Reboots and changes
madtitan2112
Posts: 16
Sometimes I feel like I am the only comics fan who finds Character and continuity important. I hear many people say that ALL they care about is that it is a good story. If i felt that way I would probably stop reading comics because all my time would be taken with reading literature in novel form. I love to read comics BECAUSE of the history and characterization. Am I odd to think that giving anyone a red and blue webbed suit and powers does not make them spider-man? and when Peter Parker is made to do something that goes against how his character has been written for years just to fit the story the writer has planned we should accept it and not complain just because it is well written. I don't just want to read "comics" I want to read spider-man, Captain America, etc, and if their attitudes and actions change too quickly and drastically I feel like they cease to be the same character that i have come to enjoy. I'm going to end my rant now and see what you guys have to say on the matter.
Comments
Quick changes are jarring, no doubt. This forum was awash and wringing their collective hands when Peter Parker sold out his marriage to keep Aunt May alive some years back. We swore we'd never read another Spider-Man comic ever again. A damn shame, because there were some great Spidey tales to come out of that reboot. The New 52 has certainly polarized some of the fandom, but I'm reading Aquaman and Wonder Woman for the first time on a regular basis and loving them.
The cop-out answer is if you're looking for those old stories that made you fall in love with the character, they're still there for you. Weak sauce answer, but there's a ring of truth to it. There's over four decades of Thor, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. stories that are still fun and compelling reads.
Even characters who don't have a long and storied history have their fans. I love me some Amethyst, but this new series doesn't look quite like what I remember, and it may not be anything like it at all. I'm still giving it a day in court, though, and who knows? I might enjoy it.
Other characters, such as Spider-Man, seem to flourish with continuity. His character, and a lot of the Marvel characters, are deeply rooted in the premise that issue-by-issue the character grows and develops. The early Marvels, in particular, had a very soap-opera ring to them.
Sometimes, what seems like continuity is really part of the core premise of the character, I feel. These are thing that are hard-wired into the character or series, things that are part of the magic formula. Without them, they would be better served to be another character altogether. Superman has to be smitten by Lois Lane (in my opinion that's non-negotiable), Batman has to be the avenger of his parents' deaths, Spider-Man has to be guilty for his uncle's murder.
Mary-Jane and the marriage? Stark's alcoholism? Kal-El's cousin being Supergirl? I would consider all of this continuity, and not crucial to the character. It may piss you off when they change these things, but I feel the characters remain intact.
I still enjoy comics, looking & reading them 30 years later. They are just changing leaving me behind to try new stuff or reread old stuff in collections aka Batman Knightfall tpbs & the upcoming COMPLETE Death & Return of Superman Omnibus (all the issues) in 2013.
Matthew
PS
I can't wait to read the wedding of Cyclops & Phoenix tpb for the 1st time as a DC fan getting into more X-Men.
As I grew up, I never bought one particular title; I just picked up whatever book on the spinner rack looked the coolest that month—and quite often the coolest book was a reprint title. The Batman in Brave & the Bold wasn't exactly the Batman in Detective. The Captain America in Marvel Super-Action (the reprint mag) wasn't exactly the Captain America in Captain America. But it never bothered me as long as the story was cool.
I'm still the same way. If the story is good, and the artwork is good, I’ll read it. But if a new writer or artist comes on board, and the quality drops—or the regular team just runs out of steam—I’ll just find something else to read. Yeah, there are certain characters I’m attached to more than others. Like, I'll give any new Aquaman series a shot, but if it’s not doing it for me, I’ll drop it and hope for something better next time. And I read just as many, if not more, indy titles than superhero titles.
Characterization is important to me, but not on the level you’re talking about. As long as Batman is driven by a desire for justice, doesn’t carry a gun, uses his brain as his most powerful weapon, and wears a utility belt, I’m good. I can enjoy the 1950s campy Batman (or the TV Brave and the Bold Batman) just as much as the 1970s Darknight Detective Batman, just as much as the “Batman: Year One” Batman. They all have different personalities, but the core of the character is there in each case. As long as Aquaman is king of the seven seas (or at least has abdicated or been removed from the throne) and can talk to fish, I’m good. I can enjoy Bob Haney/Nick Cardy’s family man Aquaman just as much as Peter David’s angry, brooding Aquaman, and just as much as Kurt Busiek’s fantasy-driven “is he Aquaman or isn’t he?” Aquaman. As long as the core values are there, and the finer points of characterization are consistent within the storyline, I say bring it on.
