In the newest (June 2015) Justice League of America #1, from Brian Hitch, I am confused.
Here is a JLA featuring Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman while there is an ongoing Justice League title (Geoff Johns) with pretty much the same heroes, but as entirely different characters and they're involved in the Darkseid War.
I suppose that JLA #1 has to take place before the TRUTH storyline in the ongoing Superman title, because Superman literally says to one character "nobody knows my identity!" While globally, the whole world knows. Hal is also no longer an intergalactic outlaw, or he hasn't become one yet. Also, no Rob-Bat Bunny is anywhere to be found...
So, is this the New 52 version of the JLA? Then shouldn't this book have come out a year ago? I realize Hitch has developed a rep for being late, but that would be a pretty serious delay. This title seems so out of step with continuity that's going on in books out this month so I'm really befuddled. Is this the Super Friends? It's less consistent than that!
The protagonist even refers to time being fluid, and things changing - it was kind of meta. So, does DC truly no longer care about continuity or even what's going on currently? Is this the new normal? Even if their just wanting "to tell good stories," can they not do so while rewarding long-time readers with a bit of history?
So, does DC truly no longer care about continuity or even what's going on currently? Is this the new normal?
This is inevitable when you have multiple titles with the same character(s). How many versions of Spider-Man are there right now?
Back to DC, Superman and Wonder Woman were dating and meanwhile the Azzarello Wonder Woman book had nothing to do with the rest of the DC universe -- none at all.
I'm not going to complain because the new JLA (at least issue #1) is pretty good, and the Johns Justice League is great, one of the best superhero comics being produced right now. I'm able to enjoy them separately just as I was able to enjoy WW while also reading Justice League.
Continuity no longer matters and stories just happen without being specific to timeframe among the different books in the universe - at least until the next line wide crossover
This is inevitable when you have multiple titles with the same character(s). How many versions of Spider-Man are there right now?
But they all match with the other current continuity (unless we know going in that we are in an alternate universe). If DC would tell me this is Earth 2 or an Elseworlds title that would completely alleviate any confusion.
This is inevitable when you have multiple titles with the same character(s). How many versions of Spider-Man are there right now?
But they all match with the other current continuity (unless we know going in that we are in an alternate universe). If DC would tell me this is Earth 2 or an Elseworlds title that would completely alleviate any confusion.
Continuity no longer matters and stories just happen without being specific to timeframe among the different books in the universe - at least until the next line wide crossover
This is inevitable when you have multiple titles with the same character(s). How many versions of Spider-Man are there right now?
But they all match with the other current continuity (unless we know going in that we are in an alternate universe). If DC would tell me this is Earth 2 or an Elseworlds title that would completely alleviate any confusion.
Continuity no longer matters and stories just happen without being specific to timeframe among the different books in the universe - at least until the next line wide crossover
Also long time readers no longer matter :-/
So how did you read bronze and silver age books?
There was a generally loose but fairly coherent continuity during those years. If they ever made a reference to another book or series, it would at least be recognizable as whatever was then current in those other books.
To my recollection, no matter which Superman book you read in the golden or silver age - that the list of people that knew a superheroe's secret identity remained fairly constant. This remained essentially consistent across the Marvel titles I read as well (Marvel Team-Up, Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker, Web of Spider-Man...) this is more than the character being In a different location in every book. This is the difference between the entire world knowing Clark Kent's identity and Superman getting upset that an individual shouldn't know his identity. It's like an alternate universe. And if that is what it is, inform the reader.
Would it bother a Daredevil fan if he still had his offices in Hell's Kitchen in say, an Avengers crossover, since such a big deal was made about him moving back to San Francisco in his own title? Probably. Now I can understand a few missteps and even come up with my own no-prize material for normal errors and oversights, but this looks like all the DC editors haven't even moved to Burbank yet!
I started reading around 1986 so silver age and bronze age books were not really an issue. When I did start going back around 2005 and reading silver/bronze age stuff in collected editons, you could see the beginnings of continuity in some titles. By the bronze age stuff, it was not "tight" but it was there to some degree.
There has always been some level of disconnect of continuity and characters being over exposed. I just think that the disconnect is greater now then it has been for a long time.
