Does anyone else dislike the way Marvel and DC handle continuity?

The idea of a shared universe in which every single title takes place seems like a cool idea, but over the years i've noticed so many problems with it that it largely disillusioned from me caring about most anything marvel and dc put out. in fact i think this is the root of the vast majority of problems with the general writing in superhero books. it basically boils down to two things really:

firstly, nothing has any real finality. publishers hype up 'death of' storylines that will always inevitably end up with the hero or villain coming back through some dumb plot contrivance, because they have to keep telling stories about that character in the exact same continuity, as opposed to letting that version of the character end. Any real meaningful change is never guaranteed to stick, because it's all at the whims of editorials and the next writers to come afterwards. i mean just think about it: this is the root of why batman looks so incompetent according to certain people. writers have to keep writing around the fact that they have to keep writing stories about superpowered villains who can never be permanently killed off or retired, which leads to Cardboard Prison and the stupid "will he or won't he kill people".

which ties into my second problem: there's way too many cooks in the damn kitchen. when you have so many people working on different titles you have a lot of conflicting visions and ideas that end up being a terrible inconsistent mess. it leads to a storm of retcons and contrivances that really lower the general writing quality. a unified vision by one artistic team is always going to be better than trying to mesh a bunch of different ones together.

adaptations of comic book works don't have these problems. besides being the result of a much more concentrated, unified artistic vision, they are allowed to actually end and have reasonable, easy to understand continuity. that's why it's easier for me to be invested in something like Batmanthe Animated Series or Manof Steel, because I have some guarantee they won't eventually backpedal on their plot decisions.

i realize that DC and Marvel are most likely never going to change the way they do things. it's been that way for years and i doubt complaints like mine are going to make them re-evaluate the entire structure of how their universes are built. but i really don't think it is an optimal way of doing things, and just isn't worth it. there are other reasons (mostly, i think the writing in most superhero books they put out are fun at best and juvenile melodrama at worst, and their artists generally aren't that skilled), but basically at this point i would really defend the idea that the best writing and art in comics is not in mainstream superhero books.

edited 28th Sep '14 2:41:26 PM by wehrmacht

I like DC and Marvel superheroes, although for some weird reason I've never actually read the comic books. But I know that there's not really much of an actual continuity that makes any sense. I guess that might turn me away.

A lot of the best art and writing in comics was never in mainstream superhero books.

I used to be very annoyed about continuity, but now I don't really worry about it as much. Playing it fast and loose with continuity has been a hallmark of a shared universe ever since the Silver Age.

What keeps me away is the idea of having multiple comics, running in parallel, all canon, all in a single continuity, with their own separate storylines, about the same set of characters.

Take Batman. At present, there are no less than three comics about Batman being published - Detective Comics, Batman, and Batman and Robin. And that's actually an improvement, since there was also The Dark Knight until earlier this year. So if I want to read Batman, I'd have to buy three different comics if I lived in America.

Fortunately, over here, Marvel and DC material is reprinted in comics that collect three US issues, and come out fortnightly. However, this causes confusion in other ways. I've recently started reading The Spectacular Spider-Man, which until this week was reprinting Superior Spider-Man. Superior Spider-Man Teamup, and Scarlet Spider (this week replaced by Superior Foes of Spider-Man). Scarlet Spider wasn't a problem, since it's a separate title, but the Spider-Man comics keep jumping around within a single issue. Superior Spider-Man ends with the Venom symbiote merging with SpOck at Parker Industries, and then the action immediately jumps to the middle of New York where SpOck and Light Girl are trying to take on the Superior Six. It all just makes for a very choppy, disjointed experience, when having a single Spider-Man series would be much more satisfying. (And that's before you even get into what happens with Spider-Man is doing something with the Avengers, which requires me to buy a whole other comic if I want to see what happens).

i'm partly arguing that comic book writers care TOO much about continuity by insisting that every story in their books is somehow canon and even when they play loose with it there are things and changes they aren't allowed to actually keep or do. if every batman story was its own thing, or if every artistic team had their own bat-universe, you could kill off the joker, have batman grow old and die, have a new batman take his place, etc, and these changes would actually stick.

edited 28th Sep '14 3:38:14 PM by wehrmacht

Characters that are commercially successful continue indefinitely. There's a reason characters like Superman or Spider Man have been in continual publication for decades: people continue to buy their books, and so DC and Marvel aren't going to mess with a successful character in any major way, with occasional exceptions. But that raises the problem of time and, as the OP pointed out, too many cooks in the kitchen.

