RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books I think MOTA should read this.

Quote:

---

CB: Some have said that DC really need something like the Ultimate line, offering a new continuity-starting-over approach to the DCU for newcomers-and some have even described Supreme Power at Marvel as "Ultimate JLA." Have you considered a DC Silver line, or some similar DCU approach?

Dan DiDio: It's such a double-edged sword... We've considered it, and we've talked it about, but I have books now that haven't reached their full potential, and I want to focus our energies there. Until the characters that we're doing maximize their sales, we need to focus on that, not on creating a new alternative universe for those same characters, or some derivation of those characters. Continuity can be used as a plus or a minus, and that's one of the things that we've all become acutely aware of. The reality is, we're trying to tell the best stories rather than focusing on a given universe's continuity. We're experiencing, in some cases, what we call "selective continuity"-building upon the stories that people remember most and pushing aside-maybe even ignoring entirely- the stories that have less influence on current events, or those that can actually bog down characters.

People who remember the Silver Age sometimes overlook the fact that the Silver Age had a lot of stories that violated continuity; in the years since, creators have picked up the elements that worked best for them and ignored those that interfered. To a degree, we have to be willing to do that now. Books like JLA: Liberty & Justice sort of select and build their own continuity, and they do it so effectively that readers aren't at all confused or disappointed. I think that success breeds continuity. The more successful the story is, the more excited people are about reading a story and building continuity from it. We're being a little looser around the edges in paying attention to the continuity of the past.

What people remember most about the characters is what's important. JLA: Liberty & Justice and DC-The New Frontier are fine examples of that: we could have forced them into continuity or put them in an Elseworlds niche, but we didn't want to diminish the attention that the books would get by doing that. Ultimately, we have to realize that DC continuity is a moving target. We tell generational sagas, but our prime characters don't age, so we have to build a continuity around that. In some cases, such as Flash and Green Lantern, continuity moves forward and dramatic changes take place-but Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman don't change, and we have to work around that.

Bob Wayne: No one should expect that the characters are now in their late eighties because the books have been around for sixty years or so. I don't think it would make for very exciting comics.

Dan DiDio: Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing-and neither is continuity for the sake of continuity. I don't think it's the best answer. You can talk to any writer with a long run on a book and he'll tell you about stories he did that regretted-or even ignored-later on, because those stories interfered with better stories later on. And too much attention to continuity can really hold a book back. The last thing I want is to produce a new series that has to be footnoted to death in order for people to understand it.

Bob Wayne: ...And footnoted with references to comics that the average reader doesn't have a copy of or doesn't have any access to, so it's an exercise in frustration.

---

Quote:

---

Bob Wayne: ...And footnoted with references to comics that the average reader doesn't have a copy of or doesn't have any access to, so it's an exercise in frustration.

---

Quote:

---

Prometheus said:

(1) If ignoring continuity means that I can ignore such rubbish as LAST LAUGH, then, I'm all for it.

---

Quote:

---

(2) I hate Loeb. Not because he fucks with "continuity", but, because he's a hack writer with few original ideas of his own.

---

Quote:

---

(4) If this all means we get to have another CRISIS...the balls-iest, most progressive move ANY comic company ever made...then I support it fully.

---

Progressive in what way?

The entire point of a crisis was to 1) Start things over from a managable point and 2) Get rid of the continuity flaws. Crisis is one of the most stupidest stories I've ever read in my entire comicbook reading life. Part of it was the writing, another part was the premise (story not intention), another was the inevitable conclusion of it, and the other was how scattered it was. It was not only idiotic, but laborous to read. It's also what helped create C.O.M.E. and that is something that is unforgivable.

Also...

If you denounce the effort to keep continuity so much, then why do you elate the concept of a crisis exactly?

Quote:

---

(5) DC...Marvel....they all kicked "continuity" to the curb years ago. This is a moot debate. It's the New Age of comics, whether we like it or not. And, personally, whether I seriously agree with it, or not, doesn't matter.....I'm not going to be the old fart that screams "MY CONTINUITY IS THE ONLY CONTINUITY!! BRING BACK THE SILVER AGE PRE-CRISIS!!". These people are sad and pathetic, and I pity them. Things change. Without change, the world becomes stagnant, and dies. This isn't opinion. This is scientific fact. For comics to survive the next century of culture and media, it must adapt or die. Period.

---

The fact that this continuity is still REQUIRED and is ATTEMPTING to be followed by the writers makes it, in fact, not moot. The way you're describing it as "kicked to the curb" isn't true. I'm not saying you should be raving in that sense. If this continuity is taken away by a crisis, then I'll be hushing up and movng on to the next set of continuity. Of course I'll be pissed, but if they re-create the characters in such a way that I find likeable, I'm gonna be hanging on and promoting CURRENT continuity. Another thing; suggesting that you're not raving merely because you don't want to sound that way isn't painting a very flattering picture of your opinion here.

Quote:

---

DC...Marvel....they all kicked "continuity" to the curb years ago. This is a moot debate. It's the New Age of comics, whether we like it or not. And, personally, whether I seriously agree with it, or not, doesn't matter.....I'm not going to be the old fart that screams "MY CONTINUITY IS THE ONLY CONTINUITY!! BRING BACK THE SILVER AGE PRE-CRISIS!!". These people are sad and pathetic, and I pity them.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
I can't respect that type of outlook. I hated and am disheartened by Last Laugh as well, but I'm not about to take miniscule things I hate away from a phenomonally larger thing I like.

---

Quote:

---

(Re: Crisis)Progressive in what way?

---

Quote:

---

Crisis is one of the most stupidest stories I've ever read in my entire comicbook reading life. Part of it was the writing, another part was the premise (story not intention), another was the inevitable conclusion of it, and the other was how scattered it was. It was not only idiotic, but laborous to read. It's also what helped create C.O.M.E. and that is something that is unforgivable.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that this continuity is still REQUIRED and is ATTEMPTING to be followed by the writers makes it, in fact, not moot. The way you're describing it as "kicked to the curb" isn't true.

---

Quote:

---

Another thing; suggesting that you're not raving merely because you don't want to sound that way isn't painting a very flattering picture of your opinion here.

---

Quote:

---

If you can't respect others opinions, then why do you expect others to do the same for you?

---

What? I don't disrespect your opinion, I said that your principles are all wrong. I don't like the fact that Gods of Gotham has more talking than action, but I didn't let that kill the story or Jiminez continuity for me in general.

Quote:

---

It took the steps to wipe out fifty years worth of continuity, and start over. It revitilized the entire DC Comics franchise. It brought DC comics up to date. What's not progressive about that?

---

Basically, you're saying that it couldn't be done properly without Crisis because continuity was such a mess...It seems you care about continuity after all my friend. Unless what you're saying is; because the writers wouldn't stop following continuity when they should have because of the outdated plot devices, things would suck without it. You know if I was to use this kind of reasoning (if my assumptions are correct), we'd have a crisis every year.

The mal progressiveness I find is the fact that the story created extra baggage. Continuity wasn't ENTIRELY wiped out. It would have been much easier and tidier just to reboot everything.

Quote:

---

I have no idea what "C.O.M.E." means. As for your opinions on Crisis, I can respect them. But, I don't agree. I loved it for what it was, what it stood for, and for what it accomplished. Nothing more or less.

---

Quote:

---

In what way? Did you read the interview at the top of the page?

---

Quote:

---

Do you really want to get into a discussion about what kind of picture certain opinions create? Yours especially? Because I'm sure Mxy would be happy to add something here.....

---

Tell me please. I'm anxious. I probably already know what it is, but I'd like to hear your reasoning for it.

Another thing....

Despite all of our mongering and nagging about following continuity or not following continuity, one thing remains constant. We all have singular standards for these characters—Singular UNIVERSAL standards. Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, J’onn… To relieve those characters or the happenings of the stories (that contained their defining moments) they were in is just like taking away their costume, their sex, or their entire reason for existence for that matter. Even worse, to defy rather than work with continuity would mean we might as well rearrange the panels of the books or even REMOVE panels for that matter.

I said this to Gimm:

Quote:

---

Y’know what?, while I’m ranting about continuity or “fellating” as you like to call it; a good story isn’t hampered by continuity or a writer being FORCED to use continuity within said story. It’s the writer himself who fucks it up. If you can’t work with what you’re given, what this job asks you to do, then you’re devoid of talent. And it’s not mainly the story that’s what fucks up continuity, it’s the freakin’ character. Because a writer can’t work with what’s given to him, he has to morph the main reason the comic is bought (the character. In my case most of the time: Batman) to actually create A story. Not a good one, not a bad one, definitely not a great one—Just a story with no highlights. The character you get with it isn’t really the one you bought the comic for, and because of this, the character’s OOC actions are carried into the next story and the next and then next and the next and the next (you get the idea)…

---

Quote:

---

Ultimately, we have to realize that DC continuity is a moving target.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
It's not gonna work for the more flaming reasons as well. He has good intentions, just like the next writer who decideds to nurse his story and get rid of the continuum because he can't at least eventually figure out how to MAKE it work.

---

Quote:

---

If this guy doesn't want to follow continuity, guess what's going to happen later on: Someone else WILL based off of his fallacy. THAT'S going to create huge problems.

