|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 7:00:20 GMT -5
The examples of Swamp Thing, MJ, etc, aren't these retcons instead of canon violations? I think there is a difference. A retcon is simply an ignoring of previous continuity that becomes the new status quo instead of a one-off story. Otherwise all Elseworlds, Imaginary stories, and the like could be listed here. -M - I don't think so. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing doesn't "ignore" previous continuity for example. It gives the character a new origin which fits his previous adventures. "Ignoring previous continuity" would be something like saying that character's name was always "John Smith" instead of Alec Holland without explaining the contradiction
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 7:11:28 GMT -5
A retcon is simply an ignoring of previous continuity that becomes the new status quo instead of a one-off story. Otherwise all Elseworlds, Imaginary stories, and the like could be listed here. -M - I don't think so. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing doesn't "ignore" previous continuity for example. It gives the character a new origin which fits his previous adventures. "Ignoring previous continuity" would be something like saying that character's name was always "John Smith" instead of Alec Holland without explaining the contradiction In order to implant or create something "new" that is different from existing continuity, you are by default ignoring that previous continuity. If you were following it and taking it into consideration, you would be following it. But the story you are telling doesn't work with that previous continuity, so you ignore it and tell the story you want anyways. The difference is that following that story, people continue to ignore past continuity and use your story as the new continuity moving forward. If editors decided to follow up Bob Haney stories as the new status quo, it would be the same difference. The difference is in the aftermath, not in the process of choosing to follow or ignoring previous continuity. In either case, the storyteller is choosing to tell the story they want regardless of what previous continuity was. -M PS If Moore's story hadn't been well received, and 6 issues later he was off the book and the next writer simply said, meh, let's ignore that and go back to what it originally was, it would have been no different than if Moore had told a 6 issue imaginary story of Swamp Thing ignoring continuity. So how is it fundamentally different in the actual process? It's what people do afterwards, not what people do in telling the story that makes it different.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 3, 2023 7:55:52 GMT -5
Peter travels to Metropolis? What the hell??
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 7:57:58 GMT -5
Peter travels to Metropolis? What the hell?? Earth-7642
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 8:09:01 GMT -5
I don't think so. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing doesn't "ignore" previous continuity for example. It gives the character a new origin which fits his previous adventures. "Ignoring previous continuity" would be something like saying that character's name was always "John Smith" instead of Alec Holland without explaining the contradiction In order to implant or create something "new" that is different from existing continuity, you are by default ignoring that previous continuity. If you were following it and taking it into consideration, you would be following it. But he story you are telling doesn't work with that previous continuity, so you ignore it and tell the story you want anyways. The difference is that following that story, people continue to ignore past continuity and use your story as the new continuity moving forward. If editors decided to follow up Bob Haney stories as the new status quo, it would be the same difference. The difference is in the aftermath, not in the process of choosing to follow or ignoring previous continuity. In either case, the storyteller is choosing to tell the story they want regardless of what previous continuity was. -M PS If Moore's story hadn't been well received, and 6 issues later he was off the book and the next writer simply said, meh, let's ignore that and go back to what it originally was, it would have been no different than if Moore had told a 6 issue imaginary story of Swamp Thing. So how is it fundamentally different in the actual process? It's what people do afterwards, not what people do in telling the story that makes it different. Perhaps it's better doing a couple of examples: RetconWhen Alan Moore changed the Swamp Thing's origin, he didn't ignore his continuity. (Almost) all of his previous adventures have occurred. There was simply an assumption that (in-universe) everyone misunderstood what the Swamp Thing really was. The narrator acknowledged that what was happening in the stories he wrote was in apparent contrast to what had gone before, and he explains in the story the nature of this contrast. Ignoring ContinuityWhen Bob Haney made Batman mourn over his parents' ashes, he ignored decades of continuity in which it was always explicitly stated that they were buried. And he did not give any explanation (in-story) of this contradiction. The ashes, in the story universe, had always been there because Bruce had his parents cremated. I hope I was clearer now.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Feb 3, 2023 8:23:49 GMT -5
Actually, Alan Moore--and his predecessor on Saga of the Swamp Thing, Marty Pasko--did ignore a huge swath of Swampi's continuity, declaring that everything in the original series published after the last Wein/Wrightson issue (#10), including Swampi's guest shots in Challengers of the Unknown, never happened. It was a good decision, mind you--those weren't particularly good stories--but it did violate established continuity. Likewise, Batman and the Outsiders scribe Mike W. Barr decided that Metamorpho did not know Bats' true identity despite several Brave and Bold stories in which he clearly did. (This was typical behavior regarding Haney's B&B work, which did indeed frequently include lapses in continuity while also frequently being the best-plotted comic DC released that particular month.) And of course, Roy Thomas unilaterally declared that all the Quality heroes, previously assigned to Earth-X, actually originated on Earth-Two in All-Star Squadron.
