|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 7, 2007 19:01:34 GMT -5
There have been several posts about a problem with a lack of continuity in the current releases by many of us old-timers.
But reading back over those early issues, I'm surprised at how little Marvel worried about continuity back then. They even reveled in it sometimes.(i.e. Stan putting blurbs on the pages acknowledging the continuity issues and awarding no-prizes to those who could sufficiently explain them. Brilliant getting the readers to clean up the small messes. Or the several times Marvel just printed one or two non-related issues in the midst of a storyline. So I guess it's like Billy Joel sings, "The good old days weren't always good"
|
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Apr 7, 2007 19:14:28 GMT -5
Shut yo mouth!
Oh, and Shhhhhhhhhhhh.... don't let the new guys know!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 7, 2007 19:28:27 GMT -5
crud,.. I'm blowing secrets all over the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Apr 7, 2007 21:15:09 GMT -5
crud,.. I'm blowing secrets all over the place. Yes quit with the blowing. Oy |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 4:50:09 GMT -5
Yeah, but it's absolutely imperative for the good of comics that we ignore every staggering illogical leap, wacky plot device, and blatant ignoring of continuity in old issues and say "It's because they were old", and then return to why <Insert book here> is a total failure because Character X forgets that he met Character Y not three times, but FOUR!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 8, 2007 5:29:44 GMT -5
But far worse that continuity blunders is blatant mischaracterization under the excuse of "character development", and I feel that, on that regard, Stan & the old guard were very consistent & look extremely good when compared with the current bunch of destroyers, err... I mean, creators...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 5:39:38 GMT -5
Character development only becomes mischaracterization when you as a reader disagree with it, I always notice that  Guess there's no other way to work things. I think there's a clear and obvious genesisis and development in Stark and Cap in Civil War- not so much with Reed because he's already acting pretty consistently with the past. You disagree. Okay. But I argue the bcharacterizations danced around WILDLY in the silver age and bgeyond for a prticular story. Tell me, every time Wasp ISN'T written as a ditzy lovesick thick girl, is that mischaracterization? |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 7:15:09 GMT -5
I guess my point in this was that expecting complete continuity in a fictional environment may not be the most realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberwolf on Apr 8, 2007 7:35:52 GMT -5
But yer agreeing with Doom. Don't agree with Doom, he's the bad guy!  |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 7:57:18 GMT -5
not completely agreeing. I think some of the arguments are oversimplifications. That bit about meeting someone three times insted of four. I think that kind of nit-picking is a little beyond nutty even for me.
I'm just saying it's something that happens, and that it always has and probably always will. If we let ourselves get thrown by it, we suffer.
Here's an example. I was reading Cable and deadpool when Bridge's Mercs attack Cable. Among those in the attack is Solo.
Having just a while before this read Frontlines I know that Solo is on his way to 42. So I read the entire issue hung up on the whole Solo thing and miss the story. Later on I realize that I don't understand what is happening in the story because I let that one oversight distract me. I went back and read it again, just reading the story, not looking for errors, and enjoyed it a lot more.
Plus there were no ninjas in this story. (Deadpool doesn't count as a ninja, does he?)
So I'm just saying, why not just ignore some of these continuity things and just read?
Now the character assassinations I will never agree with. but thats a different fight altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 8, 2007 11:03:29 GMT -5
"It's because they were old" Has anyone actually been claiming this? or is this just another straw man? The justification is obviously incorrect since the comics were not old when they were created!Character development only becomes mischaracterization when you as a reader disagree with it, I always notice that Congratulations. I’ve noticed that people call things “wrong” when they think those things aren’t right. Maybe we should each get a gold star. If the portrayal jumps around a lot for no apparent good reason, yes. But that’s contrary to my general experience with the character (there might be some exceptions). When I first started reading Avengers, the Wasp was already a capable and generally respected leader of the team. Then I started reading some older stories with the “airhead heiress” and had trouble reconciling the two portrayals. I’ve read some intervening stories since (not necessarily in order, though!), and the change has ended up making sense to me. It looks like a natural progression that reveals both character growth and character layers. Jan was pretty young when the Avengers team was founded, and it shouldn’t come as a shock that she’s continued to mature since then. But if that were the whole of it, I might find the degree of change a little hard to swallow. I think it’s been established (though, sadly, at the moment I can’t think of any issues to point at—maybe someone else can help out?) that the “airhead heiress” persona was, to some degree, an act that Jan slathered on. Acting dumb was a way to pull in Hank (the old “come over and help me with my homework” routine—probably even more rampant in that era); acting flirtatious with other men was a way to keep Hank jealous and therefore interested. Dropping the act or at least laying it on less thickly reflects both her maturation and her changing motivations (her marriage to Hank, her divorce from Hank). Actually, I’d like to see the act a little more often—it’s a great way for her to gain tactical advantage by getting her foes to underestimate her, and it can also contribute to a rich characterization.