---

Quote:

---

There's no difference or palpable extremity between continuity violating stories. Violating continuity in any shape, size, or fashion is violating continuity. PERIOD.

---

Quote:

---

Have we all forgotten how the crisis happened? People decided to keep on making mistakes and disregarding them because their stories were so good (in their own my minds most of the time) they didn't need to be continuous. Later on, they found out they were wrong.

---

Quote:

---

How the fuck can you denounce the one thing that actually CREATED the characters that we love and read every weak?

---

Quote:

---

The one thing that allows our characters progression into something cooler than they are.

---

Quote:

---

To overlook continuity's movement is like slowly (or swiftly depending on the method) killing those characters. Look at what happened to Diana. The writers all followed continuity story wise, and that's a good thing, but look at the huge problem they created not only with the fans, but with Wonder Woman's character. Each time someone moves onto her book, her dynamics continually change and morph in importance and size. They didn't get those dynamics wrong, but they HIGHLY overaccentuated them. This was all because they wanted to tell a story too--With THEIR character.

---

Quote:

---

This is no different than what other writers do really. In overlooking the past continuity and defining moments that the character had, they're screwing up the characters reactions to the story they're making.

---

Quote:

---

This all keeps going on and on and on because we take turns and the wrters have to stick to a policy that makes them follow what the past writers did while making his/her mark with his/her run.

---

Quote:

---

"Continuity omission" (as Loeb calls it) just forms wretched problems. When Rucka made Montoya ALWAYS gay, he decided it best to leave out the fact that Montoya was prepared to spend the rest of her life with a man she loved before he died. Lark and Brubaker handed me shit saying, "gay people do that." Montoya is too strong and independent a person to suffer for someone else's benefit--And Rucka CONTINUED to characterize her like this. This kind of carlessness with a character you've been working with FOR YEARS is no different than Brubaker not reading Last Laugh and making that Joker Antarctica mistake. It just made the fact that he's seen the most as a cameo in books worse. It's also no different from him overlooking Selina's tragic defining moments (critical to Catwoman's always been character) as a child and growing up so he can make room for HIS Selina--And look. Even though this Catwoman is obviously someone not compatible with Batman anymore, LOEB decided to make it work by changing her character back to the way it was. If Killing Joke wasn't such a famous book, I GUARANTEE you that someone else would have over looked Barbara being crippled and had her still be Batgirl.

---

Quote:

---

Continuity isn't impossible OR hard to follow. I said this before and I'll say it again: Writers MAKE it hard to follow/impossible. No matter what the tale may be, it's beyond easy to make your story fit properly.

---

Quote:

---

There are a lot of writers who make this excuse, but I have one in particular I like to bring up: Loeb....Do I really have to say much here? Within in the last two years, he has completely disavowed continuity, character, AND believability because he's the equivilant of a ten year old fanboy (no offense Kristogar). "Team BS can beat ANYONE," . When exactly has Batman not had trouble beating Shiva before? Why is it that in Rucka's story, "Death and the Maidens", that Batman said he WANTED Talia while Loeb keeps making out Catwoman (Brubaker's Catwoman) to be Batman's only true love THROUGH HIS OWN ADMISSION? When has Batman ever spoken or thought about Superman that way (Team BS)? Why exactly would any of those heroes CONVINCIBLY agree to hunting them down while the past speaks against it--Hell! People who denounce continuity even look at this and go, "What the Fuck?! Why the hell would they do that?" Lois knowing Batman's identity--The MANY holes in Hush that speak for Hush being one big (comparative) mini-continuity with tons of UNcontinual flaws--Forced Brubaker to bend his Catwoman in response to Hush--I could go on and on here. This man has affected superhero continuity the most, and I picked out some of the most major league screw-ups he made. This will not lead up to something good or even indifferent to comicbookdom. I very much assure you of that.

---

Quote:

---

Aw DAMMIT!! Now you've made me into a beaurocrat. FUCK YOU MXY!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Bob Wayne: ...And footnoted with references to comics that the average reader doesn't have a copy of or doesn't have any access to, so it's an exercise in frustration.

---

Then don't footnote it. Make the story be enjoyable to the point where people won't care what happened prior but sure as hell don't discount it for the people who look for continuity/the characters who rely on continuity for proper evolution. I mean, I've watched TV series' that I never watched before because I liked one episode of em'. I didn't feel I needed any continuity for-knowledge because the premise of the stories of those one episodes themselves were stand alone for me. TV series' don't do footnotes. I didn't need footnotes for a bunch of Dredd comics, Wolverine comics, Sojourner, Tarot--The stories and premises of said stories succeeded in being made stand alone. Continuity in such a case wouldn't be impeeding on enjoyment because of that all on its lonsome.

---

Quote:

---

Example: Waid. Big continuity freak there. Used continuity succesfully in Flash. Now chooses not to use it in Birthright (note: I haven't read Birthright. I have no opinion on Birthright. This is not about Birthright. I won't talk about Birthright with you. Is that clear?)

---

Quote:

---

So the next guy doesn't agree with what the previous writer did, but he uses it anyway? He knows it taints his stories, but he uses it anyway? Just like the first guy chose to ignore continuity the second one may choose to ignore what he did and continue where the story was left before he started.

---

Quote:

---

That's the problem with continuity. No, with continuity freaks. They leave no space for anything else. It's continuity or nothing.

---

Quote:

---

If someone likes a character but not what's going on in his title he's fucked forever.

---

Quote:

---

The next writer can't ignore the mess because "that would be violating continuity", and he can't undo it because that always ends up being lame. Sure, there's Elseworlds, but those are esporadic.

---

Quote:

---

If the writers are allowed to choose wether they want to apply continuity or not, then lack of continuity would co-exist with the use of it.

---

Quote:

---

Continuity freaks can just ignore what violates their sweet precious continuity (yummm!) and those who value a good story above all else finally get to read good comics without useless continuity getting in the way.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I know there are writers that can make a good story using continuity, and I value that. But there are also writers that can make a good story without using it, and I see no reason why the first category should be the only one to be published in the main line of books.

---

Quote:

---

Crisis would never have happened if pretty much all the stories published back then hadn't sucked.

---

Quote:

---

The creators?
If you mean that continuity is the reason why we like those characters, then speak for yourself. I liked Superman before I knew what a continuity was, and while I enjoy the work of Byrne and those who followed it, I think the story started in Man of Steel should be put to rest before it gets any worse, if that's possible.

---

Quote:

---

That won't be necessary if DiDio was being honest in that interview, though, because it means writers can use what they want instead of being forced to use the good and the bad.

---

Um, let's see if there's a word to describe this.........Oh yeah! Chaos.

Quote:

---

That's the writers. It can be done with continuity or without it. As I said in another thread, Superman, The Bat-Man and Wonder Woman have evolved as icons in comics history more than they have in any single continuity.

---

Quote:

---

I find that change and adaptation over the years more fascinating than the permanent status quo we've been fed for years.

---

Mxy, I can't tell you're talking about the continuity policy or the evolving character, because if it's the latter and not the former, then you just made a huge chunk of my argument. If that entire sentence was made from my view that characters should be able to change from the events that they go through, then WTF are you going on about? This is getting awfully contradictory on your part Mxy.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean, because I don't read Wonder Woman. But if you're saying what you think I'm saying (that writers interpret Wondy's interactions with other characters differently), then I don't see how that fucks up the character in any way.

---

That's not what I said at all. I didn't even mention other characters Mxy. I said; that while these guys followed continuity because they used plot devices to change her (like every good writer should), they still didn't focus on the way she would be regularly. All they did was make a one different dynamic for each run (Phil did the best job in leading away from this though), and those dynamics came out of NO WHERE with their foreign monopoly on Diana's character.

I was using Wonder Woman as an example of having multiple writers do THEIR different takes on a singular character. She's a perfect example of an industry fuck up through writers just wanting to go their own route.

Quote:

---

If they were writing the same character that lived the moments they ignored, then yeah, but since those moments are being ignored then the character is diferent in that aspect, and the reaction isn't as much "screwed" as it is "different".

---

Quote:

---

I really don't understand what the problem is. Selective continuity means the things you like can be ignored, but it also means the things you don't like can... Like, ignoring something in the first place. Thanks to selective continuity you may have your Catwoman and your Montoya back one day, maybe soon. With strict continuity that would never happen, you'd be stuck with the one Brubaker created in his book.

---

Quote:

---

But what if the writer doesn't want to? Why the fuck should he? Because part of comic fandom likes it that way?

---

Quote:

---

So in 20 years people can say "this story wasn't good because the writer couldn't do what he wanted, but at least it follows continuity"?

---

You know, I already went at great lengths to illustrate that writers can do anything with continuity as well as their own sense of satisfaction in knowing they have a book ALL to their very own and the power to do what they want with it.

You know, maybe I should get creative while driving.

Quote:

---

This is the main thing you and MOTA have in common: You guys think that any writer that does something you don't agree with is an idiot with a secret agenda.

---

Quote:

---

I literally laughed my arse off when MOTA told me about the "anti-continuity conspiracy", but it's stopped being funny and started being incredibly pathetic.

---

Is that what I'm arguing about?

Quote:

---

And, thanks to selective continuity, future writers may ignore that instead of being forced to deal with it.

