Dark Reign: Good concept, bad execution

[ShadowBoxing]

Again you're using 30 year old stories as if today's writing shouldn't be any better! Your debating skills are obviously in deep need of help considering you just keep repeating the same crap that we've already refuted just using new examples for the same destroyed arguments.
You're arguing with nothing but hot air now. The Question obviously has more patience than I do.

People like you are why comics never will have proper continuity, cuz you'll settle for hack writing to excuse cheap thrills, which means the writers will never have to step up their work.

Comics will never have proper continuity because they can't. Actually it's people like you that make comics bad because you demand a certain interpretation be carried on indefinitely not realizing that the comics you consider classic and canon only represent a minute fraction of the many and varied interpretations to have been done over the course of a continuing comic. The only comics that can allow for such strict adherence to internal logic are creator driven books, which is why you have people like Bendis and Kirkman writing Powers and Walking Dead. In those books the writers are only responsible for their works, not the works of other authors. In regular comics though you cannot expect nor require writers to focus on years and years of history. If someone wants to write a particular Norman Osborn story you kind of have to let them since for the time their on the book it's their character, not Stan Lee's, not Roy Thomas' and not anyone else's.

Comic book fanboys have a very narrow minded view of continuity. They assume it can be "fixed", and that somehow "fixing" it will create better stories and better characters when the reality is breaking from established continuity is more often than not what makes characters iconic and classic. For example, X-Men, my favorite title started out little more than a Fantastic Four/Avengers rehash. A team of angsty teenagers whose villain's goals and aspirations could be summed up as "trying to take over the world", this even included the Sentinels, who simply felt themselves superior to their creators.

Then some writers, Claremont, Wein and Adams came along and decided the book worked much better as an allegory for racial injustice. They aged the characters, ended the "student" aspect pretty abruptly, and created a world that despised mutants despite the fact that the X-Men had been celebrities before this point. Their story even violates internal logic: how come the X-Men are hated and feared when super-powers are not? Despite this, the drastic change they made created an iconic cast, and a book that stood out from the crowd, whereas the original had been cancelled for being...well...the opposite.

Norman Osborn isn't much different. He's a character with potential that's never really been utilized. As of now his most dastardly deeds included fighting Spider-Man and...umm...fighting Spider-Man. In fact, until five years ago he had ONLY fought Spider-Man. He didn't even trade off in AoV.

However people seem to have a problem that so much continuity gets swept under the rug. This always happens though. Most comic fanboys don't appreciate their medium or it's fluidity. What do you think the average lifespan of a reader is? Sure there are guys like me that have collections chronicling decades, then there are most people who collect one or two books for the course of five, maybe ten years tops. That's the bulk of your market. Guys who will never, ever read Spider-Man versus the Wendigo, despite the fact that it's a pretty slick read. Obviously that story has impact, but because it's going on twenty some odd years old, it simply can't be considered relevant anymore in storywriting. "Hey remember that old Spider-Man...."....no.

Unfortunately Marvel fans have to detach themselves, sit back, and realize it's not a real Universe and doesn't follow real rules. It's a comic book and the stories, even though they build upon themselves, are each distinct and stand on their own merits. The Dark Phoenix Saga is good, yet I also like X-Factor which overwrites it. They bring Jean back as simply a telekenetic and say that Maddy is a clone and the Phoenix, well she was also a clone, and ya'know what...f*** it, the book was still fun and had good character dynamics. The Archangel arc was excellent, doesn't matter if it violated "internal logic" (had their been any to begin with).

Marvel writes for two people 1) new readers and 2) readers who have been reading for five years or so. They can bank on diehards sticking around because you guys are so attached to these characters they could make the whole lot of them transexuals and you'd probably still buy the books. Unfortunately if every book requires you to have an extensive knowledge of all things Marvel then new readers and even many long time subscribers will be alienated. This has always been the case though. Even Stan Lee would reintroduce his characters and villains as if they were new, often well into their third, forth and fifth appearances.

Continuity is an illusion. It does not mean the Universe works in a normative fashion, it simply means that characters have an origin and that issues are not stand alones, but rather featuring recurring characters, plotlines and reference each other when necessary. It does not infer that a character will remain static or will be free from abrupt changes, no matter how drastic. It's how DareDevil went from a merry swashbuckler who made jokes like Spider-Man, to the grim and gritty, internal monologue Miller-esque character he is now...and that change was abrupt, and needed, considering the book was slated for cancellation.

