Comics are Awesome III

[Sparky Prime]

DC, on the other hand, has spent the last 15 or so years becoming more like Marvel, particularly the bad Marvel of the 90s.

I can certainly see how DC has become a lot more like Marvel over the past few years, but I wouldn't agree it's bad 90's Marvel. What DC is now reminds me a lot of the differences in universes that was pointed out in the Avengers/JLA crossover from the early 2000's. Actually, it seems like the two companies have switched roles based on how they described each others universe in that book.

If DC worries less about a house style and less about making every title match up (maybe using the multiverse as an on page reason to justify books not relating), they would have plenty of options beyond this list.

Not worrying about making every title match up is actually exactly what DC said they're going for after Convergence. We can already see evidence of that as well. Hal returning to the Justice League as a Green Lantern, despite being a renegade out in space with Krona's power gauntlet in his own title for an example.

Although personally, I think that's a mistake. While I don't think books necessarily always have to match up, I do think the sense of continuity between different titles does help with the overall sense of the story. Like in the Spider-Man Saga of the Alien Costume TPB I've got, there's a panel or two where it randomly starts to snow and Spider-Man remarks how odd for July and just being his luck (this being shortly after he gave the symbiote to Reed Richards for study). The only hint as to why there's snow is to check out an issue of Thor. It's a small thing, but it's just interesting to see the attention to the details like that to me, and really goes to show these heroes are all living in the same world. And I think that's something the Marvel films have done an excellent job with as well, having all these interconnections yet remains separate stories.

-bat successors: Similar to the above, but with a bat focus. Assume that Bruce Wayne is long dead, but that there are "bats" in Gotham and other major cities around the globe. The bats would be one part urban legend, another part secret society (albeit of do-gooders). This would allow for a range of basic adventure *and* high concept comics. It might even support two or three series.

So... You want them to bring back titles like Batman Inc. (albeit not so public) and Batwing?

-heroes as gods: Morrison has toyed with this at a higher level. Ennis uses it at a lower level. (Obviously, I would prefer something closer to Morrison.)

Green Lantern New Guardians dealt with heroes as gods, in-particular with X'Xal and then with Kyle once he realized he had the Life-Equation. I'm really going to miss that title. One of the most underrated of the New 52.

[Dominic]

The top ten best-selling comics for April included:

In real terms, DC owns the top 10. ("Star Wars" does not count for the purposes of Marvel v/s DC as it is published by Marvel, but not "of Marvel".)

We can already see evidence of that as well. Hal returning to the Justice League as a Green Lantern, despite being a renegade out in space with Krona's power gauntlet in his own title for an example.

That could still be reconciled (having one take place before or after the other). Marvel (through Hickman) has been doing that in recent years, mostly with clean results. Time will tell how DC handles it.

Either way, I am talking more about wholesale deviations in tone or status quo. (As a basic example, contrast "Marvel Adventures" with Hickman's "no-win" run on "Avengers". That does not necessitate a multiverse. But, if one needs to reconcile the two, a multiverse would be an option for how to go about it.)

So... You want them to bring back titles like Batman Inc. (albeit not so public) and Batwing?

Not specifically, but in general terms. And, I want more follow through. I did not read "Batman Inc" because I knew that Morrison would not get to play out the scenario to its fullest. That is problem with many big two series. But, in some cases, it bothers me more than others.

As much as I miss Tranquility Gulch (from Gillen's "Iron Man"), it was allowed to play out. But, there is not way that DC (New 52 or not) could have allowed "Batman Inc." to play out in any logical way.

[Sparky Prime]

That could still be reconciled (having one take place before or after the other). Marvel (through Hickman) has been doing that in recent years, mostly with clean results. Time will tell how DC handles it.

Either way, I am talking more about wholesale deviations in tone or status quo. (As a basic example, contrast "Marvel Adventures" with Hickman's "no-win" run on "Avengers". That does not necessitate a multiverse. But, if one needs to reconcile the two, a multiverse would be an option for how to go about it.)

Having one story take place after another is nothing new to either company. But that's not the indication DC is giving here. Especially considering Jim Lee and Dan DiDio said in an interview a while back (that andersonh1 originally posted a link to) that they wouldn't be focusing so much on continuity within the books when they return in June. And it was mentioned in that interview that "about 24 titles, will be allowed to really shake things up a little bit".

Not specifically, but in general terms. And, I want more follow through. I did not read "Batman Inc" because I knew that Morrison would not get to play out the scenario to its fullest. That is problem with many big two series. But, in some cases, it bothers me more than others.

As much as I miss Tranquility Gulch (from Gillen's "Iron Man"), it was allowed to play out. But, there is not way that DC (New 52 or not) could have allowed "Batman Inc." to play out in any logical way.

How do you know if it could or couldn't be played out to the fullest if you didn't read any of it? Granted it got interrupted a bit by Flashpoint, but it did return to finish its run during the New 52.

[Dominic]

It is a common sense question.