---

Quote:

---

But the kind of continuity you want would demand making references to past events, because they marked the character's life. For example, if The Bat-Man had a back problem the logical thing would be making a reference to the time it was broken, but that opens up a load of questions for new readers who haven't read Knightfall.

---

Quote:

---

You're right about TV shows, I've done the same thing. But how long do TV shows last? A highly succesfull one may last 10 years, and if it's big enough to last that long it's probably part of pop culture, so it's not as hard for new viewers to get into since everyone knows what's it about.

---

Quote:

---

And even so, the earlier you get into the show the easier it is for the new viewer.

---

Quote:

---

Now, is it that easy to get into, say, Superman comics? (in the perfect continuity you want). The story started 17 years ago and there's been about four books each month. That's a lot of chapters for that story. A TV show with that many episodes would be almost impossible to get into.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Mxy, that example be invalid. Birthright isn't set in continuity.

---

Quote:

---

And are you gonna tell me I'm wrong?

---

Quote:

---

We know that the writers CAN do it. We also know that they're NOT doing it. We also know that they're SUPPOSED to do it.

---

Quote:

---

ALso, It's not a matter of whether you want to do it or not, it's a matter of using continuity in the first place and screwing it up inadvertantly by doing so. Technically, it's not inadvertantly because they know their add in isn't apart of continuity.

---

Quote:

---

That's a huge part of my point. It means things just keep getting worse.

---

Quote:

---

And if this is about agreeance, then there's no excuse for not justifying his changes to continuity. All you have to do is add some references and dialogue that clear up the past mistakes. THAT'S ALL. I can't tolerate laziness or carlessness.

---

Quote:

---

Dude, I give an infinite amount of room for creativity and the new writer's imagination. All I ask is that he has it make sense. As I explained earlier, that's not hard to do.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, the character is what I'm whining about mostly (Batman's character namely). The writers don't know to morph the SITUATIONS at their whim and NOT the character. That's the problem. They think because the character is the main attraction to the story that they have to change him/her to something THEY find interesting. They seem to think that multiple take on a singular personality is the procedure when it's the situation itself that gives the character the defining moments.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, I don't give a fuck what the situation is. As long as it doesn't have any crucial past (unless they're explained) elements and is stand alone, the story will probably get a good review from me. I MOST look at character.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I know. That means you have to take part of your run time time to justify those actions with passible excuses. Use plot devices to illustrate why the character was being OOC. Again, not hard, just arduous.

---

Quote:

---

Did you hear me say we should retcon everything or disregard it? No, you didn't. While it would be really cool if a lot was retconned, I don't support that action in any way. It'll just make more of a mess. Disregarding is even worse.

---

Quote:

---

I already explained that continuity based stories can be stand alone and enjoyable from both angles Mxy.

---

Quote:

---

First of all: The other writers who can make a good story without using it could just as well use it while making a good story. Don't pull that bullshit with me.

---

Quote:

---

Second of all: The main line of books are BASED off of continuity, they were MEANT to be continuous/harmonious with eachother and NOT have other storylines overlapping.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, a lot of people think the contrary of those stories. Many people in fact. I agree with you, but the fact is they exist.

---

Quote:

---

Also, this is only supposition on your part. I'm given no reason to disbelive that the writers just wanted to fix continuity and change the heroes to a degree where they would be given more breathing room when writing them.

---

Quote:

---

The creators my have made the character, but what do you think kept the character going and made his character change into something no less desirable than what the creators made?

---

Quote:

---

Batman's EXTREMELY dark persona during the eighties, which was appealing to many many people, was in direct response of Jason Todd's death. The very same after Knightfall happened as well and people were still.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, I don't have to speak for myself. Many others do that for me.

---

Quote:

---

In short, 100% of Batman's characteristics NOW weren't made by Kane/Finger. 100% of Superman's characteristics NOW weren't made by Shuster/Seigel. 100% of Wonder Woman's characteristics NOW weren't made by Marston.

---

Quote:

---

Um, let's see if there's a word to describe this.........Oh yeah! Chaos.

---

Quote:

---

No, it's because the writers followed continuity. The best examples of their evolution are in the last earlier decade. And as you know, it was running very strong then.

---

Quote:

---

It's kinda funny how when you say that writers evolve them yet completely over look that past and future evolution by saying they should do what they want.

---

Quote:

---

Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, etc. would NEVER change if this were policy.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, I can't tell you're talking about the continuity policy or the evolving character, because if it's the latter and not the former, then you just made a huge chunk of my argument. If that entire sentence was made from my view that characters should be able to change from the events that they go through, then WTF are you going on about? This is getting awfully contradictory on your part Mxy.

---

Quote:

---

:?!: That's not what I said at all. I didn't even mention other characters Mxy. I said; that while these guys followed continuity because they used plot devices to change her (like every good writer should), they still didn't focus on the way she would be regularly. All they did was make a one different dynamic for each run (Phil did the best job in leading away from this though), and those dynamics came out of NO WHERE with their foreign monopoly on Diana's character.

I was using Wonder Woman as an example of having multiple writers do THEIR different takes on a singular character. She's a perfect example of an industry fuck up through writers just wanting to go their own route.

---

Quote:

---

That's flawed reasoning. Just because the moment was ignored, it doesn't mean that it ceased to exist.

---

Quote:

---

That's BULLSHIT!! If I were writing these characters, I'd definitely make the situation better/sensical. But I'm not gonna like a cop out asshole writer and just take what I want from the characters that were made into what they are because of the writer before me. That is exactly the perpetuation of crap I'm talking about. In short, if this happened, I wouldn't be anymore happy then than I am now. I'm not gonna overlook principle simply for enjoyment when it is SO. DAMN. EASY. To simply follow continuity and get this fixed while making sense.

---

Quote:

---

And no, strict continuity DOES NOT negate the possible changes. You just have to think of a proper defining moment for the characters that would evolve or de-evolve them

---

Quote:

---

No, because it works best that way.

---

Quote:

---

If they decided to be smart and properly versed themselves in the guidelines of comic writing like every writer should be, they'd be KEEPING everything honky dorey. They'd put in their stories that you love so much more. And they'd keep the critical character (which hasn't changed, evolved, or adapted for......QUITE a while due to lack of organization and disregard for continuity).

---

Quote:

---

You know, I already went at great lengths to illustrate that writers can do anything with continuity as well as their own sense of satisfaction in knowing they have a book ALL to their very own and the power to do what they want with it.

---

Quote:

---

You know, maybe I should get creative while driving.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think there's any sort of agenda, I think these writers are dumb fucks and assholes. Pure and simple. If they feel FORCED by continuity, then they are in no way talented.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't agree with Denny's run on Azreal, but that doesn't mean I hate him or think he's an idiot. He may be making a crap story on JLA right now, but do I think he's an idiot? No. I may have been pissed at Byrne for his run on Superman, does that mean I think he's an idiot? No. I still like them both and agree with them on a lot. If they don't follow continuity, that means my respect for them as comicbook writers goes down.

---

Quote:

---

Heh! $20 bucks says it will be included as a reference even so.

---

Quote:

---

Dude, a single line of dialogue about past events included for the sake of keeping the story running smooth is not gonna get people curious.

---

Quote:

---

A small summary or flashback if it plays a huge role, an even smaller line of literature that's referencing the situation--What's the problem with that? It won't negate the story's movement in any way.

---

Quote:

---

That's total bullshit using popular reference. Not everyone as seen said show. I'm obsessed with Fight Club, and everyone here knows the movie and its big secret but I know at least thirty people who don't. A lot of little ought kiddies don't know that Darth is dear ol' dad. I could go on and on.

---

Quote:

---

I'm talking about individual episodes. My mother hates X-Files but watched one episode because she saw that the Night Stalker was guest starring. She didn't know what the hell was up with the other characters Mulder and Scully because she never watched the show before, but she still liked the story alone because of the fact that every ep. shows Mulder as a paranormal freak, an FBI agent, and his partner as a smart skeptic. She didn't need any hints.

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, it doesn't use continuity. I'm glad there's space for books like that outside the sporadic Elseworlds line.

---

Quote:

---

That's where you're wrong. They CAN, if they don't WANT TO, then there's no reason why they SHOULD. If continuity gets in the way of the story they wanna tell then fuck continuity. If, on the opposite case, continuity helps make the story better, then yay for continuity. I'm not against continuity. What I'm against is a forced continuity for every book.

---

Quote:

---

If by "using continuity in the first place and then screw it" you mean "using some elements of continuity and ignoring others", then it's just that. Just like they ignored a part of continuity (that in your mind is "screwing it") someone after them may choose to ignore what they did and reinstate the part ignored in the first place (that in your mind SHOULD be "fixing it").

---

Quote:

---

Why? What you don't like can be deleted. You can have a perfect continuity in your mind, if you want.

---

Quote:

---

Why add that when it's unnecessary, or when the writer simply doesn't want to do it? That right there would be useless forced dialogue (those explanations are often long), and that's a great source of lameness and mediocrity.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine if, for some reason, Moore had been forced to set Watchmen into the DCU. All the explanations required to do so would have ruined the book. Maybe you find pleasure in reading explanations like that, but they annoy the fuck out of me, especially when you can tell the author doesn't really want to add them.

---

Quote:

---

What I meant is this: okay, we have forced continuity and optional continuity.

---

Quote:

---

Bear in mind that these characters are icons. There can be multiple interpretations to how their personalities are. These are not real people, these are fictional characters.