 

[The Question]

SB, I don't think anyone here wants certain interpretations of characters to be carried on indefinitely. I'm certainly not a proponent of that. I want characters to change and to grow and be people. I just want it to be done well. I want it to be organic and actually feel like that character is changing as a person and changing their lot in life. I don't want it to be brought about by sudden changed and lazy, thoughtless explanations. I want writers to put some effort in it. I don't dislike Dark Reign because it changed the status quo. I actually like the status quo change, or at least the idea of it. I just feel that how that change was brought about was lazily written.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

SB, I don't think anyone here wants certain interpretations of characters to be carried on indefinitely. I'm certainly not a proponent of that. I want characters to change and to grow and be people. I just want it to be done well. I want it to be organic and actually feel like that character is changing as a person and changing their lot in life. I don't want it to be brought about by sudden changed and lazy, thoughtless explanations. I want writers to put some effort in it. I don't dislike Dark Reign because it changed the status quo. I actually like the status quo change, or at least the idea of it. I just feel that how that change was brought about was lazily written.

Number 1, for those of us reading T-bolts, it's not really "sudden", insomuch as they've been setting this storyline up since before SI. The problem you guys kept repeating ad nasium was that "he killed a bunch a people, why would the Government hire a killer?". That's a very logical real world question that has no place in comics. It's done simply to cause conflict, it's not really lazy writing, it's done because in order to change the status quo in comics it's important to disregard much of what's been done in the past. Wolverine, in order to be cool, had to be rewritten as distinct and different from the malcontent who was originally introduced. There isn't anything organic about it. In retrospect it might feel that way because the character you know now fills your nostaglia fueled view of previous comics, but understand most of these characters started out far different and after several abrupt, sudden and thoughtless explanations involving clones and dead parents someone was able to remold them into something different. For 99.999999% of readers the "gunshot" explanation will suffice enough since they will only have a passing and vague idea of Norman Osborn's past. Okay, we know he's the Green Goblin, we know Spider-Man hates him....but not many will remember, probably not even the writer himself, that he exposed his identity and held a bunch of people hostage that one time. Either way, that story isn't part of the one they're telling now, so it's irrelevant. This story is being told for people who followed SI and T-bolts.

 

[The Question]

It totally has a place in comics. It has a place in all fiction because, when you take questions like that into account, it actually improves your writing. Trying to find ways for characters behavior and actions to flow organically is only a hinderance to writers who refuse to use any actual writing skill. How Norman came to power was completely lazy, because they failed to explain how it makes sense. They're writers. They write. That's what they're payed to do. I would just like them to have a little respect for their craft and put some thought into it instead of throwing all logic to the wind (not fudging it, not cleverly misdirecting the audience, simply disregarding it) to get from point A to point B.

 

[BrianWilly]

The problem you guys kept repeating ad nasium was that "he killed a bunch a people, why would the Government hire a killer?". That's a very logical real world question that has no place in comics.

This is nonsense. Comics address those kinds of questions all the time. People like Joe Kelly and Greg Rucka and Brad Meltzer and Ed Brubaker and even Mark Millar have made a career out of it with their work in both DC and Marvel. Maybe you prefer the style of comicbooks that throw all realistic relatability to the winds -- and I'm certainly not saying that those stories don't exist -- but you can't pretend that the opposite style that actually comes up with grounded relatability for seemingly unrelatable elements of comics hasn't been around for a good long while or that there is no writer or audience for it. I would argue that it has been the pervasive style at both Marvel and DC for the last five or six years. A story like Civil War for instance, for all that it might not make sense in a whole lot of other ways, was built entirely on questions about the whys and hows and whynots of a world with superheroes, and trying to make it all fit within at least a general sense of continuity. Did it succeed? I don't think so. But it certainly wasn't a "Forget everything you know, we're gonna tell us a story no matter how little sense it makes!" situation.

Either way, that story isn't part of the one they're telling now, so it's irrelevant. This story is being told for people who followed SI and T-bolts.

Except that even T-bolts at the least operated under the assumption that Norman Osborn was a known psychopath not to be trusted and that the government was keeping him and his crew under a very tight leash. To go from that to "Everyone loves him and obeys him unconditionally and wears the colors of the costume he wore when he murdered a teenage girl" is a massive, unrelatable leap of logic no matter how you try to twist history, recent or otherwise.