"Batman Inc." opened and ran with a scenario where Bruce Wayne all but invited the world to figure out that he was Batman. ("I plan to fund batmen around the world." Somebody is going to audit his finances and scrutinize him....) It is an interesting idea, and the public discovery might have been good. But, there is not way that DC would allow that to play out.

Having one story take place after another is nothing new to either company. But that's not the indication DC is giving here. Especially considering Jim Lee and Dan DiDio said in an interview a while back (that andersonh1 originally posted a link to) that they wouldn't be focusing so much on continuity within the books when they return in June. And it was mentioned in that interview that "about 24 titles, will be allowed to really shake things up a little bit".

24 books is at least half of DC's post-"Convergence" line-up. If they follow through with this, it would be a huge departure from industry standard.

As much as I have been liking Marvel the last few years, I am really hoping to see DC succeed at this. Never mind "shaking things up" at DC, they could end up shaking the industry again. (Neither Marvel nor DC could shake the industry consistently. But, dammit, they should be consistently trying to out-shake each-other.)

[Sparky Prime]

It is a common sense question.

"Batman Inc." opened and ran with a scenario where Bruce Wayne all but invited the world to figure out that he was Batman. ("I plan to fund batmen around the world." Somebody is going to audit his finances and scrutinize him....) It is an interesting idea, and the public discovery might have been good. But, there is not way that DC would allow that to play out.

I think you brought this up when Batman Inc. was first announced, and I disagreed with you about that then as well. Bruce has been secretly funding his efforts as Batman for years with out being found out, so obviously he knows how to hide his money trail. Announcing to the public he's funding Batman only means he wouldn't have to hide that trail anymore and dedicate larger amounts of money to the effort. As I recall, the comic said that was the whole point of Bruce making that announcement. It doesn't invite the world to figure out he is Batman just because he says he's funding Batman. It's only a common sense question if you have some other indication Bruce and Batman are one in the same, like the readers already are fully aware of.

24 books is at least half of DC's post-"Convergence" line-up. If they follow through with this, it would be a huge departure from industry standard.

As much as I have been liking Marvel the last few years, I am really hoping to see DC succeed at this. Never mind "shaking things up" at DC, they could end up shaking the industry again. (Neither Marvel nor DC could shake the industry consistently. But, dammit, they should be consistently trying to out-shake each-other.)

Shaking things up is all well and good, but I have to say I don't like the approach they're taking towards it, especially if they're sacrificing continuity for it.

[andersonh1]

Shaking things up is all well and good, but I have to say I don't like the approach they're taking towards it, especially if they're sacrificing continuity for it.

I agree. You see so many people online talking about how continuity "restricts" writers. But continuity is just consistency with what came before. It's what allows a logical, orderly progression to a plot or a series. It's what allows fiction to make sense. Toss that out and things really get messy very fast.

But, like I said before, DC is just flailing around trying to find what sells, hoping something will stick.

[JediTricks]

Shaking things up is all well and good, but I have to say I don't like the approach they're taking towards it, especially if they're sacrificing continuity for it.

I agree. You see so many people online talking about how continuity "restricts" writers. But continuity is just consistency with what came before. It's what allows a logical, orderly progression to a plot or a series. It's what allows fiction to make sense. Toss that out and things really get messy very fast.

But, like I said before, DC is just flailing around trying to find what sells, hoping something will stick.

Continuity in comics can be a very challenging problem because there is so much of it, and so much of that which is seemingly minutiae that it becomes a shackle around a writer's creativity. It is the foundation of the content, but it is also the quicksand that is drowning the product in weaker sales, and driving casual fans away from the hobby. So continuity needs a deft and sometimes a light touch, usually that means an editor with just the right amount of control, but a writer has to know when too much is a problem and when not enough is a problem. Look at Frank Miller on Batman Year One, that's considered a quintessential comic to a degree that casual fans know it, yet it gave half of no shits about continuity to the point of creating problems down the road for the actual mainline books despite Year One not even being part of the mainline continuity when it was written.

[Sparky Prime]

Continuity in comics can be a very challenging problem because there is so much of it, and so much of that which is seemingly minutiae that it becomes a shackle around a writer's creativity. It is the foundation of the content, but it is also the quicksand that is drowning the product in weaker sales, and driving casual fans away from the hobby.

I don't agree continuity becomes a shackle around a writers creativity or drives away casual fans, unless the writer misuses it. It can become a bit complicated, but I really feel a writer can work within continuity without hindering their creativity in the slightest, even improve upon that continuity and can attract new readers with it at the same time. Take Geoff Johns work on Green Lantern for an example. He used some established continuity, expanded on it, introduced new concepts and managed to attract a lot of new readers in the process.

[Dominic]

Oh yeah, "Red Son", "All Star Super Man", and "Gotham by Gaslight" are absolute shit. They really should have been neatly folded in to some pre-existing context. That would have made them all much better.

No, wait, lemmee think about that.....

Look at Frank Miller on Batman Year One, that's considered a quintessential comic to a degree that casual fans know it, yet it gave half of no shits about continuity to the point of creating problems down the road for the actual mainline books despite Year One not even being part of the mainline continuity when it was written.

