i'm looking forward to some info about the whole xorn dealie. its got me mega confused.

Posted by Rawnzilla on 2006-06-21 19:00:40
unlike other people I don't mind Nick Fury being in Iron Man, I understand that due to the extreme-mess of Warren and Adi the timeline is off on that story. Regarding that title specifically, Iron Man, the problem is nothing makes sense anymore. He revealed his secret identity, became secretary of defense, ended that before it had time to develop and now somehow has a secret identity again. He gained this extremis ability in the span of 6 issues, once again, with a bunch of completely unexplained changes, where are Happy and Pepper for example? And the way the title is going now, Extremis is going to be cut off before it can be explored because someone has chosen to portray as superpowerful rather than just an upgrade. I understand continuity not needing to rule and I understand writers needing to have freedom, but this is ridiculous. Every new writer orchestrates a major upset and then leaves the next guy to either clean up his mess or to just try and start over again. The story doesn't just lack continuity, it isn't intelligble anymore. It doesn't feel like a single comic book but rather a strange concoction of different people's takes on Iron Man. I'm assuming he's going to lose Extremis, which is fine, go for it. But please, a writer who'll stay with the issue, cares about the character, and does something besides pen 6 issue arcs. They can be fun in moderation but a whole slew of them does nothing but make it so that I have a year's worth of issues and only 2 stories between them. It truly is frustrating and makes me seriously consider abandoning Marvel, upsetting a character's life is cool but it is out of control these days in my opinion. that said, the new iron man team is doing a good job, so I'm going to hang in there long enough to see what comes after.

Posted by CypherHalo on 2006-06-21 19:00:45
Thanks for the post
I didn't mean to come off as too confrontational in my last post. I've honestly been mostly curious as to how something like this happened. Explaining the production history regarding not knowing when certain other books were going to ship while you were getting the work done to insure that these books would be produced pretty much satisfies my curiosity. Like I said - continuity is not the biggest of deals to me, I just figured that there had to be some sort of reason as to why there was such a large continuity hole with books that seemed to be happening concurrently, and I've been curious as to what that might be.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer that.

Posted by ed2ward on 2006-06-21 19:58:23
2 True
I think its true. I've encountered plenty of people who nitpick at every detail. "Oh thats wrong." "Oh, they messed that up." And while sometimes I may get into that category, I always try to catch myself.

I think it was the wisdom of my friend who made me stop nitpicking at things. She told me "If it were always the same and nothing ever changed, whats the point of continuing to read it?" (Or in the case of nitpicking at movies, she would say..) "If the movie followed the comic exactly, whats the point of watching it when you already know what is going to happen?"

So I've taken her words to heart and don't nitpick anymore. And honestly its a lot more fun to adapt and follow along. True, you can't always love everything that happens, but you shouldn't look for something to dislike either.

The whole Spidey issue is a perfect example. A lot of people are going bananas over it, when I just feel that its something you have to adapt to and just go with the flow. I don't think people should say they dislike something right off the bat until they give it a chance. I mean come on, its like a kid saying he hates fish sticks, but hes never had them before and then realizes that he loves them and then asks for it all week long.

I believe continuity is important on the foundation level, such as a new comic is not going to come out and say that Peter was bitten by a radio active goldfish. But other than that, I think its great that the characters develop and grow, and if to help them develop you have to change the story a little, then why not?

Geez I started ranting, so sorry.

Posted by TwilghtDragon on 2006-06-21 23:21:14
Civil War Timeline
I didn't want to sound nit-picky, I just wanted to know the best order to let my friend Wally read all of Civil War in. It's all cool, Tom. I still tremble at the sound of your footsteps.

Posted by MayorBigRig on 2006-06-21 23:28:03
... But I gave you MONEY!
My approach to continuity is simple: if I've paid good money for an issue, I don't want to be told 10 years later that the events I read in the comic I *paid* for should be ignored.

That would be a big waste of my money, would it not?

