Advertisement

When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:54 am

The Shadow wrote:

OK, then my question on Superman is doubly asked as if you view his continuity as having started in or after Crisis, Superman killed Zod in issues #21 and 22... that's less than two years of his current (and according to you, his only) continuity.


Superman didn't kill Zod. Read it again.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Advertisement

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 75987
Likes: 391 posts
Liked in: 546 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:07 am

Spektre wrote:
Interesting. So for you, a character's continuity can be different for each person. Sort of like "continuity is what I say it is."


Jesus Christ dude.

Spider-Man's 616 Universe comic book continuity is controlled by Marvel. They produce the stories, and we as readers accept that they decide what is and is not a part of that continuity. Empowered by this duty, Marvel can make retcons to Spider-Man's continuity. Barring a mass exodus of readers from Marvel's version of Spider-Man's 616 universe continuity, it is the official version.

If I stopped reading Spider-Man at OMD, I would have an understanding of Spider-Man's continuity up to that point, and that might be complete and satisfying for me. And I could tell people that, and they would understand and accept that. It's my choice what to believe as a reader.

But if I start telling people that my understanding is the one true understanding and theirs is wrong, they would rightfully laugh at me, because it is commonly accepted by all reasonable people that Marvel's continuity is the official one.

So as you can see, comic book continuity in practice is a complicated thing that your definition is not adequate to describe.

I'll give you an example.

Marvel published a GI Joe comic book in the eighties. Written by Larry Hama, this book was beloved by a lot of people, myself included, and ran 155 issues. Around 2000, Image and Devil's Due began publishing a new GI Joe series. This series, called originally G.I. Joe Reinstated, and running through several different versions over the next ten years or so. This series purported to continue the story from Marvel's series, and this was accepted by most readers, and so it was true.

Then, a few years ago, IDW got the license for GI Joe, and decided to reboot it. A new continuity was started, which people recognized as separate from the Marvel/Image one, just as they recognize the Marvel one as separate from the various cartoons or the movies. Then, complicating matters further, IDW created a new series called G.I. Joe: Real American Hero, which brings back Larry Hama (who wrote every episode of the old series) and picks up at issue #155.5, immediately following the Marvel series. It retcons the entire Image portion of the continuity.

It's also a better book than the Image book, written by the same writer as the old Marvel series, and provides a better continuation of that continuity. And so, it is readily accepted by readers as such, because it is the best viable option for people who wish to continue reading stories set in that continuity. For someone like myself, who enjoyed/s all three series, I am perfectly capable of accepting this, enjoying all three series, and reconciling all of this within my mind without resorting to declaring that each one created a new set of characters and thus invalidating the very thing I'm seeking, a continuation of stories starring particular characters in a particular universe.

This is only possible because I and the other people reading these books, the readers, the audience, collectively agree that is true. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart. All three companies could publish books, and people could read them, but there could be no continuity in any sense that comic book fandom as a whole perceives it.

It's not perfect, but life isn't fucking perfect.

And this is not life. It's fucking comic books. It's like a zillion times less important than most other things in the grand scheme of things.

You are entitled to your rigid definition and hardline attitude about what continuity means to you personally, but to suggest that you and a few like-minded individuals are right while everyone else is wrong is silly and arrogant, and opens you up to the kind of ridicule you are apparently treated with all over the internet and which you wear as a badge of honor which is itself a defense mechanism.

I have a very clear, sober, and rational grasp of this entire clusterfuck.
Image
I LOVE BLUD BLOOD! - Rob Liefeld

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:45 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Jesus Christ dude.

Spider-Man's 616 Universe comic book continuity is controlled by Marvel. They produce the stories, and we as readers accept that they decide what is and is not a part of that continuity. Empowered by this duty, Marvel can make retcons to Spider-Man's continuity. Barring a mass exodus of readers from Marvel's version of Spider-Man's 616 universe continuity, it is the official version.

If I stopped reading Spider-Man at OMD, I would have an understanding of Spider-Man's continuity up to that point, and that might be complete and satisfying for me. And I could tell people that, and they would understand and accept that. It's my choice what to believe as a reader.

But if I start telling people that my understanding is the one true understanding and theirs is wrong, they would rightfully laugh at me, because it is commonly accepted by all reasonable people that Marvel's continuity is the official one.

So as you can see, comic book continuity in practice is a complicated thing that your definition is not adequate to describe.

I'll give you an example.

Marvel published a GI Joe comic book in the eighties. Written by Larry Hama, this book was beloved by a lot of people, myself included, and ran 155 issues. Around 2000, Image and Devil's Due began publishing a new GI Joe series. This series, called originally G.I. Joe Reinstated, and running through several different versions over the next ten years or so. This series purported to continue the story from Marvel's series, and this was accepted by most readers, and so it was true.