---

Dammit! Every time I try to use the very applicable basis of character as focal point, I always get the lip service, “They’re fictional characters.” WTF? So what? Because they don’t exist, they aren’t designed to at least attempt to be like regular people (what they’re framed as)? They’re humans Mxy, albeit paper humans, but they’re SUPPOSED to go through what WE do personality wise. It creates interesting and consistent dynamics that allow the characters to grow on us in general. What they’re proposing is lack of this possibility. You’d have your favorite character for like what? A month and then you lose him because a writer that came after wasn’t a fan of the other writer’s stuff. Those fictional characters may be fictional characters, but that’s no reason to consider them any less different than regular people. They are BASED off of us. BASED on humans. They ARE human. They have defining moments JUST. LIKE. US. They aren’t open for interpretation. They only change through the writer because of the STORY.

Batman was given a static origin as a dark depressed and mentally unbalanced individual who was traumatized and it has been repeatedly gone over that he has split personalities. These are the only things that can be changed (and ARE changed) because they’re the most flaming characteristics of Batman—His aspects that make him appealing. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

Wonder Woman started off as a representative of her island by George Perez. She was given a proper balance of politician, warrior, feminist, and hero. These were the bricks that created her foundation, they were not up for interpretation in the fashion that you or the writers suggested. It was because other writers thought she was up for interpretation, that her character became shit (luckily Jimenez helped them all fit with her character……..Which Rucka screwed up ).

Superman has always been set as the greatest hero of all time because he stands for peace, justice, mercy, and the American way. It’s because he believes that all life is precious that he doesn’t kill. His colors, his name, his actions all accentuate him in this light and always have. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

Joker……….Do I really need to say much here?

Yes, these icons are icons, and they’re REACTIONS to certain stories are up for interpretation BASED off of their static characteristics that make them who they are (review above). This suggested interpretation would call for more than merely what the first sentence depicts, it would also give writers the freedom to put Bats in a pink tutu without backup info. Make Supes a fuckin’ killer. Make Wondy a slut. Make Joker *shiver* SANE!!

Quote:

---

Your idea of the character might not coincide with my idea of the character. Why should the conception of the character you like have more priority than mine?

---

Mxy, my “conception” of the characters is based off of the course that they’ve already taken through continuity. Dude, this is the morbid equivalent of asking why the writer of said characters should have any authority over their paths. It’s a flawed argument.

Quote:

---

I think there can be emphasis on the plot, the character, or both. As long as the result is good I'm happy. You can have an excellent plot with a lame character (or a lame interpretation of a character) or vice versa. I hate Miller's interpretation of Superman in DKR, but I love that book.
If you open a book with a preconception of the character in your mind and that's not the same conception the writer used, then obviously you're gonna think the book is lame. I prefer to be open to new and different interpretations. I don't look at the comic as a continuing story started decades ago unless that's how the writer looked at it.

---

Quote:

---

Those justifications may take one panel, but they also may take 10 pages. They may fit into the story nicely and even add to it, but they may also ruin the story. For that reason, making the justifications should be an option and not a requirement.

---

Quote:

---

Why? If it was a real universe, I can see why that would have. You'd have paradoxes around every corner. But this isn't. This universe is, literally, in your mind. It's what you make of it. That's what's so great about it, and why there's so many disagreements about how things are and how they should be.
Is it so hard to take, I don't know, Hush or Last Laugh and say to yourself "this never happened" and move on?

---

Mxy. Please.

You completely forget my previous arguments that mention the writers’ affinity for including things that others don’t.

Approaching this from a different but equally important angle…

Comic books are like one HUGE book that is separated into smaller ones. One huge book needs to stay unquestionably harmonious. I don’t know how you like the books you read, but I like mine to stay in sync with itself. If War and Peace wasn’t a consistent story, my grades would be fucked right now (I’d also be even more pissed off about trying to understand it and failing due to inconsistency after having to just read it in general).

You SAY it didn’t happen but it’s referenced and it ACTUALLY didn’t happen but it’s later referenced but it’s gone over in great detail in another story so it’s going to be referenced by someone going off of popular demand and then he references something that doesn’t exist then there turns out to be a story I like that has reference to another story which I before decided didn’t exist but because it served to make this story cool it must now exist and my imaginary universe WHICH IN REALITY IS IN THE WRITER’S HEAD AND NOT MINE is fucked all to hell because my selective continuity contradictory ass backwards philosophy of how I see continuity’s movement has FAILED ME!!!!!

If something’s going to mimic actual real movements of a universe, I’m gonna grade it on quality of mimicry. Not only that, but it’s not what I make of it. It is in fact what someone else creates for me to enjoy (going off of its original themes of course). You enjoy it based on many deciding factors. Sense, creativity, talent, etc.. All of these are TIED IN with continuity and not ALL on my interpretation.

Quote:

---

No. In some cases, maybe the could. But there are also cases where they continuity is nothing but a big fat cow on one side of the row. Should the guy get off the car and push the cow outside the road and ruin his whole fucking trip (he's gonna be late! the wife's gonna fucking chop his head off! and he's got a bad back, he could break the fucking thing while pushing the fucking cow!), or should he simply change lanes and continue his trip?
You think he should get off the car, and in some cases that may be the best option (maybe it's a hot chick dressed as a cow), but not always, so there's no fucking reason why the writer should say "Yeah, I'm gonna add 20 fucking pages to explain how this fits in with Crisis so that Pariah guy on the boards doesn't bitch".

---

Quote:

---

That's how you look at them. I look at them as monthly books that should be producing good stories but in most cases aren't. The only reason why I call them "main" books is because they're monthly and open ended.

---

Quote:

---

The general consensus was that they sucked, otherwise Crisis wouldn't have happened. Most writers and the readers found that the multiverse got in the way of telling good stories, so it was dealt with. Had the multiverse been loved by most people back then, there would have been no reason for removing it.

---

Quote:

---

The writers who followed the creators.

---

Eh?

What a completely open ended phrase. It sounds like it’s giving room to change Batman into a serial killer and such. Like the main idea for the character’s main traits is void when met with the fancy of a writer.

They followed the creators based on the continuity. Batman’s entire standard is a crime fighter driven by vengeance and because this was his founding characteristic, THAT’S what they followed. I mean, do you see room for them to have him get a sex change and call himself Notman? Back to point, do you think they kept Kane/Finger in mind when they continued? The premise stays the same because that’s the whole point of the character’s existence and they BUILD on to it using the continuity. They obviously didn’t follow any Kane bible and taking after an individual writer’s example doesn’t seem likely (I also haven’t seen it done).

Furthermore…

Mxy, trying to justify something by using the writers an excuse and not the stories and characters in general (the whole point of this argument) is….Extraordinarily cheap. Continuity for comic books is what takes eyes away from the fact that someone else is outlining the character’s actions (exception made for a few writers of course). The actions of the character and the interpretation of the reader is supposed to be transcendent of the writer and his intentions (sometimes it becomes void because of continuity itself, but that’s a horse of a different color). Your complete disregard for the way a story is supposed to move and the way characters are supposed to be explored is speaking volumes to me on how much you really care on the subject……..

Wait a tic…..No it’s not!! You’re in it for story and any character plucked out of a drum within said story…….Why the hell do you even care if you have reg. continuity or selective in the first place if you get a story either way? I realize we were talking about reference and footnoting before, but going right into the meat of the matter, I don’t see that being done as often as suggested in the books. So what are you going on about? What’re your main complaints? Give me examples please.

Quote:

---

No, they were made by whoever is writing the book now.

---

Quote:

---

I'm indifferent to wether the writer chooses to make his interpretation be consistent with the previous ones or not. I think a good characterisation that happens to be consistent with the character's continuity is as valid as a good characterisation that isn't.

---

Quote:

---

Evolution? What evolution? I can't speak for The Bat-Man or Wonder Woman, but Superman hasn't evolved in about a decade. In fact, the same writers that made his latest evolution (the Jurgens squad) were the ones that undid it.
What I meant is how the character has changed through the decades. The 80's and the 90's are just another step.

---

Quote:

---

I was talking about evolution OUTSIDE continuity. Example: How Superman changed from the 60's to the 90's. That evolution didn't happen in continuity. It happened in the stories, but it didn't happen in continuity.
I know that evolution can also happen within continuity. I'd cite the first years of the post Crisis Superman as an example of that.

---

Quote:

---

However, that evolution is nothing when compared to how the character has evolved out of continuity.

---

Quote:

---

So those characters haven't changed outside continuity?

---

Quote:

---

Completely ignores the point raised in Superman/Aliens).

---

Quote:

---

There have been some changes, the possitive ones thanks to the occasional great writer, but to make up for it even more changes have been undone. That's what I call a permanent status quo.

---

Quote:

---

So the writers didn't go through the trouble of explaining how their interpretation came to be? Good for them, I say. Don't push that fucking cow, skip it.

---

Quote:

---

Dude, none of this is real. These are not real lives that are being tampered with. These are characters, characters made so that stories could be told with them, stories that are meant to be enjoyed.