This is what the company wants and what they think will make money. If it leds to good stories- great. It just seems odd that a business which is always trying to get "new readers" would create a situation that could be utterly confusing to new readers & possibly frustrate old readers - having different versions of characters (and character histories) in flag ship level books.
I do think that the old idea of continuity is dead for the time being. The only real continuity now is within each book and the current creative team with that book. I am not sure if that is good for the long term, but maybe it will work.
Fanboy griping is easy when you look at how foolishly DC is handling characters of such a rich and storied 75 year history. You would have to go back to those early Silver and golden age books to find examples this side of "Superman is a Dick" to see DC's continuity and canon so far afield. I suppose there will always be plenty of DC apologists ready to plunk down another $6 for a new #1 though, in spite of any supposed flaws.
Maybe next month in JLA, Batman will reveal he's actually manbat, the Daily Planet will be located in San Diego and Wonder Woman's secret identity will be a drug addicted, pop superstar... But none of that will be referenced in the other Justice League book, or Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman's titles. See, I too can be a DC editor! The continuity consistency of the old Super Friends cartoon is good enough. As long as it's a good story, right? Haha
I don't expect the continuity between my books to be perfect. Heck, throw it out the window if you have to. But I expect my characters to be consistent. it sounds like the characters in the JLA books are failing in this regard.
I wouldn't call it fanboy griping. I don't think that sort of labeling moves the conversation forward. If a lack of consistency across titles hurts your enjoyment, if consistency is a thing for you, then that is valid. That is not fanboy griping. That is your own take.
However, I also think that worrying about the confusion of the new reader is a red herring. I think it is a well-intentioned one, because it comes from a place of evangelizing comics, and wanting them to last and grow. But when we worry about what might alienate a new reader, I think we should remind ourselves of two things--
One, that no two readers, new or old is alike. There could be a new reader that loves every book being a different Batman or Superman. And others that hate that. I also think you can't generalize about longtime readers. Given how many things in our comics we disagree with here, clearly we are not a monolith, either. Sure, I may be a 'DC Apologist' (another label that is of little use) but the fact that I can be labeled a thing so opposite of other guys roughly my age and reading experience is a reminder of how different readers can be.
That said though, I will generalize about new readers in this one way that I think they were different from us when most of us started reading: they live in a time when, if you pick up a Justice League comic, you already know the Justice League. And you probably already know several versions of at least Batman and Superman. Across animation, movies (sometimes across several reboots), and video games.
Again, I don't want to generalize too much, because that is what I am suggesting people not do, but if I were to guess at the bars to entry for new readers, it would not be a lack of consistency.
Because I cannot imagine a reader buying a Superman or Batman comic who does not already have a Batman, probably several, in their imagination. I think it would be a very rare kid who encounters Batman first on paper these days. So with their very first comic, this new reader is not asking 'What is a Batman?', but rather they are fitting this Batman in with the rest of the ones they know. Maybe even enjoying noticing what is different from the others. That this is the "comic Batman" and how that compares to the "Dark Knight movies Batman", etc.
So I would be surprised if a lack of consistency or continuity would be a big issue for that reader. Because they already don't have that across all the other mediums they know the character from.
I feel like, for some of us, the desire for consistency is rooted in a time when there was more scarcity. And the comics were the dominant steward of these characters.
(If I were to guess at the real bar for entry for new readers, it would be price.)
My desire for consistency is rooted in a desire for things to make sense on some level. Wanting that in a fictional creation with ever changing creators may be naive on my part.
Right now - key elements of DC make no sense inbetween books. They could fix that by explaining "why" things are this way. Even a ridiculous explanation is an explanation - it is comic books after all. I do not think they want to explain it now and will not explain it until they need a "big event" with everybody in it.
If there is no consistency, it makes it harder (at least for me) to invest in that product.
Right now - key elements of DC make no sense in between books. They could fix that by explaining "why" things are this way. Even a ridiculous explanation is an explanation - it is comic books after all. I do not think they want to explain it now and will not explain it until they need a "big event" with everybody in it.
If there is no consistency, it makes it harder (at least for me) to invest in that product.
I agree with this difficulty regarding my investment. Comics have gotten very expensive. And while I find the versions of the heroes in the new JLA #1 far more appealing than all the other titles' versions of those same heroes, all DC would need to do is add a little fan service for long-time readers giving us a brief explanation or set-up panel or caption explaining when/where this is happening.