Posted by Adrian J. Watts on 2006-06-22 01:29:15
Good Deal
I like that approach to continuity -- the idea that the story comes first, above all else. I love reading the comics alone just for the value of the great stories and art. I figure everything will just fall into place eventually when I think about continuity. And if it turns out that something was retconned, oh well. I understand that for each person that was annoyed by a retcon, there are 2 people who are overjoyed. So please, keep up the good job.

Posted by meestercheeser on 2006-06-22 01:43:44
Extremely Long Ideas Follow...
I do not think I started this, but I would like to complete some of my thoughts.

Continuity is great and good and wonderful, it creates a tapestry that makes you want to know more. Why did Logan and Scott have some animosity for each other, what does Venom and Carnage have to do with Spider-Man’s black suit, why did Captain America ever quit being Captain America, etc. These questions drive readers into the bargain bins, and into trade paperbacks, and into having long conversations with older sages comic readers.

My wife watches a soap opera, and every once and again I watch it with her when I am home. I can ask her anything about any character and she can go on a long rant about how this person met that person who married this person who shot that person who got that other person pregnant, and that is why they hate each other. It is amazing that they created such a rich tapestry out of something that seems so dumb from the offset.

Anyway, long story short. I do not mind glitches, nor do I seek some crazy explanation, I just want the big things nice and neat. I do not want to see Jimmy Jones tragically killed in Super Salad-Hands and then next month he is in Amazing Flag-Pants Man alive and well without any explanation.

To address some previous comments too:
I agree in some parts with CypherHalo, I think Iron Man has been getting a raw deal lately, it feels like too many cooks in the kitchen each with their own recipe working on the same dish. I love each story on its own, but there needs to be some pacing. I think each writer needs to take an issue or something to clarify what happened to the old plots instead of writing them off in a few panels, or ignoring them altogether. I am flexible about the character like TwilghtDragon said, I do not want the same thing each month; I just want things to flow nicely.

I mostly disagree with Adrian J. Watts, I gave you money to tell me a story, and you gave it to me. There is room for argument over where I got my money’s worth, sure, but I did not give you money to invest into future stories. Dead is dead does not mean a thing to me. I believe that it is all about the stories worth, not continuity’s. Bucky is, of course, a prime example. Brubaker was very respectful of previous continuity, but he had a new story to tell and he told it as well as anyone could. I truly believe that. Uncle Ben could come back to life for all I care as long as there is an honest and good story that will come out of it.

Posted by frostfiend on 2006-06-22 11:51:51
TV is to Comics, as apples are to oranges
Hi frostfiend
I would like to say I understand where you are coming from and it is frustrating. But Comics are not TV, and I enjoy comics and sometimes it is frustrating but I enjoy them and enjoy the stories and don't worry to much.
But TV knows that there is only one show, there is only one Transformers cartoon, there are not five of them playing on different networks where they have to try to keep the cartoons working with each other. There is only one. It is not fair to compare your wifes soaps to a comic, the soaps are able to know what is going to happen every day, and they have time to plan for the weeks ahead. But I would like to bring up something also soaps are not all perfect as you say they are, Dallas one year had a actor leave because of money and they killed the character off, and then the actor came back after a few seasons and wow the whole time the actor was suppose to be dead was just a dream. The fans watched this show and sucked into for a year to two and then nope sorry that was just a waste of your time that was just a dream. So Soaps are not perfect!

So don't compare the two it is not fair thanks.