---

Are you trying to make me out as some sort of spas fanboy or sumthin’? I want to be able to understand my stories and have them make sense. THAT. IS. ALL. And considering the fact that it’s required/It’s not such a hard task to comply with I’m in my right mind to be more than a bit pissed that my enjoyment is put on hold. I already explained this to you

Quote:

---

I just understood why you take Barbara Gordon's rape so seriously.

---

Quote:

---

To me, this line sums up what you're saying:
"I'm not gonna overlook principle simply for enjoyment"

A principle?! A fucking principle?! And "SIMPLY FOR ENJOYMENT"?! What are you reading comics for, then? To get a fucking heart attack?

---

Quote:

---

The point is that I shouldn't have to.

---

Quote:

---

AH-AH! For you maybe. For me, and for most people in this thread, it doesn't work better that way most of the time.

---

Quote:

---

Exactly like I said before: you're assuming that the writers are idiots simply because they have different views on comics than you.

---

Quote:

---

A. No, you didn't.
B. Being forced to respect continuity isn't being able to "do whatever they want".

---

Quote:

---

I suppouse I'm a dumb fuck and an asshole too.

---

Quote:

---

That's called being intollerant to opinions different than yours.

---

Quote:

---

We were talking about TV shows. It's easier to get into the X Files than it is to get into fucking Everybody Loves Raymond.

---

Quote:

---

If she hates the X-Files then she probably knows what's it about.

---

Quote:

---

But EVERY event shapes the character! How is anyone gonna understand the character if they don't know the events!

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:Mxy, what they’re talking about doesn’t suggest them picking and choosing what they should keep OUTSIDE of continuity. They want the consistent characters to operate without guidelines. This is much different than a Graphic Novel, Prestige Novel, or Elseworlds.

---

Quote:

---

You’re completely overlooking my statements of principle and disharmonious recourses created by that shit. AGAIN.

---

Quote:

---

NO. Not what I said AT ALL.

I said that the inconsistencies (be they intentional or mistake) should be fixed through justification of said past inconsistencies through an entirely new plot device. Ignoring anything (be the ignored element inappropriate or crucial) isn’t going to do diddly shit and all it does is perpetuate the mistakes I’m talking about. Things have to be dealt with or one writer won’t ignore what the other writer didn’t ignore and therefore the writer who caused the original ignoring factor just spans into more ignored aspects…….I think I worded that right. Just reinstating something doesn’t make up or create reasons for the past nebulous actions of the character.

---

Quote:

---

The very same thing could be asked of you if you really want to get into ignoring things. Basing what I gather from your principles, me being pissed about inconsistencies in the larger part of continuity is really no different than you being pissed for writers creating past justification.

---

Quote:

---

This is taking into mind the fact that continuity is just one huge gargantuan story. How exactly is it that you can condemn me and tell me to ignore things when you can’t do that yourself? You CAN take or leave the explanations I want just like I CAN ignore the stories that forfeit the explanations.

---

Quote:

---

As to the answer to your question:

“In my mind” isn’t good enough. I can create full on stories and such myself “in my mind”. I want to see OTHERS’ depictions of my favorite characters. Those writers create the situations that give my character the defining moments I need as basis to set up those stories in my brain.

---

Quote:

---

*sigh* That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Using these types of excuses as substitutes for methods of story telling that could be invented to destroy the boringness. I’ll toot my own horn and say I got plenty up my sleeve that aren’t being used. Hell! I already mentioned one that would make having to go over past stories void. Notice that I know this and I’m not one of these writers. They can figure things out. Obviously they know the problems with too much explanation, so it becomes apart of their job to find ways around it. There’s a word for this………HA! Now I remember! “Creativity”.

---

Quote:

---

Feh! Moore would have found a way to bypass the boringness. I trust him. And if he didn’t, he should’ve.

---

Quote:

---

Everything you said after this sentence I went over very thoroughly and true to form, the argument this is meant to refutiate isn’t affected by it at all.

I’ll make small response though:

Start judging the talent of a writer through their ability to mesh a situation with another and not JUST their ability to write good stories, because really, neither is different from the other.

---

Quote:

---

Continuity of that one story is no different than the conglomerated continuity of all the stories surrounding it. And screwed up (in your case) distended continuity within a story sucks. It’s no different but even worse than continuity violation on a grand scale. That’s almost half my point on this line of debate.

---

Quote:

---

Dammit! Every time I try to use the very applicable basis of character as focal point, I always get the lip service, “They’re fictional characters.” WTF? So what? Because they don’t exist, they aren’t designed to at least attempt to be like regular people (what they’re framed as)? They’re humans Mxy, albeit paper humans, but they’re SUPPOSED to go through what WE do personality wise.

---

Quote:

---

It creates interesting and consistent dynamics that allow the characters to grow on us in general.

---

Quote:

---

What they’re proposing is lack of this possibility. You’d have your favorite character for like what? A month and then you lose him because a writer that came after wasn’t a fan of the other writer’s stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Those fictional characters may be fictional characters, but that’s no reason to consider them any less different than regular people.

---

Quote:

---

They are BASED off of us. BASED on humans. They ARE human. They have defining moments JUST. LIKE. US. They aren’t open for interpretation. They only change through the writer because of the STORY.

---

Quote:

---

Batman was given a static origin as a dark depressed and mentally unbalanced individual who was traumatized and it has been repeatedly gone over that he has split personalities. These are the only things that can be changed (and ARE changed) because they’re the most flaming characteristics of Batman—His aspects that make him appealing. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Woman started off as a representative of her island by George Perez. She was given a proper balance of politician, warrior, feminist, and hero. These were the bricks that created her foundation, they were not up for interpretation in the fashion that you or the writers suggested. It was because other writers thought she was up for interpretation, that her character became shit (luckily Jimenez helped them all fit with her character……..Which Rucka screwed up ).

---

Quote:

---

Superman has always been set as the greatest hero of all time because he stands for peace, justice, mercy, and the American way. It’s because he believes that all life is precious that he doesn’t kill. His colors, his name, his actions all accentuate him in this light and always have. They are not up for interpretation in the fashion you’re suggesting.

---

Quote:

---

Joker……….Do I really need to say much here?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, these icons are icons, and they’re REACTIONS to certain stories are up for interpretation BASED off of their static characteristics that make them who they are (review above). This suggested interpretation would call for more than merely what the first sentence depicts, it would also give writers the freedom to put Bats in a pick tutu backup info. Make Supes a fuckin’ killer. Make Wondy a slut. Make Joker *shiver* SANE!!

---

Quote:

---

:?!:

Mxy, my “conception” of the characters is based off of the course that they’ve already taken through continuity.

---

Quote:

---

Dude, this is the morbid equivalent of asking why the writer of said characters should have any authority over their paths. It’s a flawed argument.

---

Quote:

---

1) Frank Miller’s DKR isn’t set in continuity. It is, in fact, an elseworlds and not a proper example.
2) I also already said that I had no qualms with this BECAUSE it is outside continuity.

---

Quote:

---

3) The interpretation of Superman in this story was set many years after his retirement. Interpretation, in this case, was entirely in Miller’s court because a lot of situations (that contained defining moments) could have happened within those many years. FYI, he MENTIONED some that would coincide with his interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

If here, you’re saying it should be an option to REFERENCE then fine. If you’re saying it should be an option to ignore then that’s just bullshit.

---

Quote:

---

If you want a stand-alone story with the character at hand, then what are those guys complaining about in the first place I ask? They say people want stories and what they’re proposing is the hex of character (past) FOR story because people know nothing about said character. Newsflash: They know nothing about the current character used for story alone. In this case, character would be character either way, the reader who just wants story would learn about either version of character through said character’s actions, and they’d still have their stories that HAPPEN to be in continuity.

---

Quote:

---

Like I said before, if it’s THAT much trouble and the writer feels like being a lazy shit, then don’t reference (unless the story’s in relation to one prior).

---

Quote:

---

:izzatso: Mxy. Please.

You completely forget my previous arguments that mention the writers’ affinity for including things that others don’t.

Approaching this from a different but equally important angle…

---

Quote:

---

Comic books are like one HUGE book that is separated into smaller ones. One huge book needs to stay unquestionably harmonious. I don’t know how you like the books you read, but I like mine to stay in sync with itself. If War and Peace wasn’t a consistent story, my grades would be fucked right now (I’d also be even more pissed off about trying to understand it and failing due to inconsistency after having to just read it in general).

---

Quote:

---

You SAY it didn’t happen but it’s referenced and it ACTUALLY didn’t happen but it’s later referenced but it’s gone over in great detail in another story so it’s going to be referenced by someone going off of popular demand and then he references something that doesn’t exist then there turns out to be a story I like that has reference to another story which I before decided didn’t exist but because it served to make this story cool it must now exist and my imaginary universe WHICH IN REALITY IS IN THE WRITER’S HEAD AND NOT MINE is fucked all to hell because my selective continuity contradictory ass backwards philosophy of how I see continuity’s movement has FAILED ME!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

If something’s going to mimic actual real movements of a universe, I’m gonna grade it on quality of mimicry. Not only that, but it’s not what I make of it. It is in fact what someone else creates for me to enjoy (going off of its original themes of course). You enjoy it based on many deciding factors. Sense, creativity, talent, etc.. All of these are TIED IN with continuity and not ALL on my interpretation.

---

Quote:

---

Dude! I reiterate: It doesn’t have to be a big fat cow and it doesn’t have to be twenty pages. There’s no trouble involved at all.

