I know what you are saying Tom but I think it's important for any writer/editor in a shared universe to take care of the integrity of that universe. After all the inherent nature of the Universe is often the thing that makes people read the stories in the first place.

Posted by bomaya on 2007-08-30 10:20:37
I agree with Bomaya .... Some consistency should be respected... It's a universe after all and some laws should be respected. On the other hand it's not an absolute. But that's what you stated as well ...

I think you have done a fine job so far... The characters have evolved, but they all are credible.. Just ensure that characters are 'somewhat' consistent ... The example you showed of Iron Man is actually a bad example ... at least to ME. If you read all or at least many of the Marvel comics and you see the same character react completely differently in one comic as opposed to the next it DOES bother you as a reader.

So in the end: I have to agree with bomaya!

Posted by Zigy on 2007-08-30 11:26:07
I agree to some extent.
I think it's unrealistic to expect that all character appearances in all books fit squeaky clean. Even the same scene shown slightly differently in different books is fine as well, as one can realistically expect the same events to have been perceived differently by different characters (short, of course, of major plot holes). In that way, I see what Tom means about what different editors and writers see as the "core" of a character or concept being slight or sometimes very different. Plus, there is also the issue of why the guest appearance (where these odd characterizations occur more often) occurs in the first place; if the story needs Thor to fight Nova, than chances are Thor is going to come off a bit more stand-offish than last time they saw each other. And I don't see any inherent problem in that.
My beef is obviously when things make no sense whatsoever. The only time I have really been upset by a mischaracterization was the whole Hawkeye-Wasp hookup thing under Chuck Austen. I don't want to fall into hate-mongering here by any means, but that crippled my suspension of disbelief, and really didn't fit with the characters' established history. This is an example of how the reader claims for consistency, rather than the author bending characters to tell a story he/she wants to tell.

Posted by cyke11 on 2007-08-30 11:55:22
I agree with Tom on this one. There are certain indelible qualities that make the characters we love the characters we love...but that's precisely when the writers need to shake the comic world up with things like Civil War to challenge not only the character in his/her convictions, but the reader as well. The universe in general is consistently inconsistent and the readers need to be able to step out of themselves as ask "what would I do in this situation?". The comic hero stays true to their priniciples for sanity's sake, but what do they do when the paradigm shifts? Consistency is one thing...relatability is quite another.

Posted by Perplexor on 2007-08-30 11:59:40
I fully appreciate that different writers' work will never perfectly intersect with one another, but what really grates me is when writers don't adhere to their own continuity - something Bendis has occasionally done, to my frustration (most recently with the timeline on Mighty Avengers #1-4 not matching up with New Avengers #28-30 and #32-33).

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-08-30 13:39:23
The real world lacks consistency
One of the odd things about fictional universes is that people expect them to be much more consistent than the real world.

Take for example the Thor vs Superman fight. In another thread someone said that Thor couldn't possibly be hit with eye beams because he has blocked eye beams before. My first reaction was that Superman, having super speed, might be able to move his eyes faster than the other person with eye beams. It's a little odd to say that because Thor was able to block one fighter's beams then he's guaranteed to block another's.

But it goes deeper than that. Take real world Boxing. Pick any championship Boxer you want. I guarantee that he's been hit with a type of punch that he blocked at some other time. Probably even against the same opponent. Just because a fighter blocks something one time doesn't mean he'll definitely block it every time.

But that's what people expect from comics. Thor has blocked eye beams once before, so not blocking them this time means something is wrong with the writer. What's completely to be expected in the real world is somehow unreasonable in a comic.

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-08-30 14:38:44
Although this is changing the subject ever so slightly, I've been thinking about why some things about certain characters are remembered more than others. I mean, there's definitely no way of telling which events in a character's life will go down in history as being great and which bits simply won't be remembered. Why is Gwen Stacy's death more memorable than Harry Osborn's? Why is it that we remember Tony Stark's drink problem more than Captain Britain's (not counting the popularity of the characters, of course)?

The reason I'm mentioning this is because this bleeds into the stories too; what we remember most, the characters remember most, which is surely rather odd if they recall something from years ago more clearly than they do for something last week.