Posted by spidey0402 on 2006-06-22 12:44:56
nick fury is in iron man!?!??!?!!?
i didn't know that iron man sucks thought

Posted by tarhaun on 2006-06-22 12:53:55
The Medium Currently Forces Nit-Picking...
I think we, the fans, have become more vocal because EVERYTHING is a mega event these days. For example, Avengers:Disassembled led into House of M, which led into Decimation, which led into Civil War AND Planet Hulk. If comics were standalone, less decompressed, or if a character didn't have more than 2 books to his name, we wouldn't have these issues. I enjoy the idea of a "shared universe", but it's a slippery slope. I agree with Adrian J. Watts who said that he didn't want his comics to be rendered false or useless. I mean, a good story is a good story, but it seems like Marvel and DC want us to love how organic their universes have become. If you love Spider-Man, watch as he joins the Avengers!" Or "Watch Batman's former sidekick as he moves to a new town!" This is great. Everybody loves a team-up and whatnot, but these have gone from being "in-jokes" to being prerequisites. I can't find out the big reveal in Amazing Spider-Man because it happens in Civil War. I can't find out what happens to Speedball because it's in Civil War: Frontline and NOT the main Civil War book.

I know that nobody's making us buy comics, and we do it because we love the medium. But, as odd as this is going to sound regarding a conversation on comics, we want our books to make sense. With the mega-events, or the selective continiuty, it hinders the love of and understanding that many of us hold for certain characters and books.

And I also feel that the current anti-continuity argument is being used to cover bigger problems. Mr. Brevoort explained how the Iron Man snafu happened, but this could have been avoided. I mean, other than the fact the books were late, why was Nick Fury so important? I mean, could no other character be used? Out of SHIELD, we've been introduced to Sharon Carter, Dum Dum Dugan, Agent Quartermain, and others. I know Fury is the big cheese, but if SHEILD was necessary, other characters could've been used. My point is why must so many creators use the cornerstones, such as Wolverine, Fury, Spider-Man, etc, when the universe is a UNIVERSE, and not a 3-man show. Multiple projects with the same characters not only hinder continuity, but they lessen each other. Spider-man: the Other is already lost in the shadow of Spidey's recent revelation. I think it's give and take. The fanboys will lay off continuity gripes if everything didn't build on everything else. A nice standalone issue of Spider-Man going to the bank might sound boring, but I'm sure there are ways to jazz it up without making it a 6-part miniseries with the obligatory cameo by Dr. Strange and Nick Fury.

Posted by west2000 on 2006-06-22 12:55:05
Iron Man sucks thought??!
HOW DOES HE DO THAT?!

Posted by Jen Grunwald on 2006-06-22 14:55:08
Iron Man sucks thought??!
> HOW DOES HE DO THAT?!

It's apparently one of the new powers that Ellis gave him. Extremis is mysterious, indeed.

Posted by mwallen on 2006-06-22 15:33:09
No Prize Mentality
There's been some discussion of this issue online recently, and TB alludes to it in his post. It used to be the case that a continuity problem led to a bunch of fan-generated attempts to patch up the hole, supply a story that accounted for the error.

Why is this so uncommon now? Perhaps we are less imaginative. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that some editors have insisted that there in fact exists a "true continuity", and now we expect the rest to supply it. Perhaps it some of both. Probably some of both.

Still, I've been surprised that in everything I've seen recently about the Fury thing, nobody ever offers an explanation of why it happened (apart from accusations of incompetence, which don't really help). Are we above this now? Does it smack too much of "dorky fan-fiction", and is that actually a problem? I mean, let's face it: we read comic books. We probably don't need to be overly concerned with coming off as naive or enthusiastic...

That said, I always just supplied my own explanation of the Fury thing, and went about my business. Sure, it's obviously an LMD. So why do Dugan and Tony treat it like the real Nick in that one issue, since surely at least one of them must know he's no longer in charge? Because it's actually Fury, too. He's tele-operating the LMD from his place in hiding, just like he did at the very end of "Secret War", when it turned out he was speaking via the duplicate while already on the run. In the presence of trusted insiders like Dugan or Stark, he still communicates, right under the noses of SHIELD, who have actually, unbeknownst to them, supplied the tools he needs to pull strings while underground. Nice trick, Nick.

Sure, that's a stretch, and maybe I'm a bit of a goofball for taking the time to come up with it, just to satisfy myself. But darn it, it was fun, and that's why I like the No-Prize Mentality. A continuity problem becomes an excuse for a little value-added creative activity, some story-telling. Not a bad deal...