See, the mark of good fiction isn't necessarily how realistic it may or may not be. The mark of good fiction is how relatable you can make it. You can have completely outlandish situations that still completely engross the audience, but the moment that you lose relatability, you lose the audience. We're not talking about "One day Jean Grey was telepathic, the next she was telekinetic." We're talking about "One day Gwen Stacy was a nice happy girl, the next day she ****ed the Goblin out of depression." Leaps of relatability, not realism.

 

[fifthfiend]

We're talking about "One day Gwen Stacy was a nice happy girl, the next day she ****ed the Goblin out of depression."

Except instead of Gwen Stacy, the entire 300,000,000-strong population of America.

 

[RockSP]

The original poster is correct. Typical Bendis. (Some) good ideas but crappy execution. Everyone somehow just forgetting that Norman is the Green Goblin is silly. It's not like Bendis couldn't have come up with an original character to be the head of all this. It would still sell well just because it's Bendis.

 

[BrianWilly]

Except instead of Gwen Stacy, the entire 300,000,000-strong population of America.

Well, I dunno. If we wanna talk consistent continuity in comics, then the idea that Marvel universe citizens are ****ing ******ed ungrateful idiots who wouldn't know heroes if one came up behind them and gave them a reacharound is pretty much one of the most consistent continuities ever.

But then, see, that's a point too, because a story could actually have perfect continuity with past stories and yet if it isn't executed well, it's still just a hack job.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

It totally has a place in comics. It has a place in all fiction because, when you take questions like that into account, it actually improves your writing. Trying to find ways for characters behavior and actions to flow organically is only a hinderance to writers who refuse to use any actual writing skill. How Norman came to power was completely lazy, because they failed to explain how it makes sense. They're writers. They write. That's what they're payed to do. I would just like them to have a little respect for their craft and put some thought into it instead of throwing all logic to the wind (not fudging it, not cleverly misdirecting the audience, simply disregarding it) to get from point A to point B.

Yet stories are written all the time that totally disregard continuity and, if they're good, they are considered classic, iconic and canon no matter how they were shoehorned into the plot. Then stories are written with great observance to continuity and if they are worthless pieces of dung, they are disregarded and completely forgotten. If any writer no a days even breathed the word "clone saga" in a Spider-Man related title there would be an internet uproar the likes of which we've never seen. If the current Iron Man writer decided it was time to touch upon the Teen Tony storyline, people would riot and drop the already low selling book. If the X-scribes decided maybe, just maybe, it was time to do another X-Babies storyline people would tear their books up in anger. These things are definitely continuity based, in fact "the Clone Saga" makes complete sense within continuity since Spider-Man/Peter Parker does not reveal the DNA results and the definitive answer of whether he is the clone is left well...inconclusive. So those who picked up that story were absolute paying attention to what had happened long before. As for Grant Morrison, well he completely rewrote X-Men and made changes with little regard to continuity, however, in a lot of ways he combined the best elements of X-Men and streamlined the story to make more sense than it had in the past. The X-Mansion was an actual school, the team were actual teachers, instead of just a vague school/training ground for superheroes whose funding and purpose was dubious at best.

So was Norman Osborn winning the hearts and minds of the public a little quick, yes...yes it was. Though most people who read the story won't be judging it on the basis of minor details about Norman's past, they'll simply see him as his character. He is a psychopath, and a murderer yes, but to most his identity is secret -- because the movies and the comics most people will have read feature that basic character.

It's not lazy writing at all. No more than any other writers attempts to drastically change a character. If the story turns out to be a wonderfully embraced change (see what I did there) then suddenly the gunshot will make perfect sense and the way it was introduced will be brilliant. If it fails miserably and people want to go back to reading about him sticking up old ladies with goblin bombs then it will be as maligned as the X-Babies, Clones and Teen Tony.

That's the point you're not seeing. Continuity is a fancy Indian word for "my interpretation of the story and characters". Continuity means if it doesn't remain sacred to the stories I've read and the characters I like then it's not "in continuity". You've said time and again you don't like the way they introduced it, which is basically saying "if it's not my interpretation there better be a damn good explanation as to why". You see though, that's the problem, it assumes all readers are familiar or wish to be familiar with the stories you've read. Maybe...just maybe...the writer who takes over Spider-Man or Avengers thinks all the stories you like are stupid and if they aren't stricken from the record they'll hold the book back. Every so often I run into an apologist for the Stan Lee X-Men run, someone who thinks that was the best. There's nothing really I can say to that person to make them not think it is so. Certainly I could clear up any misconceptions they have about it, but they may still love it just the same. The sh***y dialogue, the generic characters, the dime-store Dr. Doom Magneto...but hey if that's your cup of tea. Those people though probably ducked out the moment Wein and Claremont decided they could do so much better by disregarding continuity. Maybe you talk to someone who likes Ditko Spider-Man, and hates how Romita decided the characters should be beautiful, behave more like soap opera stars and that Peter should have a semi-normal social and love life unlike the friendless and hated loser he had been written as before (and by the way that change was very, very abrupt).