Posted by Carzy on 2007-08-30 15:51:56
Bravo, Tom!! i totally agree
I totally agree with your points Tom. I suppose that, because of writing articles like this one, a lot of fanboys will call you a sell-out, a traitor, an ignorant, etc.
those dogmatic fanboys, who speak about continuity and the personalities of the characters as if it were a religion, a pure truth, really sickens me.
I am sick of reading this kind of comments all over the internet or hearing them in the comics shops.


Posted by Los Shapis on 2007-08-30 19:34:07
yes and no
I hear what you are saying, Tom, but I also wonder if it can be mandated for writers to read what other writers have recently done with characters to try to sync them up just a bit more than is currently done. (This might be happening, I don't know. I'm not a writer.) I don't doubt that the writers love the characters, but it is a different kind of love. Writers love characters like a carpenter loves his tools or a NASCAR driver loves his car. The excitement for a writer is to push characters beyond the limits they have been in before. (Which is why they need to be writing in the first place!)

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2007-08-30 22:01:53
Kind of
I think your argument makes a lot of sense in the context of a large time span. As most fans agree(maybe some of the extremely dogmatic ones don't) characters change over time based on their experiences. But for such changes to occur in a single month or even week with characters like Wolverine or Iron Man which are appearing in multiple titles every month, is a little circumspect.

There should be some sort of continuity within the character as each story written is not separate but is meant to represent the same character in multiple situations/stories. Each writer isn't just responsible for the story they are writing but also the characters within. So changes in one story are meant, by design I think, to resonate in the other titles. But by claiming that character to be subject to the whims of whichever writer happens to want them in their story is a little much.

I think mostly what we're asking for is a little exposition, a warrantfor why these aspects within characters have changed. We don't want them to just show up with new bubbly personalities.

Posted by CaptainMarvel221 on 2007-08-30 22:34:06
Don't people have multiple earths for stuff like this?

Come on, as long as Peter Parker still whines about Uncle Ben and the Punisher still shoots people in the face, does it really matter?

Posted by welleshadow on 2007-08-31 13:32:32
There's consistency and then there's consiste
The problem with Iron Man's different approaches to Nova and Thor isn't so much that they're different as that they are basically the *reverse* of what one would expect with *any* experience with the characters. Given that these encounters happened very close together, it's difficult to understand why Stark would give more leeway to some punk kid, no matter how powerful, than to one of his oldest and most respected friends.

There's also the issue of what actions really betray the core of a character. If Stark is to be considered any kind of a hero, one would hope he wouldn't be guilty of insider trading, murder, and treason, as shown in Frontline. If we're to take Urich and Floyd's revelations in that series at face value, there's no way the man does not belong in jail. Unless we're saying Jenkins is free to write Stark that way, and everybody else is free to say that stuff didn't really happen...

Posted by vitruvian on 2007-08-31 20:01:57
Quick question
"insider trading, murder, and treason, as shown in Frontline."

Who did Tony murder and when did he commit treason?

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-08-31 20:17:34
some of your blood
Dogmatic ?
These are the kind of arguing that makes me want to be like Werner Herzog in "Julian donkey boy ",which doesn't mean I like to be seen drunk or in underwear.
All I see here is profit and profitors.
It had been often pointed that editors/authors abused often of the popularity ( sometimes newborn ) of this or that character to guest-starring him /her everywhere.
I don't have any problems seeing Iron Man with Thor and Nova, as I don't need absolutely someone in the Guardian'suit to enjoy an Alpha(Omega) book, the problem remains at what is told, and that's all.
There are so much stories told with the same character that he can't be changed for ever each time, but I wouldn't mind seeing Carol Danvers waking up at night, coz she has dreamt giving bearth to a Brood,this is what I find the closest with what you're calling at last consistency,after all heroes are going trought I don't mind seeing them approaching nervous breakdown ( that's why Frank Miller's "Born again " is so unique, dealing with social reject and paranoia ),and it would give me the feeling that some stories matters.
Marvel Comics are symbolically dealing a lot with violence ( sex also ) at differents levels on differents titles, and Warren Ellis made a wonderful and tragical demonstration of it on his latest run on Thunderbolts, using all the potential charge of a character like Bullseye with Jack O'Flagg(, this is what could happen to your favourite Loner/Runaway confronting confirmed bullies), one story where the character's logic is so well used that you can say: "it couldn't have ended other way " that the way it had been told.
Most of all Chris Claremont's run on X-Men only gaves me the same feeling:
the first X-Men/Marauders clash let casualties for a long time and such a drastic change like Magneto as a leader for the team is what I would call a work-in-progress-approach for the shared universe that Marvel is .If the X-Men hadn't survived to the Adversary I'll sure have been sad , but I wouldn't mind seeing Banshee and Forge building a new team, at last the others X-Men 's death would had have a meaning, and it would had been a real writing challenge (I agree with " a writer is someone who push-off the limits" ,just know that using his brain is welcome; all the self-proclaimed artists/writers/genius who are playing with elevators -understand here :lexicals grounds that 'f' yar mother- won't surely go far , cause Faulkner takes the stairs ) far from the security that Marvel is providing with his cheptel of confirmed values that some characters are.
A last example with Grant Morrison's run on "New X-Men " with the Xorn/Magneto evilish treachery, some readers could have had the feeling to have been some kind of tricked, but it at last proves one thing, what would do some one who really wants to come to an end with something, instead of what , what have we ? Captain America ( and foes ) still fighting the Red Skrull (okay it's a legacy; is it the same with Dr Doom ? ). When you will provide an entire super-vilains gallery half-charismatics than the entire FF's enemies, maybe we will talk about writting challenges.