That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is wholesale universal reboots that toss stuff out, or major retcons that do the same. So suddenly a story or twenty that I enjoyed are suddenly in doubt. I just enjoy following the fictional lives and adventures of various characters, and nothing irritates me more than turning back the clock and discounting good stories.

edited 29th Sep '14 11:10:50 AM by andersonh1

The way Marvel and DC operate is very short-term: you look at it as it is now or how it's been been for the last couple years, because you're mind's going to explode if you try to straight-up grasp a continuity that's run for 70+ years. Thus, writers operate mainly on what stories they want to tell: for example, the guy who killed off Human Torch flat-out said that he did so to show the Fantastic Four in one direction and had no problems if someone else found a way to bring him back (which he did). Another example would be Superior Spider Man: everyone knew Peter Parker was going to come back at some point, but it worked because it allowed some stories and interactions that you couldn't do with Parker behind the wheel.

I agree mainly with point on writers being too retcon-happy. It's one thing to do something different with a character and even reinterpret past events, but no one likes it when you make years of stories straight-up not happen. It's a sign of great writing when you can take past events that you don't like and not only keep them canon but actually use them to go in the direction you want (see: how Chris Claremont saved Ms. Marvel).

If you want superhero comic universes that for the most part keep the continuity pretty straight, I'd recommend Valiant and some of the stuff from Image, both of which benefit from much shorter running-times and having something of an architect controlling things.

This is part of the problem. Continuity is basically at the whim of potential hacks who can write out or retcon anything they don't care for or dislike.

This is exactly what happened with One More Day. even as someone who isn't a huge spiderman fan the entire thing was so incredibly dumb and based entirely on quesada's own personal views of what spider-man should be as a character. a much simpler solution would have been to create a different, alternate universe where peter is still single instead of messing with the "main continuity".

there's no real problem with characters continuing to have stories. the problem is insisting that all stories take place in the exact same universe and trying to reconcile the visions of several hundred different writers and artists, while trying to justify the setup for potential future adventures (which, again, leads to stupid stuff like Cardboard Prison).

if every book took place in its own continuity that wouldn't be an issue. it would allow for one artistic team to tell a story with no limits; you could tell the entire life-story of a character and have that version of the universe come to a definitive *end*, and follow it up with a completely different universe in the next book with different versions of the characters. of course i realize that this is pretty impractical and i think there wouldn't be enough people who would actually want things to be this way but it's the only solution i can think of that would satisfy me.

edited 29th Sep '14 4:36:51 PM by wehrmacht

I'd like to come in to say that Italian comics (Diabolik, DylanDog and all the Disney-original characters) suffer from the opposing problem. There are different authors writing them and each one is obliged to keep the status quo immobile after each book. This results in varying characterisation (Diabolik and Eva can be ruthless killers, show a perverse sense of justice, or be almost Robin Hood figures), rushed introductions to the new cast, and little chance to get endeared to them (they are usually dead by the end). And the constraint doesn't actually mean continuity is saved: you have to wonder when Clerville will run out of nobles and millionaires with more money than scruples, and origin stories are up for grabs.

As you said, here too I would like to see more writers given their own mini-continuities to do their own thing. This started unofficially in Topolino when I stopped reading it, with some writers/artists setting up their own side cast, referring to their past stories and using their own distinctive style to differ from the rest. It would be a good compromise between company and creator ownership.

At this point in time, the way they handle continuity is an inevitability because they've been around since the 30s.

And unfortunately, reboots from either company don't help at all.

Here's a question I've been thinking about for a few minutes. How much continuity do think it is reasonable for the writers to manage, and at what point do they just ignore stuff to keep it from getting unwieldy?

Also, my first post in the comic sections, so Hi there.

edited 6th Oct '14 10:25:56 PM by grandphoenix

I think the problem with the shared universe, besides having too many cooks in the kitchen, as it was previously intimated, is that they crossover way too often.

I was more a Marvel reader than a DC one but one thing DC did better was that the Legion Of Superheroes was largely kept away from what everyone else was doing. Yes, they crossed over with Superman, but that was mainly just to get them started. If they met anyone else it was a special occasion. Compare that with how Marvel does the X-men, especially Wolverine. You know I didn't mind a book specifically about Spider-man teaming up with people. He teamed up with someone different each time and they were gone, he largely remained believable as a loner. Spider-man appearing in the third issue of everyone else's book though? That was my issue.

There was one other thing DC did better than Marvel. New York. Or that 99% of its stories did not revolve around one city. Yeah, Thor might be from Asgard, which in Marvel world is its own multidimensional realm comparable to the visible universe as we know it, his Hammer may have been found in Iceland or some part of Europe, but he's primarily seen in New York. The Hulk may be a perpetual traveler who is drawn to a spot in the desert, but he's primarily seen in New York. Wolverine may be a Canadian, but he might as well be a New Yorker for all the time we see him there. No wonder Spider-man appears in the third issue.

