-nonsense, strong, dependable leader than by actual war-hero George W. Bush whose mild (once we might have said gentlemanly) manners apparently made him a wishy-washy wimp in the pubic imagination (I say this as a die-hard leftie who has no time for the policies of either president). They liked the surface elementsmore than the substance.
But it isn't only Americans, though perhaps you might be right that as a culture you've taken this aspect of human nature to new extremes. I'm also reminded of something John Lydon said about the punk scene in the UK: how the original idea of DIY very quickly was lost and instead you had 100s of guys going around with mowhawks and leather jackets - again being more impressed by the surface identifiers than by the core concept.
|
|