Posted by bulgarianyogurt on 2007-09-01 03:14:09
If you dont like Marvel Comics...
if you dot like what Marvel is doing now with the characters , then why do you keep buying those comics or talking about em??
Just stop buying em and i don't know, DO YOUR OWN COMICS, you can do your own comics the way you like comics to be done, ...

That's what i would say to those whiny fanboys and haters.

Posted by Los Shapis on 2007-09-02 22:14:11
Ballsy simile there, Mr Brevoort, using "creating a police state around the characters" as a point of criticism.

Posted by deworde on 2007-09-03 07:15:05
That's not a criticism, by the way. I'm just wondering if anyone else noticed it/.

Posted by deworde on 2007-09-03 07:53:52
I personally don't mind varying takes on a character, but when you're dealing heavily in continuity across books (like Marvel post-Civil War) and there's an express shared universe that is supposed to be consistent it just seems sloppy when there are vast differences in characterisation or continuity at the same time (eg, Iron Man at the moment). Otherwise Tom, I think you're kind of simplifying the issue. A small amount of fans will pick holes in minor stuff, sure, but I (and, I think, most people) tend to get annoyed when the writer seems to have no knowledge of the character or history and doesn't seem to care about it either, just bending characters to fit stories rather than vice versa (again, Iron Man and Civil War). This would be fine in an Elseworlds or Ultimate or whatever, but it affects the characters long term in the main continuity. Marvel and DC serialize characters, not stories, so they should come first.

Posted by skagandboneman on 2007-09-03 12:03:27
Murder and Treason
"Who did Tony murder and when did he commit treason?"

If Urich and Floyd were correct in their analysis, Stark never lost control of Norman Osborn's nanites. That means the deaths of the Atlanteans is on Stark's head, whether you want to consider Osborn as a contract killer or simply a tool of Stark's. As for treason, this seems the logical charge for attempting to foment a conflict with another sovereign nation, without sanction or approval from the government. After all, a war with Atlantis could potentially endanger the entire nation, and there was every indication that Stark's was a secret and rogue operation.

Posted by vitruvian on 2007-09-03 21:23:38
to Los Shapis
I'm not a 'hater' ( ),

I'm absolutely not frustrated, I'm on stop-motion movie, and I 've no problem to express myself, neither as for providing my own comics, I'll surely do so, thanks ,no problem.
I understand perfectly that Marvel's dynamic today is not the same that in the 80 or 90.
I basically had no specific problem with what is en route for the moment .

When you're just a long time reader you sometimes begin to make Marvel'yours, and having ideas for stories with Marvel's characters, or within the Marvel Universe,and sometimes you're just asking 'why not me ?, there's space for the story I want to told',
( which are stories I'd like to read and hope will too ); but once again, places on the market are rough, I'm not Bendis, neither Brubaker,.... that's heard.
This is a space here where you can express your opinion and you can also expect better than 's'-up and go ahead,
(....)