I will also say that DC's "Universe" is better put together than Marvels. When they did those reboots, they did them with a unifying purpose. Unfortunately, despite being easier to understand and probably to write for, this didn't actually make for better stories, as many characters suffered under the reboots (Wonder Woman, Legion Of Superheroes, New Gods, Green Lantern, dare I say Superman himself) because they did not really fit in with the new writer's vision. In fact, Marvel would probably be the better universe to reboot since Jack Kirby made most of it anyway. Give the X mutants Legion Of Treatment and you're set.

I think everything, broadly speaking, should remain in continuity. If it was printed and published, it happened to the character. That's the simplest way to go.

That doesn't mean writers have to refer to it. Just assume that, for example, if Batman fought Joe the Goon in Batman 420 or something that it still happened, but it's just like a visit to the grocery store a year ago: something routine that will probably never be mentioned again.

Continuity is just consistency. It's not a set of handcuffs that keep good stories from being told. But by the same token, do we really need another version of Superman's origin, or Batman's first meeting with the Joker? Sometimes writers just need to stop revisiting old material and keep moving forward.

edited 10th Oct '14 6:15:37 AM by andersonh1

I also get a tad frustrated with how DC and Marvel handle their continuity, especially when it comes to certain teams or characters having multiple books and they are supposedly taking place in the same time line. At this point, however, I am used to Marvel and DC constantly rebooting and retconning their titles, even though I don't usually agree with some of the decisions being made. If they retcon stories that were considered terrible or really never made any sense in the long scheme of things, then I'm all for it as long as they handle that situation with care. Like for example, if they were to retcon the entire "Avengers vs. X-Men" event, I wouldn't mind that at all since I didn't like the story to begin with, but I could imagine all that wasted potential for not exploring the ramifications of this event (which is what Marvel is doing right now).

All in all, I think that both Marvel and DC should handle their continuities a bit better if they are going to have so many books that have the same character in five or more books if they want to establish a more organized continuity.

That stops being simple really quickly when you start having to reconcile a lot of contradictory material. You pretty much wind up redefining continuity in every story based on what you decide to include that week.

I actually agree with this. I think the reason why they decided to not handle continuity very well or have a lack of continuity in their stories is because of how many stories are so different from each other in terms of how the characters act or the situations they get involved in and that would get pretty confusing for the readers if they are not sure how the character really acts or what really happened in that situation. I think the easiest thing to do is to look at that writer's version of the character and decide for yourself whether or not you want this material to be in cannon.

Grant Morrison figured out a way to have just about every Batman story in continuity. You still have to handwave a few things, but by and large it works, or did until the latest universe-altering reboot. It can be done.

Don't DC and Marvel make use of multiple timelines/universes? In other words, it's a handy excuse to allow anything to happen.

There was a She-Hulk story from a while back that seemed to more or less imply that anytime you see a hero doing something grossly out of character or something that contradicts established canon, it's actually a multiversal counterpart from another dimension called Earth-A.

I used to view comicbook continuity as something of a long-running soap opera/pro wrestling hybrid, but even that mindset eventually makes things look stale. Instead, I've come to consider every story as its own independent event - kinda like how the Super Mario cast can fight to fiery death in one game, and go karting in another.

Thus, as far as any single story is concerned, the only things that have "happened" beforehand, are the ones explicitly referenced by the plot itself. Same goes for out-of-character moments - don't like seeing Iron Man go all eisenfurher on other capes or the general populace? Well, simply skip the next half a dozen issues, or pick up a side story you like better.

Still, I do like how Dark Horse stories are pre-numbered, so you know how many you need to get, and how rare crossovers are. It's rather irritating when you're going on an archive binge for a title of a character you like, and then you get a "continued in issue ### of [comic you're not following]" sign - and both of the big two are guilty of that. At least Marvel has the decency to offer first page recaps, while DC fails to do even that little favor for reader convenience.

In short, continuity issues don't bug me, but the marketing gimmicks can be really annoying.

edited 14th Jan '15 7:43:22 AM by indiana404

I agree with Indiana, but our solutions with the problem the self-imposed Snicket Warning Label.

If there's an entertaining, interesting or heartwarming element to a comic book story that I enjoy, the only way I'll be able to keep my enjoyment of it is to stop reading at some arbitrary mark. While yes, most changes in direction are marked by a difference in creative team, that isn't always the case. Likewise, what if the interesting premise that draws you in comes at the end of one run?

Yeah, it's not something I can think of an answer for (other than writers not sucking...but if I could enforce that, there'd be virtually no problems with comics in the first place).

I dislike DC's position of Comic continuity creates an entrance barrier so lets change continuity so that rather than being able to check Wikipedia to know what has happened no one at all knows what actually happened.

Again, agreed.

I find it even more stupid that their solution to "fixing" continuity is to do an in-universe retcon. Which means that the retcons are now....part of the continuity.