In some ways I wish I could turn the clocks back and place the internet during those massive C-changes in books. I'd love to see people sh***ing on a message board "Oh My Teh GODZ, Peter Parker isn't wearing glasses anymore. That's not continuity. ArGHHHHH!!!!", or "Geez, laying it on a little thick with the racial analogies in X-Men. Now kids who aren't part of minorities can't relate to this book".

See, the mark of good fiction isn't necessarily how realistic it may or may not be. The mark of good fiction is how relatable you can make it. You can have completely outlandish situations that still completely engross the audience, but the moment that you lose relatability, you lose the audience.

It's relateable because of the characters, not because of how the story is told. "Inferno" was completely ridiculous, as was most of 90s X-Men, yet I related to Cyclops because of how similar his and my past were, and how we handled ourselves. You're trying to use the terms "realism" and "relateability" interchangibily, as if the story is "relateable" because Norman didn't receive power in a "realistic" way. Though that's not what's going on here at all. The problem isn't the realism of the story, it's the fact that you're trying to fit this idea of "relateability" into an overarching continuity. "People aren't going to accept a known criminal as a higher up". That's only if most readers choose to look closely enough at the character to catch all the inconsistencies the story has with continuity. Some people might relate to him more now that he has power, maybe because they have power, or have people they don't like gaining power, and they will relate to him regardless of how much his story fits into comics they never read.

 

[The Question]

You've said time and again you don't like the way they introduced it, which is basically saying "if it's not my interpretation there better be a damn good explanation as to why".

The thing is, that's not what I'm saying. At all. If the same thing had happened in a completely self contained, creator owned series I would have the exact same problem: The deranged psycho's rise to power was badly written and didn't make sense. I have no problem with the idea of the story. I think it's actually a very, very cool idea. But I think they did a crappy job of writing the first part of the story. They didn't put any effort in crafting his rise to power. They just phoned it in to get onto the part of the story they really wanted to tell. And I don't think that's very good writing.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The thing is, that's not what I'm saying. At all. If the same thing had happened in a completely self contained, creator owned series I would have the exact same problem: The deranged psycho's rise to power was badly written and didn't make sense. I have no problem with the idea of the story. I think it's actually a very, very cool idea. But I think they did a crappy job of writing the first part of the story. They didn't put any effort in crafting his rise to power. They just phoned it in to get onto the part of the story they really wanted to tell. And I don't think that's very good writing.

See, the part that followed that is basically my response to that part you quoted out of context.

"You see though, that's the problem, it assumes all readers are familiar or wish to be familiar with the stories you've read. Maybe...just maybe...the writer who takes over Spider-Man or Avengers thinks all the stories you like are stupid and if they aren't stricken from the record they'll hold the book back."

 

[The Question]

See, the part that followed that is basically my response to that part you quoted out of context.

"You see though, that's the problem, it assumes all readers are familiar or wish to be familiar with the stories you've read. Maybe...just maybe...the writer who takes over Spider-Man or Avengers thinks all the stories you like are stupid and if they aren't stricken from the record they'll hold the book back."

If a writer plans to do a story that is meant to completely invalidate the history of the character and replace it with something new, they should do it in a context where they're not expected to be writing within that history. And yes, I know the reverse has been true in comics in the past, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. I mean, you're saying you want characters to change. I'm saying I want characters to change and grow. As in, be treated like people, who's lives and experiences inform who they are and what they become. Don't look at their backstories as a hinderance, look at it as a helpful tool and in some cases a challenge to up your game as a writer. What you're talking about is change, but it's temporary, it's an illusion.


Also, I find that many of the examples you've been giving are far less extreme than Dark Reign. Miller's Daredevil, for example. The changes there were a tonal shift, really. It was simply having things in Matt's life take a darker turn.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

If a writer plans to do a story that is meant to completely invalidate the history of the character and replace it with something new, they should do it in a context where they're not expected to be writing within that history. And yes, I know the reverse has been true in comics in the past, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. I mean, you're saying you want characters to change. I'm saying I want characters to change and grow. As in, be treated like people, who's lives and experiences inform who they are and what they become. Don't look at their backstories as a hinderance, look at it as a helpful tool and in some cases a challenge to up your game as a writer. What you're talking about is change, but it's temporary, it's an illusion.