For as much of a comics history buff as I am, continuity doesn’t matter all that much to me when it comes to the Big Two. The histories of those characters are simply too long and rich—and told by too many different voices—in most cases. Continuity has to be somewhat fluid for things to make any semblance of sense. Take Batman, for instance. He’s been around for 75 years, but all you really need to know about his continuity is that his parents were murdered before his eyes when he was a child, he swore to avenge their deaths, he trained to the point of his physical and mental peak, and he donned a cape and cowl to inspire fear in the criminals he tracks down. That’s all you really need to know to be able to enjoy any Batman story written at any time in the character’s history. The rest is just window dressing. Yes, a beautiful curtain—say, Batman making Robin his ward and training him to fight crime because he saw himself in young Dick Grayson’s tragedy of having his parents murdered before his eyes—can make a room much more interesting and attractive, but it doesn’t affect its functionality.
In a lot of ways, I feel that a character’s continuity varies from reader to reader. Not many of us have read every single story of a long-standing character’s existence. So our perception of that character’s continuity is shaped by the stories we have read—or have been told about either by friends or message boards, or through reading historical books and magazines, etc. And, obviously, not everyone’s perception is going to be exactly the same. And I understand what you say about jarring changes, but I look at that as a problem with story continuity, not character continuity, which is much broader in scope.
When the Marvel superhero line (re-)started up in the ’60s, they had a very small number of titles and only one writer, so it was very easy to keep a strong, tight-knit continuity going. They weren't able to expand their line until 1969, and by that point their continuity was part of their DNA, plus they knew they had a strong readership on college campuses, so, unlike DC, they maintained a tightly controlled continuity as long as possible. But with more expansion and years and years of stories, things eventually get bogged down.
See, I have a little trouble understanding why someone would choose to not read a comic based on the idea that it “doesn’t matter.” Do any comic book stories really matter in the grand scheme of things? In the immortal words of writer/editor extraordinaire Archie Goodwin, “Shit, man, it’s only comics.” This was not spoken as a disparagement. Goodwin loved comics, and loved creating them, but he saw them for what they are: an artform; a medium of storytelling; and, at the basest level, entertainment. And that’s pretty much the way I see it too.
I'm not saying you’re wrong for thinking the way you do, and I know you’re far from the only person who does. But if you were enjoying the story, why stop reading it? To me it’s like eating half a piece of pie and saying, “Man, this is really good pie, but they’re changing the recipe next week, so I’m not going to finish what’s on my plate.”
I would not goes so far as saying it is against his character, he did trade a life for a marriage.
For me continuity is important and it is the main reason I read as many titles through good times and bad times and probably why I read mostly Marvel. I am old enough to remember when DC had no real continuity and then embraced the idea, only to try to wipe it clean with the original Crisis. Since then I have only picked up hand full of runs from any DC titles where in the same time I have not missed any issues of my core Marvel titles (Spider-Man, Captain America, Iron Man, FF, Avengers) When money became an issue DC was always first on the chopping block because I had no history with any of their characters. Right before The New 52 I was getting the most titles from DC that I ever had at any other time but when they introduced the New 52 I did not look on it as "Oh Boy a chance to get on the ground floor of DC characters" I looked at it like "Here We Go Again" and ended up getting less titles then I was before the New 52.
I know a lot of people wish that Marvel would do like DC and wipe everything clean. They like the idea of no history so it would make it easier for them to jump onto new titles. Writers like the idea because it would make their job easier do but I cannot stand the idea. If Marvel ever did that it might be the one thing poverty and 90's comics could not do...drive me away from comics.
I've always enjoyed Keith Giffen's CBR article on continuity vs consistency and I think he hits the nail on the head.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=15750
Actually, that’s probably what he calls them too, when fans aren’t listening.