My point was that if you look at Pre-Crisis DC, there was no explicit explanation as to which Earth most stories were taking place on. When Sgt Rock and Superman teamed up, it wasn't clear how that fit into continuity. Likewise, when the characters interacted with creators at DC. Superfriends wasn't consistent with Justice League. Yet somehow, these are the glory days of yore that so many people yearn for... "why can't we have fun comics again?" and all that stuff.
I like continuity. I like it a lot and think that the lack of "see issue ##" editor's boxes is one of the great losses in the medium. I also think that this is something that could be pretty easily addressed with one little uniform bit of cover dress - use a spine piece like every issue of Multiversity had to identify which earth is being featured in the book.
In absence of that, I assign my own assumptions. Pretty clearly, the book that I'm not reading don't take place on the Earth about which I am reading or, if they do, they're not significant enough to make the news.
Based on the gripe above, my assumption would be that one of the Justice League titles takes place on the New 52 Earth and another takes place on a different Earth. Likewise GL and the Justice League books.
There comes a point, were it's the perspective of the reader that is the barrier to enjoyment. I'm fully aware of it, as I stated over in the Secret Wars thread. I can see the merit in that event, I just couldn't find any enjoyment for myself and the mistreatment of the Shadowline Saga (the one thing that I was actively looking forward to) was enough for me to realize that, as much praise as it's getting, the current incarnation of Marvel just isn't for me - gods help me, I think that I'd rather go back to the days of Cap-Wolf (and most definitely to the Bronze age) rather than dig into the Quesada era. As much as I recognize the quality of some of the talent, I can't find the enthusiasm for it or the joy in it.
I just tend not to climb on the bullypulpit about it on a regular basis.
My point was that if you look at Pre-Crisis DC, there was no explicit explanation as to which Earth most stories were taking place on. When Sgt Rock and Superman teamed up, it wasn't clear how that fit into continuity. Likewise, when the characters interacted with creators at DC. Superfriends wasn't consistent with Justice League. Yet somehow, these are the glory days of yore that so many people yearn for... "why can't we have fun comics again?" and all that stuff.
Of course, we get your point. However, it seems to be forgotten that even when comics were "fun" they took the time to set things up or clear up inconsistency for the sake of the story. I pulled out World's Finest #153 (1965) to see how imaginary stories were handled back then.
This is the issue where Batman slaps Robin and a million memes were born on the internet 50 years later.
At the bottom of the splash page, where we see Batman discussing his hatred for Superman and blaming his parents' death on the man of steel, there's a set-up in text that reads:
The whole world knows of the warm friendship that has grown up between those two costumed partners, Batman and Superman! But suppose fate had ordained a different scheme of things, so that the masked manhunter actually hated the man of steel? Here, in this imaginary story, you will read what might have happened in... The Clash of Cape and Cowl! (World's Finest #153)
The cover even has a small banner which reads "An Imaginary Novel." So back in the Golden and Silver Age, DC actually bothered to give a bit of set-up.
I think that I'd rather go back to the days of Cap-Wolf (and most definitely to the Bronze age) .
The "days of Cap-Wolf" were part of Mark Gruenwald‘s 10 year run on Captain America and the werewolf storyline even crossed into Infinity War, so it's actually a fine example of consistent continuity (something which Gruenwald was especially concerned with).
Of course there were many exceptions. Particularly Bob "Zany" Haney's run on Brave & the Bold for example. Haney would just insert Batman and go, completely defying continuity, convention - and sometimes common sense. He wrote the dark detective's team-up stories the way he wanted to, often in outright contradiction to established DCU and Batman conventionality. Eventually it was canonized that Haney's Brave and the Bold Batman would be deemed to not be the Batman from Earth-One (i.e. within Silver and Bronze Age continuity) but rather a Batman living in an alternate reality called "Earth-B" - a term coined by Bob Rozakis.
I was not bothered at the time, probably because I was less than 10 years old reading them. I guess my older comic reading tastes have changed and DC is not suiting them with this editorial style. I guess we are of two different mindsets. I get the impression that you hold Marvel to a higher standard on consistency than you do DC. Maybe you prefer one publisher to the other? I hold them both to the same standards, but when compared I simply think Marvel is currently doing it better.