Comic characters don't "grow" though, they never have. Their growth is merely several sudden changes, like this one, strung over a series of years, so when fans go back and update the story in their heads the new information overwrites the old. You've only created the illusion of growth in your head, and whether you believe it or not you would've laid these exact same complaints out about prior stories had you been around for them.

Also, I find that many of the examples you've been giving are far less extreme than Dark Reign. Miller's Daredevil, for example. The changes there were a tonal shift, really. It was simply having things in Matt's life take a darker turn.

Not really, considering he rewrote the origin, the reason he was DareDevil and updated his rogue's gallery all within the matter of issues. His actually was more gradual than Romita who, literally, without explanation took Peter from a social pariah to a serial dater in the course of one issue. It wasn't even explained why, all of the sudden, everyone was nicer to him and why his glasses were missing. Just a quick change.

 

[random_havoc]

Hmm, I've already pointed this out so let's try it again in a different way that perhaps 'shadowboxing' will actually listen to....

Hi, I'm Shadowboxing! I like to use strawman arguments(misrepresenting an opponents views and then defeating the misrepresentation rather then they're actual arguments). For example, because the people I'm debating don't like the WAY the change took place in dark reign, I'll OVER AND OVER again try and make it sound like they don't like ANY comic change. But just doing that would be pretty short and obviously wrong, so I'll fill it in with a bunch of words by using examples that are:

A) Other examples of changes which I think were too abrupt, and then reference those as if one example of badly writing a change means other bad writing is therefore okay, and

B) those example will pretty much all be from comics that are 30yrs old or so, because, really, we shouldn't expect the quality of comic writing to go up at all. After all, it's not really an artform. It's just about chuckin out cheap thrills to make a buck.

And I'll do all of this while arguing that it's FINE for comic writers to completely disregard things that took place in continuity on a whim, cuz hey, it's not like that's an insult to the readers who have been loyal to that title and it's characters and history or to the writers that came before. Nope, they don't need to provide rational explanations for those changes at all, not when they can just wantonly contradict past events in the comics history.

And when that fails, hey, I'll just repeat steps A and B again so that I won't have to admit my arguments already lost.


Again, you've got more patience for this then I do, Question. He's already lost this debate like three times, he just keeps on throwing out new examples to support his already defeated arguments (A fallacy known as 'elephant tossing' - throwing a whole bunch of stuff and hoping to overwhelm an opponent so they won't bother continuing to refute you).

Conclusion: The title of this thread is obviously correct.

 

[sdc10]

Hmm, I've already pointed this out so let's try it again in a different way that perhaps 'shadowboxing' will actually listen to....

Hi, I'm Shadowboxing! I like to use strawman arguments(misrepresenting an opponents views and then defeating the misrepresentation rather then they're actual arguments). For example, because the people I'm debating don't like the WAY the change took place in dark reign, I'll OVER AND OVER again try and make it sound like they don't like ANY comic change. But just doing that would be pretty short and obviously wrong, so I'll fill it in with a bunch of words by using examples that are:

A) Other examples of changes which I think were too abrupt, and then reference those as if one example of badly writing a change means other bad writing is therefore okay, and

B) those example will pretty much all be from comics that are 30yrs old or so, because, really, we shouldn't expect the quality of comic writing to go up at all. After all, it's not really an artform. It's just about chuckin out cheap thrills to make a buck.

And I'll do all of this while arguing that it's FINE for comic writers to completely disregard things that took place in continuity on a whim, cuz hey, it's not like that's an insult to the readers who have been loyal to that title and it's characters and history or to the writers that came before. Nope, they don't need to provide rational explanations for those changes at all, not when they can just wantonly contradict past events in the comics history.

And when that fails, hey, I'll just repeat steps A and B again so that I won't have to admit my arguments already lost.


Again, you've got more patience for this then I do, Question. He's already lost this debate like three times, he just keeps on throwing out new examples to support his already defeated arguments (A fallacy known as 'elephant tossing' - throwing a whole bunch of stuff and hoping to overwhelm an opponent so they won't bother continuing to refute you).

Conclusion: The title of this thread is obviously correct.