---

Quote:

---

Tell me something: Are you blaming continuity for these woes and giving immunity to the writers? What’s more; are you giving the writers who were supposed to follow continuity and make a good story at the same time but didn’t (and are the ones who made this whole cow problem in the first place) immunity?

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, maybe you should read regular novels more often, because the definition you just gave is the exact same one for the paper-backs that hit the stands every few weeks. One of the founding premises for comic-books is the fact that it’s one HUGE story or book separated into smaller books like I said before. The characters were meant to evolve through the continuum that ALL books contain. You’re probably only fooled into thinking that the comic continuum is any different because you take it for face value, which is something I just don’t get.

---

Quote:

---

My point was that you can’t go off of popular reference or what you think is popular reference. It’s your opinion that it happened because the stories sucked, but your making it sound like fact that it wasn’t for continuity’s sake more so.

---

Quote:

---

Eh?

What a completely open ended phrase. It sounds like it’s giving room to change Batman into a serial killer and such. Like the main idea for the character’s main traits is void when met with the fancy of a writer.

---

Quote:

---

They followed the creators based on the continuity.

---

Quote:

---

Batman’s entire standard is a crime fighter driven by vengeance and because this was his founding characteristic, THAT’S what they followed. I mean, do you see room for them to have him get a sex change and call himself Notman? Back to point, do you think they kept Kane/Finger in mind when they continued? The premise stays the same because that’s the whole point of the character’s existence and they BUILD on to it using the continuity. They obviously didn’t follow any Kane bible and taking after an individual writer’s example doesn’t seem likely (I also haven’t seen it done).

---

Quote:

---

Furthermore…

Mxy, trying to justify something by using the writers an excuse and not the stories and characters in general (the whole point of this argument) is….Extraordinarily cheap. Continuity for comic books is what takes eyes away from the fact that someone else is outlining the character’s actions (exception made for a few writers of course). The actions of the character and the interpretation of the reader is supposed to be transcendent of the writer and his intentions (sometimes it becomes void because of continuity itself, but that’s a horse of a different color). Your complete disregard for the way a story is supposed to move and the way characters are supposed to be explored is speaking volumes to me on how much you really care on the subject……..

---

Quote:

---

Wait a tic…..No it’s not!! You’re in it for story any character plucked out of a drum within said story…….Why the hell do you even care if you have reg. continuity or selective in the first place if you get a story either way? I realize we were talking about reference and footnoting before, but going right into the meat of the matter, I don’t see that being done as often as suggested in the books. So what are you going on about? What’re your main complaints? Give me examples please.

---

Quote:

---

They follow the characters’ actions Mxy. Get over it.

---

Quote:

---

This entire disagreement is stemming from the fact that we have exactly opposite point of views. You refuse to look at comics for the characters’ POV and don’t want to bother yourself with understanding why the characters are the way they are in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

I would like my story to actually envelop me so I can FOLLOW the characters and try to understand how the story moves BECAUSE of them and how the scenario CHANGES them.

---

Quote:

---

Why? Obviously this ongoing story can’t properly move or take the character anywhere without having compatible continuity through and through.

---

Quote:

---

Not what I meant. While Batman and Wonder Woman have evolved over the past decades in the extremity you’re describing, I was speaking in general terms of their movement through continuity. I mean, they remained consistent in the sense that their actions were based off actions made previously that had consequences, which affected them. The defining moments that allowed them tiny facets to use as justification for other smaller actions. As you say I can speak for Wondy and Bats in this department more because I haven’t read the Supes comics since after 98. I sincerely doubt big blue was put into any situation that would have him do anything controversial which would have an outcome that would serve as proof of that evolution since then. Anyway, this is apart from Wondy and Bats who have evolved much from what I read.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway…

Mxy describe to me these changes please. If you’re talking popular culture and difference in era changing the path of the characters than that summation is wrong for Batman. The Batman we have now is pretty much the same proposed one from years and years and years ago. There was forced inhibition of the character then, but the stops have been pulled out now. Pretty much anything can be approached. While the times have changed the intensities of the books and the taboos of the stories, they never really effected character much during the eighties and nineties. As for Superman, I never really saw his standards or original concepts change during any of the eras. And no one really understood Wondy before her reboot *shrug*.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you’re talking through regular continual channels that they changed. Bats was doing fine post crisis until 02 and Supes started REALLY degrading around 96 I think then Wondy was making moderate sense until Simonson.

---

Quote:

---

I probably know what you mean, but then again I probably don’t. Please elaborate on your meaning here.

---

Quote:

---

This is where you’re citing your opinion as fact again.

---

Quote:

---

No, not really. Superman I can’t really vouch for, but I got tons of back issues for Wondy and Bats during the earlier and later part of the last century. And from a lot of Green Lanterns I read, there wasn’t much detectable change.

---

Quote:

---

Are you implying that it couldn’t have been worked around rather than just merely ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Please make this a little clearer. I’m a bit vexed as to your meaning and how it ties in with lack of adaptation.

---

Quote:

---

If you wanna use that kind of reasoning, then fine. Their credibility was shattered in the process of those runs.

---

Quote:

---

:izzatso: Are you trying to make me out as some sort of spas fanboy or sumthin’?

---

Quote:

---

I want to be able to understand my stories and have them make sense. THAT. IS. ALL. And considering the fact that it’s required/It’s not such a hard task to comply with I’m in my right mind to be more than a bit pissed that my enjoyment is put on hold. I already explained this to you

---

Quote:

---

I don’t take things “so seriously”, I see them for what they are and then I type in my opinion for Chrissakes. I made a bunch of arguments that spoke against Barbara being raped. So fuckin’ what? Where’s this “so seriously” come from? I started that thread with the intention to get a point across, so I participated in it. Simple as that. No one handed me anything but shit as an argument, so I kept going with it.

---

Quote:

---

Mxy, I’ve been reading comics for more than a decade now. Mainly Bats and Wondy. Over that span of time, they remained very consistent and justified in their rights. Suddenly at the turn of the century, they changed without warning or reason. It’s been only a few years now and it’s going to take a few more before the lack of continuity is what drives me away.

---

Quote:

---

And the reason I hold principle above the other elements is because it’s what keeps my enjoyment in the first place. Not principle alone of course, but what it upholds. Oh yeah; and the pretext was directed towards you and that’s why I worded it that way thus I left out the small facet being that I can’t enjoy something that doesn’t make sense.

---

Quote:

---

Yes you should. All plots of stories require it for any such depth or reason for movement in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

You’re too stubborn and keen on the notion that it sucks to MAKE it work to its full potential. Work on that.

---

Quote:

---

Nope. I’m assuming they’re idiots because they’re not able to write with clarity or sense. I mean, if at the beginning of a book Clark decides to kill his wife (don’t I wish), I’d like to know why. Just like I wanted to know why Superman attempted to kill Hank Henshaw. They’re both equal in situation because they’re not telling me anything. If a writer automatically assumes that I’m gonna get EVERYTHING he does with the characters he uses and because of this informs me of nothing…I’m gonna be more than just slightly pissed.

---

Quote:

---

I reiterate, continuity is extraordinarily flexible. It is only in the case that you THINK it isn’t that you encounter problems. You want to do something, but the past speaks against it, figure out a way to make a plot device fit efficiently into place and make your idea work.

---

Quote:

---

If you start writing my comics the way being suggested, then yes. I will definitely call you a dumb fuck/asshole.

---

Quote:

---

It’s not opinion to follow rules. It’s requirement.

---

Quote:

---

Raymond is a sitcom. It’s meant for comedy (I can’t see how). It wouldn’t focus on the things that X-Files does each episode without actually focusing on those things in such great detail.

Anyway, enough of that.

---

Quote:

---

She only started hating it after I described the first ep. I’d ever seen to her. You guessed it: The Garbage Mutant episode. She avoided the show.

---

Quote:

---

I say again with.

The character is a going to be A character for the reader either way. This whole argument is on stand-alone story being enjoyed by ALL. If things go as I described, DiDio, you, the other readers shouldn’t care. And from the impression I’m getting NOW, you want character description in EVERY supposed to be stand-alone story. It seems like you’re contradicting yourself a bit here.

---

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Thanks for not joining in this time, MOTA, I have my hands full with Pariah. When I saw your name in this thread I thought "Oh man, there goes my afternoon..."

---

You talk to me about obsessing and then you go spend your afternoon arguing about something you don't want to......

I got schoolwork to do, so I'll have my refutiation done somewhere around 9:00 WPST.

Quote:

---

Prometheus said:
You can actually decipher what Pariah's saying? I lost him about halfway through the thread. Bunch of nonsensical jibberish....

---

WOW! That must have been so easy to say. Especially when you’re not actually giving any sort of reasons for saying it. The writers (according to Mxy) can pull that shit in the comics Pro.. But here, it’s not gonna fly.

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
The writers (according to Mxy) can pull that shit in the comics Pro.. But here, it’s not gonna fly.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Thanks for not joining in this time, MOTA, I have my hands full with Pariah. When I saw your name in this thread I thought "Oh man, there goes my afternoon..."

---

You may have noticed that it took me several days to reply to your first post, and about two more to reply to the third one. I didn't even get to the second one. Ask MOTA and he'll tell you sometimes I answer right away and sometimes it takes me a week. I do this strictly when I have nothing better to do. If I know I won't have time to reply to it I don't even read them.
You talk to me about obsessing and then you go spend your afternoon arguing about something you don't want to......