And Superman's teaming with Sgt Rock was explained in the context of the story: Supes had gone back in time.
Gone back in his own Earth 1 time. I glanced at the story last night. Superman says that there is no record of a Superman fighting with the Allies - which would eliminate Earth 2. No other of the other "standard" multiple Earths make sense either.
"I get the impression that you hold Marvel to a higher standard on consistency than you do DC."
For me, I would say the opposite is true. I have held DC to a higher standard because I felt I understood the DC universe and the company tried to make its universe make sense through some of its big events - Crisis, Zero Hour,etc. Sure, sometimes the fix created more problems (How did the Legion exist without there being a Superboy) but even then there was an explanation (pocket universe).
I have struggled with Marvel since "Heroes Reborn." A lot has not made sense to me. I am never really sure where to jump on. The floating time line is a ridiculous publishing trick that somehow works really well. That said, I have still enjoyed a lot of Marvel stuff over the last 15 years or so - Daredevil, Bendis & Hickman Avengers, Slott She Hulk, Thor, Haweye, etc. I am just not sure at times how it all fits together.
I do not really fault Marvel for this. I have not put the same time into Marvel that I have into DC. Maybe everything is clear and I am just not seeing it.
My point was that if you look at Pre-Crisis DC, there was no explicit explanation as to which Earth most stories were taking place on. When Sgt Rock and Superman teamed up, it wasn't clear how that fit into continuity. Likewise, when the characters interacted with creators at DC. Superfriends wasn't consistent with Justice League. Yet somehow, these are the glory days of yore that so many people yearn for... "why can't we have fun comics again?" and all that stuff.
Of course, we get your point. However, it seems to be forgotten that even when comics were "fun" they took the time to set things up or clear up inconsistency for the sake of the story. I pulled out World's Finest #153 (1965) to see how imaginary stories were handled back then.
This is the issue where Batman slaps Robin and a million memes were born on the internet 50 years later.
At the bottom of the splash page, where we see Batman discussing his hatred for Superman and blaming his parents' death on the man of steel, there's a set-up in text that reads:
The whole world knows of the warm friendship that has grown up between those two costumed partners, Batman and Superman! But suppose fate had ordained a different scheme of things, so that the masked manhunter actually hated the man of steel? Here, in this imaginary story, you will read what might have happened in... The Clash of Cape and Cowl! (World's Finest #153)
The cover even has a small banner which reads "An Imaginary Novel." So back in the Golden and Silver Age, DC actually bothered to give a bit of set-up.
I think that I'd rather go back to the days of Cap-Wolf (and most definitely to the Bronze age) .
The "days of Cap-Wolf" were part of Mark Gruenwald‘s 10 year run on Captain America and the werewolf storyline even crossed into Infinity War, so it's actually a fine example of consistent continuity (something which Gruenwald was especially concerned with).
Of course there were many exceptions. Particularly Bob "Zany" Haney's run on Brave & the Bold for example. Haney would just insert Batman and go, completely defying continuity, convention - and sometimes common sense. He wrote the dark detective's team-up stories the way he wanted to, often in outright contradiction to established DCU and Batman conventionality. Eventually it was canonized that Haney's Brave and the Bold Batman would be deemed to not be the Batman from Earth-One (i.e. within Silver and Bronze Age continuity) but rather a Batman living in an alternate reality called "Earth-B" - a term coined by Bob Rozakis.
I was not bothered at the time, probably because I was less than 10 years old reading them. I guess my older comic reading tastes have changed and DC is not suiting them with this editorial style. I guess we are of two different mindsets. I get the impression that you hold Marvel to a higher standard on consistency than you do DC. Maybe you prefer one publisher to the other? I hold them both to the same standards, but when compared I simply think Marvel is currently doing it better.
Yeah, I get that some of the fictional stories had setup. Others didn't Certainly the Haney stuff didn't until it was retconned to Earth B. My point remains the same. Accept the fact that where the continuities don't jive, they happen on different earths. That's pretty much what got set up with Convergence - all of the remaining cities ended up repopulating their own universes/multiverses within the polyverse. If that's too much work, or eliminates any joy you might find in the story, so be it. For me, it's a bit of a financial relief to know that I don't necessarily to read every Justice League title to follow my Justice League.