I think that "Year One" was meant to be the post-"Crisis" origin of Batman and other characters.


But, as for the larger point (and all sarcasm aside), McDuffie wrote a pretty good piece on this problem over a decade ago.

http://www.slushfactory.com/content/Epu ... OLwdfz.php

He used the "Saint Elsewhere" logic, in that a literal viewing of "Saint Elsewhere" would effectively fold about half of US television from the late 60s to (at least) the beginning the last decade down to a dream sequence in the mind of an autistic child. (And, no, that is not a subtle jab at obsessive fans.)

McDuffie's chief complaint was that comics were the only medium that obligated writers and editors to keep track of decades of context. He was not just talking about the creative burden but also the (for lack of a better term) administrative burden. (Were McDuffie still alive today, he would likely be much happier writing for comics.)

Few TV shows run more than a decade (if even that long). And, few still are relaunched. Of the shows that are relaunched, how many of them actually pick up and continues a previous series? The assumption is that fans are adults and will get the hell over it.

I don't agree continuity becomes a shackle around a writers creativity or drives away casual fans, unless the writer misuses it. It can become a bit complicated, but I really feel a writer can work within continuity without hindering their creativity in the slightest, even improve upon that continuity and can attract new readers with it at the same time.

I partly agree with this. Consistency has its place. One of the big problems is that fans want the wrong kind of consistency. Peter Parker always has to be a slacker asshole. Batman always has to be 30-ish, with a kid sidekick (even as the other sidekicks age up and out). The attemtps to keep some history while avoiding the passage of time are where many of the problems come from. (The 5-year problem after "Flashpoint" is the current go-to example. But, it applies to both Marvel and DC in varying degrees of severity.)

Another issue is that the last two generations of writers came up reading comics with idiotic back-writes that were often meant to preserve some old content that might have been better forgotten. My favourite go-to example is 1950s Captain America. The fandom could not let go of comics that were painfully dated (being the worst of the time they were produced and wholly out of step with both the industry and country as a whole maybe a decade later) and eventually Marvel had to reconcile them with a series of idiotic back-writes that made everything fit all nice and pretty.

It was arguably necessary. But, it did not read particularly well. Eventually, that sort of writing became a default way to paper-over problems that cropped up over years of publishing a supposedly on-going story (where things generally stayed the same). By the 70s and 80s, many fans seemed to miss the utilitarian point of those stories and started to think that is how comics should be written.

The result is that we now have several decades worth of comics where nearly every big moment (and many smaller moments that are supposed to be important) has an asterisk attached. "It did not really go the way it looks like here." "That is not really her. She is/was not dead." "He got better." "That important thing that happened did not really matter so much." And, that kind of thing is going to annoy casual fans, especially given that comics are an event based medium.

[Sparky Prime]

Oh yeah, "Red Son", "All Star Super Man", and "Gotham by Gaslight" are absolute shit. They really should have been neatly folded in to some pre-existing context. That would have made them all much better.

Yeah, because it's the stand-alone series that we're talking about and not the ongoing storylines.

Few TV shows run more than a decade (if even that long). And, few still are relaunched. Of the shows that are relaunched, how many of them actually pick up and continues a previous series? The assumption is that fans are adults and will get the hell over it.

I can think of plenty of shows and spin-offs that have at least a decade (if not more) worth of continuity under their belts. Take for example shows like Dr. Who. Star Trek, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise. Stargate SG-1, Atlantis, Universe. And why do fans have to get over anything? If continuity helps to enrich and enhance a series, then it's a shame to loose it if you're a fan of the series or not.

I partly agree with this. Consistency has its place. One of the big problems is that fans want the wrong kind of consistency. Peter Parker always has to be a slacker asshole. Batman always has to be 30-ish, with a kid sidekick (even as the other sidekicks age up and out). The attemtps to keep some history while avoiding the passage of time are where many of the problems come from. (The 5-year problem after "Flashpoint" is the current go-to example. But, it applies to both Marvel and DC in varying degrees of severity.)

I wouldn't agree fans want the wrong type of consistency. I don't know anyone that's said they want Peter Parker to always be a "slacker asshole". Quite the opposite actually seeing how many fans were outraged by stories like OMD. And having characters remain the same age has been a big criticism as well. Especially as of late with DC seeing as they've done away with a lot of their legacy characters while Marvel's always kind of glossed over problems like that by using a sliding time scale.

The result is that we now have several decades worth of comics where nearly every big moment (and many smaller moments that are supposed to be important) has an asterisk attached. "It did not really go the way it looks like here." "That is not really her. She is/was not dead." "He got better." "That important thing that happened did not really matter so much." And, that kind of thing is going to annoy casual fans, especially given that comics are an event based medium.

I dunno about you, but I really don't see a lot, if any, astericks attached to the stories I've read lately. I mean, there's really no reason to explain something like "he got better" if you can clearly see the character is alive and well in the story you're currently reading. But if a story has needed to explain past events, they generally have done a pretty good job with giving an abridged version within the storyline itself, focused only on the pertinent details so that even a casual reader wouldn't be lost or annoyed.