I got schoolwork to do, so I'll have my refutiation done somewhere around 9:00 WPST.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
WOW! That must have been so easy to say. Especially when you’re not actually giving any sort of reasons for saying it. The writers (according to Mxy) can pull that shit in the comics Pro.. But here, it’s not gonna fly.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, that's what I meant before. And...?

---

Quote:

---

I guess it's because I don't share your definition of "disharmonious" and "shit" when it comes to stories. And if DiDio and the people running DC don't share it either, I don't see any reason why they should ALWAYS follow the anal retentinve rules of forced continuity.

---

Quote:

---

There's always space for books that respect and use continuity in a good way, like Flash or JSA, and if you're unable to enjoy them because of what's going on on a different book then that's your problem.

---

Quote:

---

Again, I see no reason why the writer should justify ANYTHING if he doesn't want to. You see not doing that as laziness, I see doing it when you don't want to as a source for lameness and mediocrity.

---

Quote:

---

It's obvious that I have a different view of comics than you. I just wanna be able to pick up a book and read a good story, that's all. I don't care how the writer does it. Use continuity, don't use continuity, whatever.

---

Quote:

---

Only good stories keep me buying a comic. This is why I don't understand people who continuity to buy one or four comics they don't enjoy simply because that once upon a time it produced good stories.

---

Quote:

---

If things were the way I propose there would be a space for readers like you, but if things were the way you propose there would be very little space for readers like me.

---

Quote:

---

Only if it makes the story lame. If he somehow manages to fit in the justification in a way that makes sense and improves the story I see no problem with it. The point is that that can't always happen.

---

Pssh! And a good story can’t always happen either.

Quote:

---

I don't wanna buy a book I generally enjoy and suddenly find out that the whole issue has been dedicated to nothing but please continuity. An example would be Green Lantern. Ron Marz said in a recent interview that many times DC's yearly crossovers were imposed on him, and that it showed in the quality of the stories that he didn't really want to write them. He could have used that issue for something that actually mattered for the character. Or maybe the issue is right in the middle of an arc or a sub-plot and it ruins the whole pace of the story.

---

Quote:

---

Another example in the same book would be Kyle's relationship with Donna Troy. Marz invested a couple of years in developing that relationship and making it something special, but he was forced to end it because out of the blue because of what was going on in Byrne's Wonder Woman book. The fact that shit like that happens pisses me off.

---

Quote:

---

If the writer's view of the character coincides with yours then that's what you're gonna get. If the writer's view of the character is different from yours, then how can you expect him to write a decent story using a view he doesn't share?

---

Quote:

---

I guess that's human nature. If you force someone to do something he doesn't agree with, he won't do it or he'll do it reluctantly.

---

Quote:

---

In this case, there's damn good writers that don't always agree with absolute forced continuity. I mean, they're not getting hired to follow continuity.

---

Quote:

---

They're getting hired to write good stories about characters every comics fan knows, and sometimes continuity can get in the way of accomplishing that.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe justifying everything is a top priority for some when they read comics, but that's irrelevant for others.

---

Quote:

---

It would have been a different story. Radically different.

---

Quote:

---

I mean, there's only so much you can justify. For example, the changes in society that resulted from Dr Manhattan's creation wouldn't have existed because Moore wouldn't have been free to toy with the DCU THAT much. And that's a big part of the story.

---

Quote:

---

I disagree with that. Their ability to write good stories is what MAKES a writer. That's why they're called WRITERS and not CONTINUITERS or something.

---

Quote:

---

For example, Gaiman's effort to fit Sandman into the regular DCU (Superhero books) resulted in what he considers the weakest issue of the whole run. He even has to justify why he wrote that issue and why it came out like that in the introduction to the first TPB.

---

Quote:

---

A similar thing happens in Moore's Swamp Thing, though to a lesser extent. In the first arc he uses the Justice League very tangently. They appeared in the cover of one of the issues, but the truth is that they don't have a mayor purpose in that story. In the introduction to the first TPB Moore finds himself in the same situation Gaiman would be a few years later: he knows that since he's a respected author his book is gonna be read by people that don't normally read superhero comics and he feels the need to justify the inclusion of the JLA in that arc. I think Moore did a great work in those issues, but, let's face it, the characters ARE pretty out of context with the atmosphere of the comic, and the fact that Moore, like Gaiman, felt the need to justify their presence suggests that he's not 100% happy about that and that maybe it wasn't his decision.

---

Quote:

---

A story if the sum of its parts, and adding one part the writer doesn't really want to add damages the final result.
So I'd say to you: Start judging the talent of a writer through their ability to write good stories, because that's the whole point.

---

Quote:

---

I agree that there needs to be an internal continuity for each story, but I'd say that being forced to be consequent with the stories that came before doesn't help that at all.

---

Quote:

---

But the problem with that is that in that case there can only be one valid interpretation of the character.

---

Quote:

---

If a new writer comes aboard that has a view of the character radically different from the previous writers justifying that change as if the character was a real person is gonna be nearly impossible and probably not revertible.

---

Quote:

---

My point when I said that these are not real people is that they are tools to create stories and just that. In my opinion expecting them to behave in a realistic manner considering ALL their previous adventures is just silly.

---

Quote:

---

But most of all, and this is a fact, doing that would limit the number of people willing to read the comic (since, thanks to the character's exposure through the media, everyone knows the basic concept and has a different interpretion of how they should be, and if that view is radically different from the one presented in the book odds are the reader won't like it),

---

Sorry, but that’s improper argument.

First, you’re only speaking for the icons in this case, because they’re the only ones known so well. If you’re going to use this as a pillar, you’d have to include ALL the characters.

Second, the basics of the character aren’t everything. All of the icons started out with relatively memorable beginnings and origins, but contained STATIC and complex details that go beyond interpretation.

Third, speaking for everyone like you’re doing is unacceptable, especially since you were just lecturing me on speaking for myself.

Fourth, there are other interpretations that just won’t fly—ESPECIALLY if they’re unjustified. Review: Serial rapist Batman, mass murderer Superman, pedophile Wonder Woman…

Quote:

---

and the number of writers with good stories of this character in them (for the same reason), and doing that would be stupid and unfair.

---

Quote:

---

I'd say a character has more possibilities of behaving like a real person the less popular he is. With icons like Superman, The Bat-Man, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and Aquaman, everyone has a different idea of how they should be.

---

Quote:

---

But only if you've read every fucking comic! If every "big" moment, and there's a lot of them in comics, affects the character, then a reader would have to read pretty much every fucking comic with the character to understand his personality.

---

Quote:

---

This raises another problem: In order to write the character's personality properly, the writer would be forced to read every comic and this, again, would limit the number of people willing to write the character.

---

Quote:

---

Believe it or not, there can be a real love for the character without ever reading an in-continuity comic of it.

---

Quote:

---

That's what's so great about it: everyone gets what they want evenually instead of just one group getting their version. DiDio says he's looking for writers that have good stories in them,

---

Quote:

---

and if he succeeds I assure you a lot more people will start or resume reading comics.

---

Quote:

---

I think the fact that they're not real is a pretty good reason.

---

Quote:

---

Now you're just talking crazy. "They aren't open for interpretation..." Geez!
I think you're prone to obsessions, and continuity isn't a healthy one. It's only okay as long as you're having more fun than bad times because of it.

---

Quote:

---

Appealing to you. The fact that he dresses up as a bat may be what's appealing about the character for someone else. As I said, there can be multiple interpretations of the characters, and yours is just one more.

---

Quote:

---

But someone else might think Jimenez ruined the good the previous writers did and Rucka fixed that.

---

Quote:

---

What attracted me to the character as a kid was the fact that he could the impossible, and that remains the aspect I like the most about the character. Truth, justice? Sure, they're there, but I don't see them as what defines him.

---

Quote:

---

American way? I can barely see that, and I like it that way. Never kills? Depends on who you ask.

---

Quote:

---

I like him mainly because his life was torn into pieces, so he became a man with nothing to lose and everything to do. I like him for the same reason I like Two-Face: the corruption of a good soul.

---

Quote:

---

And, it would also give writers the freedom to do things the way you like em. The way you want things to be, it's your interpretation or NOTHING.

---

Yep, haven’t been listening.

It’s [I]continual interpretation[/I] or nothing, which spans from the writer’s ability to put whatever characteristic he wants in said character. If the character hasn’t shown any signs of characteristics that would be correlative to the aspiring comic writer’s “interpretation”, then it means the character has never had it before. Part of interpreting what a character is means going off of current character. If the character didn’t exhibit signs of whatever the fuck the writer wants to put there in situations prior, It means that the characteristic doesn’t belong with the character in the first place.

Quote:

---

Yours maybe. Not everyone shares that idea. Someone may worship The Bat-Man and only know him through the movies and TV shows.

---

Quote:

---

I don't understand that. Are you saying the writer doesn't have authority over the character's path?

---

Quote:

---

The point is that it's a story that he uses an interpretation of Superman I disagree with, but I'm capable of enjoying it nonetheless because it rocks.

That's not what I'm arguing here. He uses an interpretation of the character I don't agree with. As simple as that.