RE: Cap-Wolf - I cited that example as a dark time in the Marvel universe - not an issue with continuity, more an issue with some pretty bad storytelling across the board and yet, for me still a more enjoyable time than the current more tightly coordinated universe.
Besides Drax (just because I want to see how well CM Punk can write a comic book), Daredevil & Punisher nothing else Marvel is writing looks even the least bit interesting to me.
After reading the description, all I can really hope for is that the two of them have a special code language of burbles and thhppps that only they understand.
After reading the description, all I can really hope for is that the two of them have a special code language of burbles and thhppps that only they understand.
That would be nice.
The pitch is ... less than inspiring.
But still, this is just about the last DC title, shy of Bob Hope or Jerry Lewis, I would have expected to see revived.
I would read the shit out of a Bob Hope relaunch. I think it is a shame the Multiversity map didn't give those celebrity entertainer books their own Earth.
I would read the shit out of a Bob Hope relaunch. I think it is a shame the Multiversity map didn't give those celebrity entertainer books their own Earth.
You know they are on Grant's master map. Earth O(skner).
I would read the shit out of a Bob Hope relaunch. I think it is a shame the Multiversity map didn't give those celebrity entertainer books their own Earth.
The inhabitants of said Earth : Bob Hope Jerry Lewis Dean Martin Jackie Gleason Alan Ladd Jimmy Wakely ... and Pat Boone
Comments
In the newest (June 2015) Justice League of America #1, from Brian Hitch, I am confused.
Here is a JLA featuring Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman while there is an ongoing Justice League title (Geoff Johns) with pretty much the same heroes, but as entirely different characters and they're involved in the Darkseid War.
I suppose that JLA #1 has to take place before the TRUTH storyline in the ongoing Superman title, because Superman literally says to one character "nobody knows my identity!" While globally, the whole world knows. Hal is also no longer an intergalactic outlaw, or he hasn't become one yet. Also, no Rob-Bat Bunny is anywhere to be found...
So, is this the New 52 version of the JLA? Then shouldn't this book have come out a year ago? I realize Hitch has developed a rep for being late, but that would be a pretty serious delay. This title seems so out of step with continuity that's going on in books out this month so I'm really befuddled. Is this the Super Friends? It's less consistent than that!
The protagonist even refers to time being fluid, and things changing - it was kind of meta. So, does DC truly no longer care about continuity or even what's going on currently? Is this the new normal? Even if their just wanting "to tell good stories," can they not do so while rewarding long-time readers with a bit of history?
Back to DC, Superman and Wonder Woman were dating and meanwhile the Azzarello Wonder Woman book had nothing to do with the rest of the DC universe -- none at all.
I'm not going to complain because the new JLA (at least issue #1) is pretty good, and the Johns Justice League is great, one of the best superhero comics being produced right now. I'm able to enjoy them separately just as I was able to enjoy WW while also reading Justice League.
Also long time readers no longer matter :-/
Would it bother a Daredevil fan if he still had his offices in Hell's Kitchen in say, an Avengers crossover, since such a big deal was made about him moving back to San Francisco in his own title? Probably. Now I can understand a few missteps and even come up with my own no-prize material for normal errors and oversights, but this looks like all the DC editors haven't even moved to Burbank yet!
There has always been some level of disconnect of continuity and characters being over exposed. I just think that the disconnect is greater now then it has been for a long time.
This is what the company wants and what they think will make money. If it leds to good stories- great. It just seems odd that a business which is always trying to get "new readers" would create a situation that could be utterly confusing to new readers & possibly frustrate old readers - having different versions of characters (and character histories) in flag ship level books.
I do think that the old idea of continuity is dead for the time being. The only real continuity now is within each book and the current creative team with that book. I am not sure if that is good for the long term, but maybe it will work.
Maybe next month in JLA, Batman will reveal he's actually manbat, the Daily Planet will be located in San Diego and Wonder Woman's secret identity will be a drug addicted, pop superstar... But none of that will be referenced in the other Justice League book, or Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman's titles. See, I too can be a DC editor! The continuity consistency of the old Super Friends cartoon is good enough. As long as it's a good story, right? Haha
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=15750
I don't expect the continuity between my books to be perfect. Heck, throw it out the window if you have to. But I expect my characters to be consistent. it sounds like the characters in the JLA books are failing in this regard.
