Comics are awesome.

[138 Scourge]

What about "Invincible" or that "Wolf-Man" book? Neither of those is too shabby.

[Dominic]

"Wolfman" loses points for the idiotic distribution of the first issue. Who though it was a good idea to give away the first issue of a comic on FCBD?

That pretty much guarantees that most copies will wind up in the hands of people who are unlikely to come back later and buy anything. The Wednesday-Friday guys will then miss it completely unless they knew to ask for it, (and the store was willing to set it aside), before hand. And, because it was an FCBD book, there would be few enough copies of "Wolfman" number 1 when issue 2 came out, which would discourage new readers.

Any title that kicks off with that kind of planning is one I plan to avoid.

Dom-never read "Invincible".

[andersonh1]

For example, I think Frank Miller has declined a lot in recent years and anything he creates now is probably crap. I flipped through the first bit of All-Star Batman & Robin and it was atrocious, hence, I'm probably not likely to buy anything Miller makes in the near future 'because' I already know he does it.

Just reading through the discussion thread, and had to second this comment, minor though it is in regard to the main topic of the thread. Had I not flipped through All-Star Batman and Robin while broswsing the TPBs, I'd still have thought of Miller as a decent writer, based solely on memories of stuff I read back in the 80s. All-Star Batman really is atrocious, because it abuses the characters so badly that I barely recognize them.

[138 Scourge]

All-Star Batman really is atrocious, because it abuses the characters so badly that I barely recognize them.

If you have trouble recognizing Batman, he'll tell you who he is at the drop of a hat. They should seriously just rename that book "The G-D Batman".

And how much sense does Black Canary bartender make? I read through the first book once, for my sins. Yeesh.

So anyhoo, I dunno about the distribution of the first ish of "Wolf-Man", I just picked up the first TPB and thought it'd do nicely. I'm a sucker for the high-concept, and "Werewolf Superhero" was the kinda thing I just can't ignore.

[Shockwave]

All-Star Batman really is atrocious, because it abuses the characters so badly that I barely recognize them.

A bit like Bayformers. Oh snap!!

[Dominic]

I have actually been planning a post along the lines of what Anderson is talking about. (I was going to focus on Morrison, but it would be applicable to Miller as well.)

The key question is how one monetizes intent v/s result. (Miller does a good job of writing something intentionally bad.)

I would write more about this, but I need to be at work in less than 8 hours, and should probably sleep.


Dom
-the gosh darned moderator.

[Dominic]

From Sparky in the AHM discussion thread:

How exactly can continuity be a bad thing? Continuity is part of how characters grow, change, evolve. The story would eventually become stagnant with nothing to build off of.

JMS is not to blame for the downturn in Spider-Man. The things people hated about his run on the story, were actually editorial mandates from Joe Quesada.

Continuity can be a problem in a few ways. In some cases, it can be a hinderance. Even if one does not keep one title in context with another, over time, a series can build up so much baggage that maintaining context will be difficult. Along similar lines, there can be a drive to "set things right", rebooting the title (but keeping past events) every so often. This not only lends itself to redundant stories, but it effectively makes a long-form story stagnant while creating the illusion of progress. (How many times can Aunt May discover Spiderman is her nephew and/or die before it becomes a joke?)

The example I used above was another problem with continuity, which is that a bad story can "ruin" a character or title. Sue Dibny, (post "Identity Crisis") is one example of this. "Spiderman" is another.

I recall an interview with JMS where he broke his run on "Spiderman" down. Yes, "One More Day" was Quesadilla's cheesy editing. But, other arcs from that awful run were JMS' ideas, including the Goblin-Spawn and Spider-mystic.


Dom
-is oddly saddened to see "Archie" going down hill.

[Shockwave]

To build on what Dom is saying I would also cite "the Ascending" as another example of continuity being a bad thing. BW seems to be this wierd microcosm of TF continuity that nobody wants to mess with. There are several "G1" continuities, but there's only 1 BW one? Trying to write a story set in a specific time and place where a good story has already been established leaves a writer in a very tough predicament. A writer basically has to retcon their story into the existing one while simultaneously trying to explain why elements from their story weren't seen or heard in the original work. That also means that all elements of the original work are completely off limits to the writer even though the new story is set in the same time and place. Honestly "continuity" was the whole problem I had with Ascending. I felt like they were constantly trying write their way around the events of the tv show. Like being in a room where you're squished up against the wall and that's all the room you have to move. I really think there could have been a really good story there if they had just started from scratch with a new continuity and frankly I wish that's what they would have done.

[Sparky Prime]

Continuity can be a problem in a few ways. In some cases, it can be a hinderance. Even if one does not keep one title in context with another, over time, a series can build up so much baggage that maintaining context will be difficult.

I think it really depends on how writers/editors handle any given story/continuity. Although, this can be somewhat complicated for comics books though as they want to keep the characters perpetually "young and fresh". In Marvel' case, they tend to gloss over how much time passes and do "mini retcons" (such as moving Iron-Man's origin from the Vietnam War to Afghanistan, but in essence doesn't change the continuity) to keep the the characters fresh and young. This method actually seems to work out well as it allows characters to grow their continuity, while at the same time, it doesn't age them too quickly. And then there are some much bigger retcons to attempt to keep the characters "fresh and young" which are met with mixed results. Marvel's undoing Spidey's marriage as an example. Well it wasn't intended to change continuity at least, but I think Quesada underestimated the impact of the changes they were making.