In your opinion

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And I'll do all of this while arguing that it's FINE for comic writers to completely disregard things that took place in continuity on a whim, cuz hey, it's not like that's an insult to the readers who have been loyal to that title and it's characters and history or to the writers that came before. Nope, they don't need to provide rational explanations for those changes at all, not when they can just wantonly contradict past events in the comics history.

Yeah, and guess what, that's what they're paid to do. If I pay Joss Whedon and Grant Morrison to write X-Men, I don't want them to write Stan Lee or Chris Claremont's X-Men. You saw what happened to Superman Returns right? Writers are perfectly justified in any comic to make wanton changes, for the duration they are on the book it's their characters and their rules. I know it's hard for comic fans to realize that comics are not governed by any rules or regulations and that those characters don't belong to them. If you didn't take the medium so damn seriously maybe you'd be able to enjoy these stories on their own merits rather than judging them based on an esoteric standard no one else understands or cares about. Continuity only means something within the confines of one plotline. I remember when I first started reading comics and I was younger I was way anal about how characters were used, when they were used and continuity. As I got older I realized comics were a business constantly trying to appeal to new readers and as such nothing in them was sacred, nor should it be. When you've read hundreds upon hundreds of issues in a single book you begin to gain a greater understanding for how many internal shake ups happen without regard to what came before it.

I would also stop being INSULTED by things that occur in comic books. That is the most infantile thing I've ever heard. It's fiction, and it's fluid fiction at that. If you can't take characters getting massive overhauls every five years or so, I'd stop reading comics and stick to something a little more creator controlled. Most of the views you have of characters, most of the things you hold as significant, canonical and classic are the result of creators coming in and making drastic changes with little regard to continuity. Comic books fans tend to believe their status quo is the status quo and all the changes before it made sense while the new ones don't. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[random_havoc]

Yeah, and guess what, that's what they're paid to do. If I pay Joss Whedon and Grant Morrison to write X-Men, I don't want them to write Stan Lee or Chris Claremont's X-Men. You saw what happened to Superman Returns right? Writers are perfectly justified in any comic to make wanton changes, for the duration they are on the book it's their characters and their rules. I know it's hard for comic fans to realize that comics are not governed by any rules or regulations and that those characters don't belong to them. If you didn't take the medium so damn seriously maybe you'd be able to enjoy these stories on their own merits rather than judging them based on an esoteric standard no one else understands or cares about. Continuity only means something within the confines of one plotline. I remember when I first started reading comics and I was younger I was way anal about how characters were used, when they were used and continuity. As I got older I realized comics were a business constantly trying to appeal to new readers and as such nothing in them was sacred, nor should it be. When you've read hundreds upon hundreds of issues in a single book you begin to gain a greater understanding for how many internal shake ups happen without regard to what came before it.

I would also stop being INSULTED by things that occur in comic books. That is the most infantile thing I've ever heard. It's fiction, and it's fluid fiction at that. If you can't take characters getting massive overhauls every five years or so, I'd stop reading comics and stick to something a little more creator controlled. Most of the views you have of characters, most of the things you hold as significant, canonical and classic are the result of creators coming in and making drastic changes with little regard to continuity. Comic books fans tend to believe their status quo is the status quo and all the changes before it made sense while the new ones don't. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is the EXACT SAME argument you used before. So, to reply quickly, I have no problem with changes, even drastic ones, so long as they're achieved in a rational way consistent with the current character and story. The fact that these changes have been achieved by bad writing in the past WITHOUT appropriate transition DOES NOT change the fact that it was bad writing NOR does it justify doing so again.

I just refuted your points above, but then that was done a few pages ago and you're still repeating it over and over for some reason.

 

[cerealkiller182]

This is the EXACT SAME argument you used before. So, to reply quickly, I have no problem with changes, even drastic ones, so long as they're achieved in a rational way consistent with the current character and story. The fact that these changes have been achieved by bad writing in the past WITHOUT appropriate transition DOES NOT change the fact that it was bad writing NOR does it justify doing so again.

I just refuted your points above, but then that was done a few pages ago and you're still repeating it over and over for some reason.