Posted by mwallen on 2006-06-22 15:43:05
Spidey stuff...
Well, the only continuity I'm concerned with is how Millar writes MK Spidey where Scorpion tells Peter that the government created supervillains to keep heroes in check...then Peter being knocked out, detained, and mindraped by SHIELD about a month before CIVIL WAR...but decides registering with the government and coming out publicly makes sense. :)

Posted by khuxford on 2006-06-22 16:22:09
I'd say the reasons fans stopped coming up with their own explanations is that Marvel stopped printing their letters, and writers came up with their own explanations for apparent errors in later issues (or, in some cases, promised they would appear until everyone forgets about them, naming no bendises of course). I think fans are more vocal about the quality of the comics, also, because so many of the 1990s were so low in quality, and perhaps they're trying to make up for it.

er, does this earn me a no-prize?

Posted by Fetsur on 2006-06-22 17:45:04
Wha-Huh?!
"then Peter being knocked out, detained, and mindraped by SHIELD about a month before CIVIL WAR...but decides registering with the government and coming out publicly makes sense. :)"

When was this?! In NEW AVENGERS or what??

Posted by ToM of Earth 616 on 2006-06-23 07:42:47
RE: TV is to Comics, as apples are to oranges
spidey0402,
I was not saying that soaps and comics are the same thing, nor was I saying they never make goofs, and I do agree they have it much easier to avoid goofs. One thread, one show, etc, but, they do have multiple writers, directors and producers come in and out every few years, and overall the hands on deck are never guaranteed, much like our beloved comics: nothing is sacred. Now, that is about all I can say about that. I appreciate your comments and I do agree, but I was just making an example of continuity in force. I do not know many mediums that actually use continuity, so I was left with very little to turn to.

Posted by frostfiend on 2006-06-23 08:15:07
Nick Fury in Iron Man
You know, maybe Nick Fury really *was* in Iron Man.

Nick is underground, but where? Is he underground in plain sight? If SHIELD has LMDs running about, maybe he is posing as one of those.

Probably not likely, but the thought tickles me beyond words.

My few cents on continuity:
I do believe it's very important--it goes towards my investment in the characters (often my main reason for reading) to know if something that happens to them will have consistent consequences.

That said, I realize full well that mistakes have always, and will always be inevitable. Certainly in the midst of the whole Secret War/Extremis delayfest. As long as there are no Superboy Punches(TM) wiping my favorite characters in certain universes from existence, I can live with it.

Posted by NielsVanEekelen on 2006-06-23 08:47:17
RE: frostfiend
Hey dear friend, I don't want to start a agruement but you brought up soap operas in a comic blog, but hey that's fine but you were talking about comics and made it seem like you enjoyed how soaps kept continuity and comics should do the same.

But again you say you were using it as a example, but a example that is still not the same, and you can not use a example that comics does not have a chance to equal. When comics are put into a TV show they keep continuity, X-men and Spiderman, these you can compare with soaps because they are on the same bar. And the cartoons do just as good as the soaps. But to use them as an example against comics is unfair.

Comics are there own thing and I don't know of any comic company that has continuity, so you can like it or not it's up to you. Me again I enjoy the comics and they are great entertainment for me. And Marvel does a pretty good job, but everything can not be perfect!

Again I don't want to upset you and I think I am done with my rant.

But again you should never bring to a debate a example that has nothing to do with each other.

Alright thanks for listening and you have a good day, and again this is just a friendly point to yours and I am not trying to attack you but I just thought it was unfair.

Again I am sorry if it seems I am being rude and you have a great day!!!!!

Posted by spidey0402 on 2006-06-23 11:15:35
Ult.Ironman What the heck is up with that!?
I've been following the Ultimates totally and the Ironman mini-series by OS Card, and I gotta say, what the hell is up with Tony? First he's a guy with a brain tumor, next he's a mutant child with blue skin and his whole body is a brain?

Tom, you guys can't even keep a five year old timeline straight in the Ultimate books. Why should we care about what you have to say about continuity?