It is also possible tell a story with a lot of "baggage" and yet maintain context with out difficulty. You don't need to retell the entire story to establish context, just the few relevant bits to any given story. You see it all the time with short flashbacks, or with TV shows that sometimes begin with a 30 second "Previously on..." to remind the audience of some past events (but isn't a multi-part episode).

Along similar lines, there can be a drive to "set things right", rebooting the title (but keeping past events) every so often. This not only lends itself to redundant stories, but it effectively makes a long-form story stagnant while creating the illusion of progress. (How many times can Aunt May discover Spiderman is her nephew and/or die before it becomes a joke?)

You have to keep in mind, creators don't always agree with each other on the directions the story/characters take. As such, it's not really surprising we'd see some back and forth between these events.

I recall an interview with JMS where he broke his run on "Spiderman" down. Yes, "One More Day" was Quesadilla's cheesy editing. But, other arcs from that awful run were JMS' ideas, including the Goblin-Spawn and Spider-mystic.

Actually, the "Goblin Twins", JMS said in an interview, was not his idea. He wanted them to be Peter's kids, but Quesada vetoed him because he felt it would "age the character too much if he had adult children". But Gwen having sex with a man old enough to be her father is apparently ok with him.

The Spider-Totem stuff, the parts that came before "The Other" storyline that is, was actually pretty good and interesting. Is Spider-Man the product of science (spider transferring powers via radiation) or a mystic totem (spider transferring powers regardless of radiation)? That story had a pretty clear ending with Peter defeating Morlun by giving himself a dose of radiation to prove he was a product of science rather than a mystical totem. As for "The Other", while I've never seen anything to confirm or deny it, that story reeks of having a heavy editorial influence. It was written between 3 different authors and caused confusion than anything else.

Trying to write a story set in a specific time and place where a good story has already been established leaves a writer in a very tough predicament. A writer basically has to retcon their story into the existing one while simultaneously trying to explain why elements from their story weren't seen or heard in the original work.

I wouldn't say that's a case of continuity being a bad thing. Rather, that's a case of preserving continuity while wrapping up a loose end from it. What's wrong with that? Granted, it could potentially be difficult for the writer to pull off, but I thought Furman did a pretty good job of explaining it for the BW comics.

[Dominic]

There are several "G1" continuities, but there's only 1 BW one?

The problem with "Beast Wars" is that it only had two major sets of context, the cartoon and the packaging. And, the fandom largely ignored the packaging, functionally making the cartoon the *only* set of context for "Beast Wars". The fact that the cartoon was better than average, if only a bit, when compared to other cartoons (especially the old G1 series), gave fans more incentive to cling to "Beast Wars" the cartoon.

The problem with the "Beast Wars" comics was not just that they had to fit, it was that Furman had nothing to say beyond "here are more BW guys and they all fit". The fact that the "Beast Wars" comic not only did not fit as well as some people think, (especially in terms of the Japanese series), but they also failed to list every toy (an apparent, if not stated goal of the sourcebook), made the whole venture a wasted effort.

Quesada underestimated the impact of the changes they were making.

More likely, Quesada simply did not *care*. One of the biggest problems with "One More Day" is that Marvel still wanted to keep a pretense of "it all all counts on 616". And, with Mary Jane showing up again, "One More Day" will be undone for a return to the status quo.....as if nothing had happened.

You have to keep in mind, creators don't always agree with each other on the directions the story/characters take. As such, it's not really surprising we'd see some back and forth between these events.

But, when the back and forth is not only predictable, but pointless, there is a problem. Setting up a new status quo in order to tell a story with an actual idea that might not work otherwise is one thing. But, resetting a status quo just to "make things like they were", (Kevin Smith on "Green Arrow" comes to mind here), arguably defeats the purpose of having a continuous long-form story.

The more event driven, (rather than idea driven), a story is, the more important continuity becomes. But, if events are essentially undone, (Aunt May returning from the dead and forgetting that Spiderman is her nephew multiple times), how meaningful are any of the events in the comic?

Actually, the "Goblin Twins", JMS said in an interview, was not his idea. He wanted them to be Peter's kids, but Quesada vetoed him because he felt it would "age the character too much if he had adult children". But Gwen having sex with a man old enough to be her father is apparently ok with him.

I am going to say that JMS' original idea was worse. Making Spiderman, (Mr. Power and Responsibility), a deadbeat dad would have been a terrible idea. And, Gwen was written, (withing the bounds of the times), as being a slut. And, Norman is kind of a nuttier Jack Welch type. In that sense, the idea was consistent with both characters. The problem is more that the best idea JMS could come up with involved backwriting a pregnancy for a character who had been dead nearly 3 decades at the time. *That* was his best idea, and Marvel let it go through, albeit with modification.

Gwen "going to visit her aunt", (literally and metaphorically), might be as bad or worse than the brilliant ideas Meltzer had for Sue Dibny in "Identity Crisis".

Dom
-is fine with honest reboots.