This. Trades are much easier on the wallet. And Writing for the Trade is very irritating, since it often leads to padding and pacing problems.
That's true, but I don't see what it has to do with Continuity Lock-Out. This is assuming that people want to read comics in the first place.
And yeah, I did actually read a few random comics starting from around 1995 (one of my earliest comics was an Avengers issue where Loki had them in another dimension or something, and in that case I was confused as to what was happening), and I had some prior knowledge thanks to shows like Batman: TAS, a few video games, card games, and action-figures, but I wasn't really serious about it until around the time 52 came out. I think comics are seen as more acceptable now than when I was growing up, even though sales-wise it will probably never reach it's previous heights.
For we shall slay evil with logic...It's not clear that reboots even bring in new readership.
It's been suggested that Ultimate Marvel's readership consisted mostly of people who already read comics.
New 52's readership probably consists of lapsed comics readers.
Honestly, The Sandman probably brought more people to comics than either of the reboots.
edited 27th Sep '12 12:27:30 PM by Distortion00
I don't think the surge was because the first Crisis was a reboot per se. It was because the Crisis solved many of the DC Universe's longstanding problems, and introduced a stable, productive, coherent universe that could support strong stories and characterizations, and could go a long time without requiring further tinkering.
Most subsequent reboots, on the other hand, have done one or more of the following:
- Re-introduced problems that the first Crisis solved
- Fouled up characters that were working perfectly well
- Brought back Silver Age characters & elements that were often less interesting than their post-Crisis replacements
- Left continuity messier rather than neater
In other words: a reboot will be popular if it solves more problems than it introduces, and if it results in a stable universe that won't undergo additional reboots. Every post-Crisis reboot has failed these two criteria miserably. Now, even the temporary flare of interest that the idea of a reboot brings is yielding diminishing returns.
I'd argue it didn't even do that. In particular, the Crisis screwed up The Legion Of Superheroes, Wonder Woman and Hawkman pretty fierce. (There's a reason the latter is the trope pic for Continuity Snarl). Zero Hour was created specifically to fix the first Crisis, and there were tons of tweaks and minor retcons beyond that.
Also, recent years have argued that the first Crisis was largely unnecessary and driven mostly by marketing rather than any problems with continuity.
I grant your examples, but still think that they're exceptions to the more general good outcomes. And typically for post-Crisis reboots, Zero Hour introduced more problems than it solved.
I also admit to some personal prejudice: ZH reintroduced one of my least favorite DC elements (the GL Corps), and tried to virtually eliminate one of my favorites (the JSA).
And the arguments against the Crisis aren't very persuasive to anyone who isn't besotted with the Silver Age. (Any continuity that has room for Weisinger's Superman inherently deserves to be demolished, the debris burned down, and the ground sown with salt.)
edited 28th Sep '12 9:32:13 AM by Jhimmibhob
Zero Hour tried to bring back the Corps? I don't remember that.
In any case, my personal problem with the first Crisis is that it (reputedly) tried to fix a problem that is logically impossible to fix. You can't undo continuity. Even an Ultimate Universe or adaptation can't undo it, because those universes are still beholden to the source material. Otherwise, why not just make a new IP to begin with. Frankly, DC had the right idea in declaring the multiverse the galactic Recycle Bin. Their problems began when they then tried to delete the Recycle Bin.
Marvel, as I've said before, has had the right idea (usually). Rather than trying to destroy its own multiverse, Marvel enriches it.
I still think there's a happy medium to be found. Actually, I find Marvel sporadically unreadable because of the very trait you mention: because no one's willing to clear out the weeds and undo the bad decisions of predecessors, their continuity is at the mercy of the worst hack who's ever worked on a particular title or storyline. Destroying certain parts of their multiverse is the only thing that can enrich it past a certain mediocre point.
Yeah, I don't see how.
DC never even destroyed its multiverse. It just made the rules even more arbitrary and convoluted. For example, not long after Crisis, they did a reboot of the General Zod storyarc that involved Superman going to a "pocket dimension" Earth. Other stories involved new versions of Earth-Three (Crime Syndicate) caleld the "Anti-Matter" universe and new alternate realities and timelines.
So there are still different Earths with different timelines and chains of events? How the fuck is this different than a multiverse? Is this the same Anti-Matter universe that the Anti-Monitor wrecked shit from, or a different one? The explanations for these questions became even dumber, because editorial couldn't keep their stories straight and those same hack writers and execs you were just talking about messed things up even worse.
I don't know what you mean when you say that Marvel's multiverse is a mess, because some of the best storylines Marvel's ever done have involved alternate realities. Marvel Twenty Ninety Nine, The Age Of Apocalypse, Sixteen Oh Two, Exiles, Mutant X, Spider-girl, etc, etc.
Sorry, I misspoke. I was referring more to Marvel's main-universe continuity than its "multiverse"—which, I grant you, they handle pretty well. And you're right that Crisis had barely hit the newsstands before some DC writers were picking at the new threads and trying to undermine the narrative consistency they'd just established. But that's not an indictment of the Crisis, it's an indictment of undisciplined, lazy creators who were finally allowed to run roughshod over its hard-won results.
I hate major retcons. I think if you buy an old issue then the events of that issue should basically have happened. I don't mind it so much if it turns out Nefera teleported before the explosion, or Ben and Logan met before, or Alicia was secretly a Skrull, or Ultron was lying, or Nick Fury was secretly manipulating the events or even if Wanda hallucenated that scene. Obviously these can often be stupid additions, so can anything a writer decides to do, but on principle I don't mind them.