However, I also think that worrying about the confusion of the new reader is a red herring. I think it is a well-intentioned one, because it comes from a place of evangelizing comics, and wanting them to last and grow. But when we worry about what might alienate a new reader, I think we should remind ourselves of two things--
One, that no two readers, new or old is alike. There could be a new reader that loves every book being a different Batman or Superman. And others that hate that. I also think you can't generalize about longtime readers. Given how many things in our comics we disagree with here, clearly we are not a monolith, either. Sure, I may be a 'DC Apologist' (another label that is of little use) but the fact that I can be labeled a thing so opposite of other guys roughly my age and reading experience is a reminder of how different readers can be.
That said though, I will generalize about new readers in this one way that I think they were different from us when most of us started reading: they live in a time when, if you pick up a Justice League comic, you already know the Justice League. And you probably already know several versions of at least Batman and Superman. Across animation, movies (sometimes across several reboots), and video games.
Again, I don't want to generalize too much, because that is what I am suggesting people not do, but if I were to guess at the bars to entry for new readers, it would not be a lack of consistency.
Because I cannot imagine a reader buying a Superman or Batman comic who does not already have a Batman, probably several, in their imagination. I think it would be a very rare kid who encounters Batman first on paper these days. So with their very first comic, this new reader is not asking 'What is a Batman?', but rather they are fitting this Batman in with the rest of the ones they know. Maybe even enjoying noticing what is different from the others. That this is the "comic Batman" and how that compares to the "Dark Knight movies Batman", etc.
So I would be surprised if a lack of consistency or continuity would be a big issue for that reader. Because they already don't have that across all the other mediums they know the character from.
I feel like, for some of us, the desire for consistency is rooted in a time when there was more scarcity. And the comics were the dominant steward of these characters.
(If I were to guess at the real bar for entry for new readers, it would be price.)
Right now - key elements of DC make no sense inbetween books. They could fix that by explaining "why" things are this way. Even a ridiculous explanation is an explanation - it is comic books after all. I do not think they want to explain it now and will not explain it until they need a "big event" with everybody in it.
If there is no consistency, it makes it harder (at least for me) to invest in that product.
What does anyone have against that request?
My point was that if you look at Pre-Crisis DC, there was no explicit explanation as to which Earth most stories were taking place on. When Sgt Rock and Superman teamed up, it wasn't clear how that fit into continuity. Likewise, when the characters interacted with creators at DC. Superfriends wasn't consistent with Justice League. Yet somehow, these are the glory days of yore that so many people yearn for... "why can't we have fun comics again?" and all that stuff.
I like continuity. I like it a lot and think that the lack of "see issue ##" editor's boxes is one of the great losses in the medium. I also think that this is something that could be pretty easily addressed with one little uniform bit of cover dress - use a spine piece like every issue of Multiversity had to identify which earth is being featured in the book.
In absence of that, I assign my own assumptions. Pretty clearly, the book that I'm not reading don't take place on the Earth about which I am reading or, if they do, they're not significant enough to make the news.
Based on the gripe above, my assumption would be that one of the Justice League titles takes place on the New 52 Earth and another takes place on a different Earth. Likewise GL and the Justice League books.
There comes a point, were it's the perspective of the reader that is the barrier to enjoyment. I'm fully aware of it, as I stated over in the Secret Wars thread. I can see the merit in that event, I just couldn't find any enjoyment for myself and the mistreatment of the Shadowline Saga (the one thing that I was actively looking forward to) was enough for me to realize that, as much praise as it's getting, the current incarnation of Marvel just isn't for me - gods help me, I think that I'd rather go back to the days of Cap-Wolf (and most definitely to the Bronze age) rather than dig into the Quesada era. As much as I recognize the quality of some of the talent, I can't find the enthusiasm for it or the joy in it.
I just tend not to climb on the bullypulpit about it on a regular basis.
This is the issue where Batman slaps Robin and a million memes were born on the internet 50 years later.
At the bottom of the splash page, where we see Batman discussing his hatred for Superman and blaming his parents' death on the man of steel, there's a set-up in text that reads: The cover even has a small banner which reads "An Imaginary Novel." So back in the Golden and Silver Age, DC actually bothered to give a bit of set-up.