I think there are two special major contributing factors in Silver Age Marvel continuity trouble. One is that, contrary to the case today, virtually every Marvel-created character, location, etc. was in a nascent stage. Experiments were tried, and sometimes the results were discarded. That’s part of the fun and excitement of something new. The other is that Stan Lee, bless him, was not only writing just about everything (less so as the Age progressed) but also editing the whole line too. That situation not only strains the memory and the focus but also prevents a second set of eyes from checking the work. I’m sure that today there still are strains and limitations on the creative and editorial personnel, but they’re not the same strains and limitations, and there are resources like the official handbooks to help out in many cases. But reading back over those early issues, I'm surprised at how little Marvel worried about continuity back then. I’m not sure it’s that they worried little; as I mentioned above, there were other factors, and Stan & co. tried to address the question in creative ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 12:09:32 GMT -5
But reading back over those early issues, I'm surprised at how little Marvel worried about continuity back then. I’m not sure it’s that they worried little; as I mentioned above, there were other factors, and Stan & co. tried to address the question in creative ways. Yeah,.. worried little is an oversimplification on my part, I apologize. I strongly agree with your statement about 'creative ways' I mean rather than justifying what they did, they just came right and and said "hey, if you can explain this character being here when he shouldn't be, you win a no-prize" I think that's actually a pretty good idea on their part. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 13:31:39 GMT -5
Phantom, we all love you but for once your partiuclar charming brand of sarcastic humour is completely misplaced.
[quote author=nightphantom board=classicavengers thread=1175990494 post=1176048209se they were old"[/quote]
Has anyone actually been claiming this? or is this just another straw man? The justification is obviously incorrect since the comics were not old when they were created![/quote]
I'm paraphrasing but it remains virtually undeniable that the number one defence of these comics is "Well, this was silver age, things were done differently," or whatever excuse is necessary to try and explain why we hold comics then to so much of a lower standard than we do today.
THis is what I mean about misplaced sarcasm- hence my smilie to indicate that it was obvious, and then the "Well, there's no other way to do things" comment. I suggest you pay some more attention to that next time, Phantom old boy.
Firstly, by established you mean "retconned", because I'm d**n sure that wasn't what Stan had in mind when he wrote her that way. We can't smooth over old retcons and then dis new ones. I agree with you that this was logical, clear development- I FULLY agree with your interpretation. But I'm pointing out that it's not a capital crime for people to believe today that the behaviour of, say, Cap or Iron Man is also a logical, clear development- and Hell, it's fine if people think that Jan's personality swap was mischaracterization which was pciked up on, and a horrendous use of continuity. No opinion is less valid than another, but on this website it is all too often hjeavily implied that anyone who doubts that these characters are mischaracterized today does not hold a dissenting opinion per se, but rather is completelt wrong, cannot possibly be right and is simply an apologist for bad storytelling.
And you don't think that's ditsy, because it definitely seems so to me.
And yet I'd bet a hundred dollars that if that were done today, if that very act were pulled today, people on this very site would slam it is horrible characterization.