But isnt the current character and story of Osborn and Secret Invasion make this valid. Last I checked Osborn was working for the government, biggest critic of Stark, who is the current scapegoat, heading one of the more popular teams in the Intiative, seen by the media saving Washington and killing the Queen Skrull, taking anti-psychotics to keep Goblin in check (albeit having them changed out without his knowledge), having his Goblin exploits swept under the rug and hidden from the public, and his very public assissination attempt on the Atlanteans being blamed on nanites or something like that. Its definitely drastic for Osborn to get such a position, but I think the pieces were laid to get Osborn their in the most understandable way possible taking into account that it would be far-fetched no matter what.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

This is the EXACT SAME argument you used before. So, to reply quickly, I have no problem with changes, even drastic ones, so long as they're achieved in a rational way consistent with the current character and story. The fact that these changes have been achieved by bad writing in the past WITHOUT appropriate transition DOES NOT change the fact that it was bad writing NOR does it justify doing so again.

In your opinion. The fact that changes are made abruptly, or without regards to previous "continuity" is irrelevant to the overall quality of the story. As I've...sigh...tried to point out time and again, and you choose to ignore, stories are done ALL THE TIME without "appropriate transition" and if the general fanbase accepts them at their conclusion they are considered classic, iconic and sometimes become the new status quo. It's a fallacy to believe that an overarching continuity exists within the Marvel Universe. Continuity simply exists for one story, and exists loosely enough so that a book remains recognizeable enough to readers who may have a vague idea of the characters inside.

Norman Osborn is a criminal known as the Green Goblin, and to most readers who pick up any given book featuring him, that will be the extent of their knowledge. The gunshot stands as a perfectly rational explanation for the events in Dark Reign as far as that particular story goes. It is sufficient in elevating his status above Starks and setting the new status quo. For most readers, they will be judging the story internally on it's own merits. For most anal fanboys they will try to nitpick away at it using obscure information most people couldn't give two sh**s about.

How did this discussion start? Oh yes, it was the hostage storyline featuring the Green Goblin live on TV. An event which most new readers will not be familiar with and even many old readers will have skipped over. Yes, this story does fit in continuity about as much as every other story. It overwrites a lot of what doesn't fit it's ends, but such is comic books.

"Fixing" continuity, if such a thing were possible, would not make better stories, in fact it would massively restrict the creative freedom of every writer who got the chance at Marvel characters. It would force everyone to become an expert on all the little details of past events, so they would not tread on each others toes. I'm sure some fans pervertedly believe this would be a utopia, but the fact is that most stories become classic because a writer is given permission to do the opposite. Go in and rewrite, completely, a book without regard to it's previous continuity. It's how characters grow and change.

 

[random_havoc]

In your opinion. The fact that changes are made abruptly, or without regards to previous "continuity" is irrelevant to the overall quality of the story. As I've...sigh...tried to point out time and again, and you choose to ignore, stories are done ALL THE TIME without "appropriate transition" and if the general fanbase accepts them at their conclusion they are considered classic, iconic and sometimes become the new status quo. It's a fallacy to believe that an overarching continuity exists within the Marvel Universe. Continuity simply exists for one story, and exists loosely enough so that a book remains recognizeable enough to readers who may have a vague idea of the characters inside.

Norman Osborn is a criminal known as the Green Goblin, and to most readers who pick up any given book featuring him, that will be the extent of their knowledge. The gunshot stands as a perfectly rational explanation for the events in Dark Reign as far as that particular story goes. It is sufficient in elevating his status above Starks and setting the new status quo. For most readers, they will be judging the story internally on it's own merits. For most anal fanboys they will try to nitpick away at it using obscure information most people couldn't give two sh**s about.

How did this discussion start? Oh yes, it was the hostage storyline featuring the Green Goblin live on TV. An event which most new readers will not be familiar with and even many old readers will have skipped over. Yes, this story does fit in continuity about as much as every other story. It overwrites a lot of what doesn't fit it's ends, but such is comic books.

"Fixing" continuity, if such a thing were possible, would not make better stories, in fact it would massively restrict the creative freedom of every writer who got the chance at Marvel characters. It would force everyone to become an expert on all the little details of past events, so they would not tread on each others toes. I'm sure some fans pervertedly believe this would be a utopia, but the fact is that most stories become classic because a writer is given permission to do the opposite. Go in and rewrite, completely, a book without regard to it's previous continuity. It's how characters grow and change.

Wow, you're a big fan of shallow big budget summer movies aren't you? The difference between good writing and writing like the kind that you're saying is just fine and dandy is that one actually has enough skill to make changes with progression logically moving the story and characters along while the other, again, goes for the cheap, easy thrill at the sacrifice of continuity and respecting the previous creators, storylines, and potentially hundreds of comics that readers have spent good money collecting.
Read the Chuck Dixon article on the thread with his name in it, it touches on some of these topics nicely I think.