The "days of Cap-Wolf" were part of Mark Gruenwald‘s 10 year run on Captain America and the werewolf storyline even crossed into Infinity War, so it's actually a fine example of consistent continuity (something which Gruenwald was especially concerned with).
Of course there were many exceptions. Particularly Bob "Zany" Haney's run on Brave & the Bold for example. Haney would just insert Batman and go, completely defying continuity, convention - and sometimes common sense. He wrote the dark detective's team-up stories the way he wanted to, often in outright contradiction to established DCU and Batman conventionality. Eventually it was canonized that Haney's Brave and the Bold Batman would be deemed to not be the Batman from Earth-One (i.e. within Silver and Bronze Age continuity) but rather a Batman living in an alternate reality called "Earth-B" - a term coined by Bob Rozakis.
I was not bothered at the time, probably because I was less than 10 years old reading them. I guess my older comic reading tastes have changed and DC is not suiting them with this editorial style. I guess we are of two different mindsets. I get the impression that you hold Marvel to a higher standard on consistency than you do DC. Maybe you prefer one publisher to the other? I hold them both to the same standards, but when compared I simply think Marvel is currently doing it better.
For me, I would say the opposite is true. I have held DC to a higher standard because I felt I understood the DC universe and the company tried to make its universe make sense through some of its big events - Crisis, Zero Hour,etc. Sure, sometimes the fix created more problems (How did the Legion exist without there being a Superboy) but even then there was an explanation (pocket universe).
I have struggled with Marvel since "Heroes Reborn." A lot has not made sense to me. I am never really sure where to jump on. The floating time line is a ridiculous publishing trick that somehow works really well. That said, I have still enjoyed a lot of Marvel stuff over the last 15 years or so - Daredevil, Bendis & Hickman Avengers, Slott She Hulk, Thor, Haweye, etc. I am just not sure at times how it all fits together.
I do not really fault Marvel for this. I have not put the same time into Marvel that I have into DC. Maybe everything is clear and I am just not seeing it.
The "days of Cap-Wolf" were part of Mark Gruenwald‘s 10 year run on Captain America and the werewolf storyline even crossed into Infinity War, so it's actually a fine example of consistent continuity (something which Gruenwald was especially concerned with).
Of course there were many exceptions. Particularly Bob "Zany" Haney's run on Brave & the Bold for example. Haney would just insert Batman and go, completely defying continuity, convention - and sometimes common sense. He wrote the dark detective's team-up stories the way he wanted to, often in outright contradiction to established DCU and Batman conventionality. Eventually it was canonized that Haney's Brave and the Bold Batman would be deemed to not be the Batman from Earth-One (i.e. within Silver and Bronze Age continuity) but rather a Batman living in an alternate reality called "Earth-B" - a term coined by Bob Rozakis.
I was not bothered at the time, probably because I was less than 10 years old reading them. I guess my older comic reading tastes have changed and DC is not suiting them with this editorial style. I guess we are of two different mindsets. I get the impression that you hold Marvel to a higher standard on consistency than you do DC. Maybe you prefer one publisher to the other? I hold them both to the same standards, but when compared I simply think Marvel is currently doing it better.
Yeah, I get that some of the fictional stories had setup. Others didn't Certainly the Haney stuff didn't until it was retconned to Earth B. My point remains the same. Accept the fact that where the continuities don't jive, they happen on different earths. That's pretty much what got set up with Convergence - all of the remaining cities ended up repopulating their own universes/multiverses within the polyverse. If that's too much work, or eliminates any joy you might find in the story, so be it. For me, it's a bit of a financial relief to know that I don't necessarily to read every Justice League title to follow my Justice League.
RE: Cap-Wolf - I cited that example as a dark time in the Marvel universe - not an issue with continuity, more an issue with some pretty bad storytelling across the board and yet, for me still a more enjoyable time than the current more tightly coordinated universe.
Sugar and Spike?
Ho.
Ly.
Shit.
The pitch is ... less than inspiring.
But still, this is just about the last DC title, shy of Bob Hope or Jerry Lewis, I would have expected to see revived.
Bob Hope
Jerry Lewis
Dean Martin
Jackie Gleason
Alan Ladd
Jimmy Wakely
... and Pat Boone
You forgot - all the cutest young ladies live there too.