Posted by bulgarianyogurt on 2007-09-04 14:01:15
Agreed
Everyone has a different set of beliefs and perspectives on life and living, and that is going to shine through every character they put on for a short time. So in the same way that every person has a different perspective on rich, playboys with hidden weaknesses, every writer is going to write Iron Man slightly differently.

The problem comes, as you sort of mentioned, when a reader with a different perspective suddenly finds the character is moving away from the way he or she used to relate to them with. Then they get mad and call it unfair and disrespectful.

But the only thing disrespectful would be to make the characters and stories boring.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-09-04 14:19:00
the police state...
Funny that you mention creating a police state around the characters as that is just what's happening in the universe itself. Freedoms have been squashed throughout the marvel universe by not having a little bit of police state with the writers. I'm looking forward to the next big revolutionary war event that will put things back on track (and get rid of that Constitution hating, treasonous Tony Stark). The writers shot the wrong hero. Civil War 2 in 2008????


Posted by Partsmutt on 2007-09-04 17:12:28
People CHANGE
As I've said before, but will reiterate here, is that comic characters, acting as if they existed in a "real world" (not the show knuckleheads) situation, will evolve and change. Ask any soldier who has seen combat. Are they different from the days before combat? Yes. Are they different after two, three, four instances of armed combat? Absolutely. People shange, including people with superpowers. Do you think that after witnessing Dr Doom switch bodies, a God-In-The-Flesh wreak havoc on his enemies, and parallel worlds invade that a person isn't going to CHANGE?

Proposterous.

Has any of you who b*tch about continuity ever been accused of "acting out of character"? Why wouldn't somebody who has seen the ends of the earth and combated otherworldy foes succumb to the same foibles of personality? It is stupid and childish to ask for stories in which characters act exactly the same as they did in 1972. Do you or your parents act the exact same way as you did ten years ago? No. Why should Tony Stark?

I'm sick of hearing the mantra that "Joe Quesada is ruining my childhood"...How? A time machine? Because characters have evolved beyond the stereotypes they existed within in the 1980's? Absurd. These people (probably virgins still living in the same bedroom they did in their 'childhood') need to grow up, much like their comics have.

Personally, I couldn't stand the typical "Superhero-Full-House" style stories that, at the end of every issue, things went exactly back to normal, an important lesson was learned, and Uncle Jesse combed his luxurious hair.


Breevort, you are absolutely right, and you look just like my Foster Dad.



Posted by LazGreen on 2007-09-05 22:54:41
One more thing...
Speaking of combat situations, a recent statistic has stated that in World War II, supposedly the "Greatest Generation", the "Heroes of Our Time", 55% of American soldiers SOILED THEMSELVES in combat. Also, 46% fled in terror, dropping all supplies (including weapons and ammo).

Heroes acting "out-of-character"? Is Tom Brokaw being accused of a big "ret-con"?

Long Live the Quesada Regime!!!!!!

I thank you for the past five years of excellent storytelling, regardless of what these 'tards whine about...BRAVO

Posted by LazGreen on 2007-09-05 22:58:20
What the...
As long as the writers on those stories are approaching their work genuinely, each story can work—or at least has an equal chance of making the reader buy into it.

This explains continuity problems and personality changes

Posted by Ebonyblade on 2007-09-19 09:57:55
Am I on to something?
"As long as the writers on those stories are approaching their work genuinely, each story can work—or at least has an equal chance of making the reader buy into it."

These word to me say, "writers do what you will I hav no control over the characters, or their personalities". Which means Cap can be a traitor, Ironman a meglomaniac, and Hawkeye a ninja. As long as your true and honest with your writing anything goes and it has.

Posted by Ebonyblade on 2007-09-21 07:16:29
what?
As long as the writers on those stories are approaching their work genuinely, each story can work—or at least has an equal chance of making the reader buy into it. Nobody is going to enjoy every comic book we put out, and a bad story is a bad story, but trying to be overly militant about some of this stuff is like creating a police state around the characters, and isn't going to allow anybody the luxury of doing anything interesting with them.

Exactly the reason why many people who have long loved Marvel are so dissapointed with Marvel. It not about the fact that things change it's about how things change. If your selling comics change is good. Bottom line.




Posted by Ebonyblade on 2007-09-26 16:04:09