And in many cases there are MORE strains and limitations because the web of titles interconnected today is much tighter. Stan didn't have to ensure five different books with Spider-Man in them worked out in the same month, or that character X's portrayal in this book was consistent with character Y's in this book, etc, etc. And yet we are far more lenient on old Smilin' Stan than this site has EVER been on Tom Brevoort or Joe Quesada.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 8, 2007 13:31:49 GMT -5
I strongly agree with your statement about 'creative ways' I mean rather than justifying what they did, they just came right and and said "hey, if you can explain this character being here when he shouldn't be, you win a no-prize" I think that's actually a pretty good idea on their part. Certainly it fit well into the strategy of building camaraderie with the reader and building the reader’s sense of emotional investment in the comics—a far cry from “if you don’t like it, read your back issues”. |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 8, 2007 14:50:51 GMT -5
I'm paraphrasing but it remains virtually undeniable that the number one defence of these comics is "Well, this was silver age, things were done differently," or whatever excuse is necessary to try and explain why we hold comics then to so much of a lower standard than we do today. ? or different? A discerning reader (viewer, listener) of any artistic material attempts to place it in its original context (not necessarily its age per se), and this does lead to differing standards. It must. I don’t complain about elements of the movie Forbidden Planet being derivative of Star Trek because, you know, there was no Star Trek yet in that era. An example relating to Marvel’s Silver Age that we’ve talked about on this site (and narrowly in this very thread) is the portrayal of female characters. If the Marvel of today were relegating its female characters exclusively to the limited roles of the ’60s, I would be outraged. When I consider the limitations in the actual 1960s material, I’m not happy about them, but I accept that things were different then. Even so, I might disfavor a certain work at least in part because of the female-characterization situation, but I weigh the factors differently. Sorry, the attention I’ve paid has never revealed that a smile equates to believing something to be an obvious truth. I’ve always taken it to mean that the smiler is enjoying something. The smiler might be enjoying making a statement of the obvious or might be enjoying something else entirely. In fact, sometimes the smiler is enjoying stating a falsehood, which would be the opposite of an obvious (or any other) truth. If the portrayal jumps around a lot for no apparent good reason, yes. But that’s contrary to my general experience with the character (there might be some exceptions). When I first started reading Avengers, the Wasp was already a capable and generally respected leader of the team. Then I started reading some older stories with the “airhead heiress” and had trouble reconciling the two portrayals. I’ve read some intervening stories since (not necessarily in order, though!), and the change has ended up making sense to me. It looks like a natural progression that reveals both character growth and character layers. Jan was pretty young when the Avengers team was founded, and it shouldn’t come as a shock that she’s continued to mature since then. But if that were the whole of it, I might find the degree of change a little hard to swallow. I think it’s been established (though, sadly, at the moment I can’t think of any issues to point at—maybe someone else can help out?) that the “airhead heiress” persona was, to some degree, an act that Jan slathered on. Firstly, by established you mean "retconned" , by established I mean “established”. Do not fabricate. In this case, the establishing is part of a retcon, but I was not attempting to convey the idea of a retcon. I was attempting to convey the idea of establishing. If you do not understand the meaning of the word, look it up. Yes, we can, or at least I can, when we find the old ones that we consider good and new ones that we consider bad. Similarly, we can smooth over new retcons and dismiss old ones, too. Beings of intelligence are capable of making evaluations on a case-by-case basis. Of course. Life imprisonment is sufficient. (Note: not an indicator of obviousness.)Acting dumb was a way to pull in Hank (the old “come over and help me with my homework” routine—probably even more rampant in that era); acting flirtatious with other men was a way to keep Hank jealous and therefore interested. And you don't think that's ditsy, because it definitely seems so to me. Then maybe you’ve underestimated her—or simply interpreted her in a pre-retcon way. A dictionary I looked up ditzy/ ditsy in defines it as “eccentrically silly, giddy, or inane: dizzy”. My retcon interpretation is that the Wasp was not a person who was ditzy; she was a person who acted ditzy. Dropping the act or at least laying it on less thickly reflects both her maturation and her changing motivations (her marriage to Hank, her divorce from Hank). Actually, I’d like to see the act a little more often—it’s a great way for her to gain tactical advantage by getting her foes to underestimate her, and it can also contribute to a rich characterization. And yet I'd bet a hundred dollars that if that were done today, if that very act were pulled today, people on this very site would slam it is horrible characterization. Maybe. If I felt it was done right, I would not be one of those persons. I’m sure there’s a way to pull it off such that I would think it was terrible. We’d just have to see. I’m not sure there are more, but they’re not all the same. There are a lot of apples and oranges here. One of my gripes about Quesada—not related to continuity—is that he is acerbic toward the fans. I think Stan was quite the opposite. Things have changed since Stan’s day, including the ways in which Marvel and its audience interact with each other, but offhand I’m not aware of a condition that makes exhibiting hostility toward the fans a good idea. Can you accept the possibility that a fair, non-lenient person might examine the evidence, including the differing prevailing conditions, and justly conclude that one person in a certain position is overall better at it than another person filling that same position at another time? |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 15:08:41 GMT -5
The only point in that I can really contend with is that I actually think Quesada is fantastic with the fans, certainly compared to DiDio or DeFalco or any of the editors in MY lifetime, and really makes you feel like you're one of them- though I was not around for Smilin Stan's tenure.
Other than that...
...I just got spanked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 15:40:42 GMT -5
That doesn't have to be a bad thing tho' |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 8, 2007 15:56:05 GMT -5
Nonsense. Doom is ALWAYS supreme, ALWAYS on top, ALWAYS the dominating one!