Posted by Revolver Dark on 2006-06-24 22:16:44
well
Long as I'm bootlegging my comics for free from peer to peer networks, I could give a damn less how sorry your continuity is.







I'm kidding by the way.






I *do* care about continuity....

Posted by TheDeacon on 2006-06-25 02:43:27
I meant "I purchase my comic books from my local comic book shop, which is located at......"

...um

There's one around here somewhere

Posted by TheDeacon on 2006-06-25 02:44:29
Accountability
So your answer to not being able to stick to continuity was because you had no idea when Iron Man would be wrapped up(ie when the issues would be completed) or when Secret War #5 would be completed. Here is a novel idea, HOW ABOUT MAKING WRITERS AND AUTHORS STICK TO DEADLINES???

Seriously, with the sheer number of titles that get delayed by Marvel it is no mystery why continuity is difficult to keep up with. How about making writers and artists accountable for their actions? There is no reason there should have been such a delay between issue 4 and 5 of Secret War. I have heard the official reason for it and I can tell you the art was no where near good enough to justify it. And that is just one of many titles that have been extremely delayed in recent years including Spider-man/Black Cat, Ultimates, etc.

Instead of making a blog post and essentially calling readers nit picky for caring about continuity and commenting on the restrictions of a dead man who cannot defend his actions, how about you put the blame where it is due? And that is with tardy writers, artists, and the editors who fail to enforce deadlines.

Posted by thatsmystapler on 2006-06-25 04:04:12
Whatever happened to...
Fill-in issues? I've read a lot of articles from creators in the 70's and 80's and they always mention how they'd threaten writers with fill-in issues. They had a surplus of stories which weren't good enough to really warrant publishing, but if a writer was late, these stories would be published just to keep the book on schedule. The idea was that this lapse in creativity, even if not credited to the late writer, would sort of lessen the impact of his run. It's like pitching a no-hit season, except for one really bad game. If that happens enough, it can sort of affect how people look at you. The emphasis was that, back then, writers had more integrity or took more pride in the fact that their name was on something. Keep in mind, this was also during a time when being a comic creator wasn't as glamorous. In a recent panel in my area, a creator likened the experience to being "one step above 'pornographer'". Now, it's like being a rock star and every tv producer with some time on his hands can get into the game.

Now, we're arguing that we don't want to waste our money on subpar material, which may be wiped from continuity in the blink on an eye. At the same time, though, continuity is a mess because today's creators aren't timely with their material. So, might it be a bad idea to reinstate the threat of the "fill-in" issue. Sure, it would interrupt the flow of a story arc, but it could almost be thought of as an "interlude" of sorts. Plus, the lateness of issues interrupts the flow of story arcs, so it's not the situation would change much. I've heard some creators boast that, sure the book is late, but it'll be worth it when it comes out. I take offense to that, and I'm sure that many store owners who have to predict their orders feel the same way. Would it be so hard to be timely, and if it IS that hard, why can't solicits reflect this? If it takes Artist X forever to get the book done, make it a bi-monthly book. But it's a shame when it takes a "quaterly" 5-issue book around 2 years to complete itself.

Posted by west2000 on 2006-06-25 21:52:40
Bring back the No-Prize
Personally, I think the first shift in the comic-buying public's take on gaps in continuity came when No-Prizes were eliminated. After that, there was no longer an incentive to come up with a rationale for the perceived gaffe. Oh sure, you can blame the writers, too. I especially like the Peter David quote on the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe site: "A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it." As for me, I'm not overly concerned with it. I like it when continuity is consistent, but it's certainly not a deal-breaker as far as whether or not I can enjoy a particular story. My girlfriend takes it a step further. If a story (in any medium) requires her to have knowledge of all that has come before, she won't get involved. The bottom line - if a story is good enough, continuity will adapt around it. (And just be thankful its not your job to write Hawkman.)


Posted by Lonesome Pinky on 2006-07-10 23:56:03