But the big magic retcons which state that events are now drasticaly different from how they were originaly depicted. DC jumped that gun back with Crisis. For Marvel the two major things are the Sentry being involved in various major events and Peter and MJ not being married. I'm not sure Marvel even did these on post FF#1stuff prior to the turn of the century, barring the quickly undone Chapter One.
Am I a good man or a bad man?It's one in the same. The Crisis made it impossible for alternate universes/timelines/whatever to exist without bad writing. Because when you say "alternate realities no longer exist", there's no way to tell that type of story anymore. Whether the writer is good or bad doesn't matter, because the only ones that WILL be able to use such a plot device ARE good writers. Which means the mediocre-to-bad writers will make even worse plots because they have to screw up that rule first.
It's the same with any arbitrary limitation. For example, when Joe Quesada made his "Dead Means Dead" decree in the mid 2000s, it screwed up a lot of shit because it meant all of those characters that got killed off (The New Warriors, Hawkeye, etc.) were not allowed to come back to life. . . . Except they were anyway, through the most contrived bullshit imaginable. Even Quesada himself has stated how dumb a decision it was, and I called it the moment he made it.
I recall there being some big event like Avengers Disassembled that killed off a whole bunch of characters in the most unglamorous fashion possible. This was during Marvel's "Nu Marvel" phase (when Marvel was trying to make their main universe "realistic"—their movies were just starting to become popular, Ultimate Marvel was cleaning house, and all of their characters practiced Movie Superheroes Wear Black and were still torn between Spandex, Latex, or Leather). The problem was they were saying "Dead Means Dead" and rushed to start dropping bridges on as many characters as possible for shock value. NOT a good idea.
edited 28th Sep '12 2:35:25 PM by KingZeal
You are wrong.
Simply declaring something to have never happened because you don't like it is a terrible way to do things in a non-comedic story. There's always somebody who doesn't like something, and if they become a writer or editor, they can and will retcon it out of existence on the grounds that destroying certain parts of their multiverse is the only thing that can enrich it past a certain mediocre point.
And even if the writer doesn't necessarily hate an idea, simple having a policy like this in place gives them permission to throw out perfectly good continuity because they think they can do better, and then we're in teh situation where nothing at all matters because it keeps getting retconned.
A good writer will take a bad situation and turn it into something good. One More Day illustrates both sides of this very well. Joe Quesada decided to throw out good, established continuity because he liked the situation from the 60s and 70s; this made the fans angry. Now, Im a Marvel and Im a DC managed to take this situation and do something really cool and interesting with it. That's the sort of thing a good writer does when faced with a crap situation - make good of it, rather than ignoring it.
Why?
OK, Marvel's Ultimate Universe took a lot from the primary continuity, but that was a decision made by the company rather than an inherent fact of ultimate universes. After all, look at Transformers - that meta-franchise has all sorts of adaptations and ultimate universes, and they usually differ radically. Even if you just compare the G1 cartoon to the Marvel comic, characters like Grimlock, Shockwave, and Zarak/Scorponok are noticeably different between versions.
Ukrainian Red CrossI suppose that's true. What defines a Mirror Universe or Ultimate Universe, though, is that it still runs concurrently to the old continuity. So fans who like the original better can still read it.
But when you reboot a franchise that never concluded or was concluded hastily, any changes you make will be directly compared to what was lost. Anyone who, for example, was interested in seeing what would happen if Superboy managed to grow up like Nightwing eventually did will be sadly disappointed, because the rebooted character is pretty much In Name Only.
Oh, absolutely. That's why an ultimate universe is preferable to me - it gives new fans a story without all the accumulated baggage that might confuse them, while the existing fans get to keep reading the story they're already enjoying.
Ukrainian Red Cross![]()
![]()
I'll repeat: there's a possibility in between the two extremes. The bad scenario you're outlining pretty much describes DC, which of course I don't recommend for a second. To my mind, the main Marvel universe would benefit from a sweeping, well-planned, strictly enforced set of retcons—if one could be sure they wouldn't be meddled with henceforward (a big "if"). I understand your disagreement, and that's fine: neither of us is wrong. It simply means that Marvel's primary continuity has become the sort of thing some readers (like you) can enjoy for what it's worth, but the sort of thing others (like me) generally can't anymore.
Well, no shit comics could benefit from "a sweeping and well-coordinated" series of retcons. That's like saying the planet would benefit by appoint the most benevolent dictator ever as the unquestioned lord and master of Earth.
Of course it would. Good luck making it realistically happen in a world where no one can be trusted with so much power.
I was referring specifically to Marvel: a company that likes to stand on the principle of avoiding retcons, period—whether well-conceived or not. "Of course" would not describe their sentiments on this point.
Additionally, I think you're underestimating the discipline that a publishing company can bring to to use of its intellectual properties ... if it actually wants to. Editors and writers are not impossible to rein in; house rules are largely enforceable when the inmates aren't running the asylum, and the people at the top aren't just throwing crap at the wall. (And even when the poster is mixing metaphors.)
edited 30th Sep '12 9:27:26 AM by Jhimmibhob
A good comic just explains (gracefully) the continuity that it's referencing. Want to use the fact that Cyclops was abandoned on an island, even though most people don't know that? Show it in a flashback. Also, make sure reprints are readily available for people to want to read the story.
Bad writing doesn't seem to even hinder good stories that much. Ultimatum didn't kill UMS. Jones's Green Lantern retconned bad writing by adding rather than subtracting.
edited 5th Oct '12 10:32:09 AM by Distortion00

I would say the biggest problem is the pricing, there is a reason I only buy trades and only once in a while. Paying 3 dollars for 10-15 minutes of entertainment is not reasonable. The fact that a single comic almost never contains even half a story anymore doesn't help that any.