It is fine for Doom to administer the spanking but not the other way around!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 16:07:44 GMT -5
you're right, I lost my head there. spank you for straightening me out. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 8, 2007 16:38:06 GMT -5
I suppose a lot of it depends on the size of the continuity mistake. For example, in Busiek's run, right before the battle with the Presence, Cap does not speak Russian, but at some point in the past he has been showed to be fluent with it. To me, this is a small mistake, because I can't expect a writer to know each and every little detail for a character. On the other hand, in Black in Back... err, no, Back in Black ^^, Peter says that May's maiden name is Fitzgerald rather than Reilly. This is quite a big continuity mistake because that surname has been pretty important in the past and I'd expect a writer to know the main points (not that the story suffered from it, I really liked that issue of ASM). This is not to say that back in Silver Age, Stan and co. didn't do some huge mistakes. I remember Cap shield being vaporized in one panel of Avengers, and being back healthy as always two pages later. They even had to retcon that a few years ago  |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 18:18:03 GMT -5
I'd expect a writer to know the main points (not that the story suffered from it, I really liked that issue of ASM). This is the crux of what I'm saying, and the trap I originally got caught up in. You still manage to enjoy the story, in spite of the error. Sometimes it just gets so easy to fixate on the error. That being said, I also agree heartily with your point, the writer needs some responsibility to keeping accurate. We just shouldn't let the ignorance of others dictate our enjoyment,.. if possible. My wife overlooks my ignorance all the time and still seems to enjoy my company. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 8, 2007 18:32:37 GMT -5
You should underline seems  I think it depends on how central to the plot the error is. In the aforementioned ASM issue, it was only a side note, and didn't ruin the book (at least for me). However, if a large part of the issue is built on a continuity error, enjoying it becomes much more difficult. A recent example I can think of comes from the ASM issue with the Battle of Yancy Street. Peter starts doubting Tony because the latter knows about his spider sense, and he never told him, but there are about 150 ways he could have known. Spidey mentioned his spider-sense in battle hundred times, including in stories with the other Avengers and Iron-Man. As such, that continuity mistake affected my liking of the story more than getting May's surname wrong did. So in the end I suppose it depends more on the mistake itself than on the fact that it exists... |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 8, 2007 19:33:10 GMT -5
You should underline seems . funny, she said that too,....  |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 9, 2007 4:51:40 GMT -5
The only point in that I can really contend with is that I actually think Quesada is fantastic with the fans, certainly compared to DiDio or DeFalco or any of the editors in MY lifetime, and really makes you feel like you're one of them- though I was not around for Smilin Stan's tenure. Other than that... ...I just got spanked. I had to exalt you, sir, for having the class to admit it... |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 9, 2007 6:01:50 GMT -5
You should underline seems I think it depends on how central to the plot the error is. In the aforementioned ASM issue, it was only a side note, and didn't ruin the book (at least for me). However, if a large part of the issue is built on a continuity error, enjoying it becomes much more difficult. A recent example I can think of comes from the ASM issue with the Battle of Yancy Street. Peter starts doubting Tony because the latter knows about his spider sense, and he never told him, but there are about 150 ways he could have known. Spidey mentioned his spider-sense in battle hundred times, including in stories with the other Avengers and Iron-Man. As such, that continuity mistake affected my liking of the story more than getting May's surname wrong did. So in the end I suppose it depends more on the mistake itself than on the fact that it exists... That was a mistake so ridiculously, enormously large that the only possible way I could reconcile it in my mind was to tell myself Peter's head is a total mess and he's not thinking straight. I mean besides his total lack of keeping a secret (The Sandman knows he has a Spider-sense. The SANDMAN!!!) he's actually emtnioned it to TOny several times in the last YEAR. And ua2, whatever our dissenting views I would never have it said that Doom did not possess class. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 9, 2007 8:59:34 GMT -5
I would never have it said that Doom did not possess class. It's just to bad that class is 'postage due' You shall knock me through no wall evil-doer |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 15, 2007 13:19:24 GMT -5
A “preview” of Marvel’s solicitations for July reveals the following tidbit that pertains strongly to continuity problems: I don’t suppose Superboy-Prime will be in this one… Modified: added hyperlink to the Newsarama page containing the solicitation previews. |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 15, 2007 14:21:57 GMT -5
Never say never to the hackneyed plot device that makes Layla Miller look like an organic, natural character!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 15, 2007 14:27:49 GMT -5
So,... I'm sorry for being confused here. Is he saying that all of the incisistancies were pre-planned in order to drive sales of a lagging title? Why that's brilliant. ^ l l l That was sarcasm by the way |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 16, 2007 14:52:52 GMT -5
Will it reveal also that Joe Quesada is actually Mephisto & Brian Michael Bendis Loki...?
|
|
Guess there's no other way to work things. I think there's a clear and obvious genesisis and development in Stark and Cap in Civil War- not so much with Reed because he's already acting pretty consistently with the past. You disagree. Okay.