Then, a few years ago, IDW got the license for GI Joe, and decided to reboot it. A new continuity was started, which people recognized as separate from the Marvel/Image one, just as they recognize the Marvel one as separate from the various cartoons or the movies. Then, complicating matters further, IDW created a new series called G.I. Joe: Real American Hero, which brings back Larry Hama (who wrote every episode of the old series) and picks up at issue #155.5, immediately following the Marvel series. It retcons the entire Image portion of the continuity.

It's also a better book than the Image book, written by the same writer as the old Marvel series, and provides a better continuation of that continuity. And so, it is readily accepted by readers as such, because it is the best viable option for people who wish to continue reading stories set in that continuity. For someone like myself, who enjoyed/s all three series, I am perfectly capable of accepting this, enjoying all three series, and reconciling all of this within my mind without resorting to declaring that each one created a new set of characters and thus invalidating the very thing I'm seeking, a continuation of stories starring particular characters in a particular universe.

This is only possible because I and the other people reading these books, the readers, the audience, collectively agree that is true. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart. All three companies could publish books, and people could read them, but there could be no continuity in any sense that comic book fandom as a whole perceives it.

It's not perfect, but life isn't fucking perfect.

And this is not life. It's fucking comic books. It's like a zillion times less important than most other things in the grand scheme of things.

You are entitled to your rigid definition and hardline attitude about what continuity means to you personally, but to suggest that you and a few like-minded individuals are right while everyone else is wrong is silly and arrogant, and opens you up to the kind of ridicule you are apparently treated with all over the internet and which you wear as a badge of honor which is itself a defense mechanism.

I have a very clear, sober, and rational grasp of this entire clusterfuck.


Interesting, so your clusterfuck, to use the vernacular, is that continuity is an agreement between the writer and the reader, except when the reader doesn't accept it and then they make their own continuity, except that the company makes it own continuity. Mhmm, Mhmm, I see where you are going with this clear and concise idea of continuity you have.

Are there any OTHER contradictory ideas of continuity you'd like to express?

Image
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 75987
Likes: 391 posts
Liked in: 546 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:57 am

This is why you have no friends.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:21 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:This is why you have no friends.


LOL
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

The Beast
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2137
Likes: 193 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:56 pm
Location: The True North, strong and free!
Title: Chronic MasterDebator


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby The Beast » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:47 am

Spektre wrote:
Superman didn't kill Zod. Read it again.


Sure he did, Q Bert tried to beat him to the punch but there's no indication that the kryptonite didn't kill them both before he could finish Zod off.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:48 am

Ntikrst wrote:
Sure he did, Q Bert tried to beat him to the punch but there's no indication that the kryptonite didn't kill them both before he could finish Zod off.


Nope.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

The Beast
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2137
Likes: 193 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:56 pm
Location: The True North, strong and free!
Title: Chronic MasterDebator


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby The Beast » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:49 am

Spektre wrote:
Nope.


Yup.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:54 am

Ntikrst wrote:
Yup.


Nope.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

The Beast
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2137
Likes: 193 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:56 pm
Location: The True North, strong and free!
Title: Chronic MasterDebator


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby The Beast » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:57 am

Spektre wrote:
Nope.


Prove it.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:02 am

Ntikrst wrote:
Prove it.


You're the one claiming a character is acting contrary to his basic nature. You prove it.

(I like this negation method of PDH, it's easy to be lazy this way.)
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:04 am

And with that I have to leave you for a couple days (I know! Contain your sorrow!)

I have a presentation for my Congressman Friday that I need to prepare for.

Don't worry, I'll be back.

(A parting gift)
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Dru-Zod_(Pocket_Universe)
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

The Beast
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2137
Likes: 193 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:56 pm
Location: The True North, strong and free!
Title: Chronic MasterDebator


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby The Beast » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:12 am

Spektre wrote:
You're the one claiming a character is acting contrary to his basic nature. You prove it.


Oh nay nay, you're the one claiming an established event isn't in continuity. Even your sacred cow Waid acknowledges it, so the onus is on you to disprove what everyone else in the comic book community accepts as fact.

The Beast
User avatar
cheese
 
Posts: 2137
Likes: 193 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:56 pm
Location: The True North, strong and free!
Title: Chronic MasterDebator


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby The Beast » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:18 am



This will be waiting for you.

Image

Reality > Some random fuckwad wikia contributor.

Spektre
User avatar
dINGO
 
Posts: 3293
Likes: 105 posts
Liked in: 116 posts
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:14 am


Re: When a retcon isn't a bad thing.

Postby Spektre » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:24 am

Ntikrst wrote:
This will be waiting for you.

Image

Reality > Some random fuckwad wikia contributor.


Yep, I see Quex-Ul strangle Zod to death. That was easy.

Where in the world would you get that Waid was MY sacred cow?
Last edited by Spektre on Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Continuity is or it is not. There is no such thing as soft continuity.
- A character IS his continuity.
- Continuity is consistency of the characteristics of people, plot, objects, and places seen by the reader or viewer.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 41 guests

Advertisement