 

[random_havoc]

But isnt the current character and story of Osborn and Secret Invasion make this valid. Last I checked Osborn was working for the government, biggest critic of Stark, who is the current scapegoat, heading one of the more popular teams in the Intiative, seen by the media saving Washington and killing the Queen Skrull, taking anti-psychotics to keep Goblin in check (albeit having them changed out without his knowledge), having his Goblin exploits swept under the rug and hidden from the public, and his very public assissination attempt on the Atlanteans being blamed on nanites or something like that. Its definitely drastic for Osborn to get such a position, but I think the pieces were laid to get Osborn their in the most understandable way possible taking into account that it would be far-fetched no matter what.

You're making some valid attempts at arguments here. At least you're not claiming that continuity doesn't matter one bit and repeating disproven argumentation over and over again.

That being said, I still disagree with you. But I applaud the attempt. I disagree with you because of points listed a number of pages back regarding Osborn being publicly known as a murderer and psychopath. For details look back.

 

[random_havoc]

For one last illustration before I attempt to extricate myself from this thread (like arguing with a wall) I'll point out an actual GOOD piece of writing which made a big difference.

In the Green Lantern stories his powers were always ineffective against yellow. There wasn't really a rational explanation to it, it was just one of those really old comic things that was just there. But then not long ago Geoff Johns (I think) wrote an exquisite story which was not only great within itself but also gave a great explanation to take that silly piece of comic storyline and make it make sense.

Now, Johns could have taken the lazy way out regarding the yellow and downplayed it or ignored it during his run specifically because it was silly, but instead he took that piece of comic continuity and stuck right to it, improving it and bringing it up to today's standards.

That was good writing.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Wow, you're a big fan of shallow big budget summer movies aren't you?

Because if they had proper continuity they'd all be Citizen Kane Wow, you got me there. Every book with perfect continuity is brilliant, and the MU would be awesome if every story had perfect continuity. Let's just ignore the fact God Loves, Man Kills doesn't fit into the continuity of the mainstream book. Let's go ahead and ignore Kingdom Come and The Dark Knight Returns as they completely rewrite continuity for the purposes of the story without explanation...oh, right, sorry alternate universe don't count. It only counts as crap if it violates the oh-so-precious regular continuity. You realize most people who read comics don't know the difference, right?

The difference between good writing and writing like the kind that you're saying is just fine and dandy is that one actually has enough skill to make changes with progression logically moving the story and characters along while the other, again, goes for the cheap, easy thrill at the sacrifice of continuity and respecting the previous creators, storylines, and potentially hundreds of comics that readers have spent good money collecting.

Or perhaps try it this way. One form of writing requires you to make demands upon your writers which restrict them from free and fair use of the characters you've given them to write, while the other allows them to do what they wish and craft the story they want to craft thus ensuring the story will have more internal quality.

Internal quality, i.e. a story that stands by itself will always trump external quality and always should.

The irony is you said "cheap thrills", when in fact continuity itself is the cheap sales tool. It was created so kids would buy more than one issue, but rather several, and then branch out to other titles. As far as storytelling goes though it's meaningless. Magneto can rip up New York, or a Reverend can have Xavier mind-kill the humans and if it doesn't affect other titles (those things didn't, BTW) it violates continuity. However, in the interest of telling a good story, continuity had to be ignore, otherwise the writer would have been forced to consider every minute detail of every other book running. You should never, EVER make such demands upon an artist.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

For one last illustration before I attempt to extricate myself from this thread (like arguing with a wall) I'll point out an actual GOOD piece of writing which made a big difference.

In the Green Lantern stories his powers were always ineffective against yellow. There wasn't really a rational explanation to it, it was just one of those really old comic things that was just there. But then not long ago Geoff Johns (I think) wrote an exquisite story which was not only great within itself but also gave a great explanation to take that silly piece of comic storyline and make it make sense.

Now, Johns could have taken the lazy way out regarding the yellow and downplayed it or ignored it during his run specifically because it was silly, but instead he took that piece of comic continuity and stuck right to it, improving it and bringing it up to today's standards.

That was good writing.

Was "Secret Origins" bad because it ignored Emerald Dawn?

 

[random_havoc]

Internal quality, i.e. a story that stands by itself will always trump external quality and always should.

Hey here's a novel idea, how about one that does BOTH. That's what good writers are capable of. Writers without much skill HAVE to pick internal over external because they're not good enough to make them work together. Again, read Chuck Dixon's comments.