---

Quote:

---

No, that's creative liberty. You should be able to understand that not everyone thinks like you.

---

Quote:

---

The point is that the characters are different. The fact that the character is different may make the story. Add to that the quantity of previous knowledge required on the writer's part to write the character in a way that is consequent with his past.

---

Quote:

---

But say something from a previous story specifically contradicts or negates something that happens in the new one. Then, if it's in the same continuity, it MUST be addressed, and not just tangently.
That's the kinda thing John Byrne likes to do. Going out of his way to give a long winded explanation on how such thing is possible, and by the time it's over you realize the mood of the story is broken and the characters themselves are saying "So, uh... where were we?" or "What was that all about, Reed? We know all that, we were there..." "I don't know, Johnny, I guess all this fighting is really getting to me..."

---

Quote:

---

This is the key. Different but equally important. My view lets yours exist, while yours negates mine 100%. The logical thing would be going with my view, don't you think?

---

Quote:

---

I see them as indepentdent books that can be linked if the story calls for it. Linking them for the sake of linking them (with forced fights/team ups and such) is just innecessary.

---

Quote:

---

...Huh?
You did that on purpose, didn't you?

---

Quote:

---

I don't think it mimics the "actual real movement of a universe". I don't think it gets anywhere near that. In spite of all the Crisis and multiple timelines and time travel and whatever, that fictional universe doesn't and will never get anywhere near the complexity of real life.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, those elements are tied in continuity... in the story's own continuity, which doesn't necessarily have to be related to the continuity of another story.

---

Quote:

---

But in some cases 20 pages may be required. I remember an issue of Superman that was a Legion crossover when Byrne (when he wasn't a hack) was asked to explain the happenings of the previous Legion issue so the readers didn't have to buy the Legion books (the Superman part of the crossover was self-conclusive), and it took him more than half the comic to explain the whole thing.

---

Quote:

---

But even so... some writers may agree that it needs to be done, but others don't, and if they simply don't want to THEY SHOULDN'T DO IT. Even if it would take them one panel to explain it, they shouldn't.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not blaming continuity. I'm blaming forced continuity. I think it's a stupid and outdated idea.

---

Quote:

---

There will be a time when people look back at the 90's and think "Boy, those guys were really anal retentive about continuity, weren't they?". The sillyness of the Silver Age is gonna be NOTHING compared to the continuity anal retentiveness of the Modern Age.
I'm not defending anyone. I simply judge a writer on the quality of the stories he's able or produce, because that's what writers do, and that's what attracts me about comics.

---

Quote:

---

"One huge story separated into different book"? The first time that was done consistenly was with the beggining of the Marvel Superhero line in the 60's. Before that the DC comics constanlty contradicted each other and themselves, because it didn't matter. With Marvel the potential of making the heroes share a consistent universe was revealed. But that's not the only option. That's only ONE way of looking at superhero comics.

---

Quote:

---

Creative liberty. Look, if a writer wants to use your view of The Bat-Man he's free to do so. If the writers are given freedom to choose what version to use and nobody uses the version you like, there must be a reason why no writers like him.

---

Quote:

---

If you're so convinced about the greatness of your version you shouldn't be worried about the writers being given creative freedom, because odds are most are gonna choose the best one.

---

Quote:

---

As I said before, the biggest evolution happens outside continuity, because it takes all the progress that happens in each continuity.

---

Quote:

---

In your opinion, a sex change would OK if it was justified.

---

Quote:

---

I think he'd call himself Not-a-man.
I agree that the premise pretty much stays... but the writers can also build on it WITHOUT using continuity.

---

Quote:

---

Again, that is YOUR view. I have a completely different view on Superhero comics that is just as valid as yours. You've got no right to tell me I don't care about this, because if I didn't I wouldn't be here. You just gotta accept the fact that your opinion isn't the law and that writers aren't gonna go out of their way to please you and those who think like you. If all writers thought like you this problem wouldn't exist. If all readers thought like you this debate wouldn't exist.

---

Quote:

---

It's incredibly selfish of you to think that things should be done your way and your way only forever. You must admit that continuity is a problem for a substantial number of readers and writers, and it should be addressed instead of being ignored.

---

Quote:

---

"any character plucked out of a drum within said story"? The character happens to be a vital part of the story. I don't take the election of the character used lightly. A Superman story is a Superman story for a reason. A The Bat-Man story is a The Bat-Man story for a reason.

---

Quote:

---

If I don't have more examples it's because I'm one of those crazy people that stops buying a comic when they don't like it.

---

Quote:

---

I couldn't bitch about something like you bitch about Hush and Catwoman, for example.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, the characters follow the writer's ideas. That's how it works in books and that's how it works in comics.

---

Quote:

---

No, I can look at comics from the characters' point of view, I just disagree with you in what a character is. You think they're real people. I think a character that appears in 1000 comics is as real as a character that appears in one novel.

---

Quote:

---

It can. When I read a comic I don't think about the "big ongoing story" unless the writer wants me to.

---

Quote:

---

I'll only speak for Superman, because I'm no expert on The Bat-Man and Wonder Woman and because this is getting too long. Everything about Superman has changed through the years. The costume adapted for decades until it reached the form it has now. The powers started as minimal and through the decades started growing in power and diversity until he was virtually a god. In the 70's he was depowered for the first time, and then again in the 80's, reaching a middle point between the impotent Superman of the origins and the omnipotent Superman of the Silver Age. That's stayed pretty much like that since then. His personality has evolved in a similar way: at first he was a vigilante willing to kill his enemies. As time passed he started turning into an idealist and getting more naive all the time. In the 70's he developed a social conscience and lost some of his naivety. In the 80's he became more "man" than "super", making Clark Kent and Superman the same person instead of being the first one a mere disguise for the second. That's stayed pretty much like that since then.

---

Quote:

---

Funny how they get worse the further they get from the beggining of their continuity.

---

Quote:

---

The evolution that happened OUTSIDE continuity is the one I explained very briefly above. The one that happened inside he current continuity is the one from 1986 from around 1993, after which all evolution stopped, though continuity was being respected.

---

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt that.

---

Quote:

---

I went over the changes and the undoing of changes over the past decade on another thread where I was debating MOTA, and I won't do it again. This is getting too long and it barely has to do with the topic.

---

Quote:

---

For you.

---

Quote:

---

No, you're doing that to yourself.

---

Heh.

Quote:

---

Okay, look, if the writer doesn't want to make his take on a character consistent with what comes before and explain how that's possible, then you probably have no business reading that writer. I'd suggest you refrain from reading his story arc and wait for a writer that has your same concerns.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe it's not "too seriously" for you, but it's certainly more seriously than the average reader takes a topic like that.

---

Quote:

---

Is it so hard to look at the stories as individual continuities, then?

---

Quote:

---

No, it can be done without it.

---

Quote:

---

As I said, I've enjoyed stories that use continuity... just like I've seen others get ruined by it (like Green Lantern), and it pisses me off that something like that could happen. What's the point of having these rules if only half the writers and half the readers believe in them?

---

Quote:

---

When it became apparent that that point wasn't gonna be addressed I stopped worrying and sat back and enjoyed. I'd only be asking for explanations if he was a real person and the stories were real facts.

---

Quote:

---

Or, you ignore it and hope the reader understands it.

---

Quote:

---

So, in other words, you ARE calling me a dumb fuck and an asshole. That's great. That's fucking great. That's how much you "don't take it too seriously".

---

Quote:

---

If I started writing our comics I'd deliberatedly do things to annoy you and MOTA, though not much so you don't get a heart attack.

---

Quote:

---

It's funny that a Fight Club fan follows rules so closely and expects everyone to do the same even if they don't agree with them.

---

Quote:

---

But the way you want things, new readers would only be able to enjoy the story on a certain level. There would be a whole separate level for old readers only, and that would be unfair.

---

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
WOW! That must have been so easy to say. Especially when you’re not actually giving any sort of reasons for saying it. The writers (according to Mxy) can pull that shit in the comics Pro.. But here, it’s not gonna fly.

---

Several people have told me "You can understand what that guy says?!".

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
WOW! That must have been so easy to say. Especially when you’re not actually giving any sort of reasons for saying it. The writers (according to Mxy) can pull that shit in the comics Pro.. But here, it’s not gonna fly.

---

Several people have told me "You can understand what that guy says?!".

---

Really? Who?

---

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Fuck, that's long. I'll read it tomorrow. No way I'm replying point by point, though.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Fuck, that's long. I'll read it tomorrow. No way I'm replying point by point, though.

---

Forget it. I don't feel like replying to this anymore. And even if I do, I prolly won't get the chance for a month anyway.

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
FUCK MXY YOU TOLD NOW HE'S GUNNA HUNT ME DOWN! YOU BASTARD!

---

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
FUCK MXY YOU TOLD NOW HE'S GUNNA HUNT ME DOWN! YOU BASTARD!

---

He's gonna blacklist you at Hop Sing's!

---

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Fuck, that's long. I'll read it tomorrow. No way I'm replying point by point, though.

---

Forget it. I don't feel like replying to this anymore. And even if I do, I prolly won't get the chance for a month anyway.

---

I'll read your thing anyway. Then I'll make a short post with my main ideas. Those big point by point posts get redudant eventually anyway.

---

Be as venomous as possible.