It's probably not coincidental that all three series were initially edited by Len Wein, who clearly believed that creativity should not be hamstrung by a slavish devotion to continuity.
Cei-U! I summon the Sultan of Soft Reboots!
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Feb 3, 2023 8:39:46 GMT -5
Oh, probably the Bob Haney Brave & the Bold. Haney was never too worked up about continuity and it rarely mattered tot he stories he wrote. What he said. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 8:53:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 10:06:26 GMT -5
In order to implant or create something "new" that is different from existing continuity, you are by default ignoring that previous continuity. If you were following it and taking it into consideration, you would be following it. But he story you are telling doesn't work with that previous continuity, so you ignore it and tell the story you want anyways. The difference is that following that story, people continue to ignore past continuity and use your story as the new continuity moving forward. If editors decided to follow up Bob Haney stories as the new status quo, it would be the same difference. The difference is in the aftermath, not in the process of choosing to follow or ignoring previous continuity. In either case, the storyteller is choosing to tell the story they want regardless of what previous continuity was. -M PS If Moore's story hadn't been well received, and 6 issues later he was off the book and the next writer simply said, meh, let's ignore that and go back to what it originally was, it would have been no different than if Moore had told a 6 issue imaginary story of Swamp Thing. So how is it fundamentally different in the actual process? It's what people do afterwards, not what people do in telling the story that makes it different. Perhaps it's better doing a couple of examples: RetconWhen Alan Moore changed the Swamp Thing's origin, he didn't ignore his continuity. (Almost) all of his previous adventures have occurred. There was simply an assumption that (in-universe) everyone misunderstood what the Swamp Thing really was. The narrator acknowledged that what was happening in the stories he wrote was in apparent contrast to what had gone before, and he explains in the story the nature of this contrast. Ignoring ContinuityWhen Bob Haney made Batman mourn over his parents' ashes, he ignored decades of continuity in which it was always explicitly stated that they were buried. And he did not give any explanation (in-story) of this contradiction. The ashes, in the story universe, had always been there because Bruce had his parents cremated. I hope I was clearer now. But Moore still ignored what went before to do what he wanted. And again, it only counted as a retcon because those who came after chose to use it and make it the new continuity, until it too was ignored by writers who wanted to do their own thing. And again, if after issue 25 of Swamp Thing, Karen Berger said, this isn't working Alan, we're replacing you, and the new writer went back to the Wein/Wrightson origin and ignored what Moore had done, Moore's stories wouldn't be a retcon, they were just stories that did what they wanted despite what came before ignoring the previous status quo. It doesn't matter if you are altering it or not using it at all, you re still ignoring what came before to do what you want. If in doing so you happen to establish a new status quo that others follow, in no way changes that you ignored what came before to do what you want and tell the story you wanted that didn't work with what was previously established in some way. Intent doesn't make a retcon, acceptance after the story is published and use of the story as the new status quo is what makes it a retcon. If everyone moving forward had gone with the Wayne's being cremated and not buried, it would have been a retcon. They didn't, so it wasn't. But it could have been. Again, intent had nothing to do with whether it was a retcon or not. It's how that story was used (or not used) by others afterwards that determined if it was a retcon or not. -M
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2023 10:32:31 GMT -5
To me, ignoring is offering ZERO explanation for why something is different. From what I understand, Moore didn't do that. (I have the books but haven't read them yet.)
It doesn't matter what did or didn't come after. The writer has no control over that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2023 10:35:17 GMT -5
To me, ignoring is offering ZERO explanation for why something is different. From what I understand, Moore didn't do that. (I have the books but haven't read them yet.) It doesn't matter what did or didn't come after. The writer has no control over that. But the writer does chose to follow or change what came before. Changing is ignoring what came before to tell the story. No story is a retcon going in, because retcon is an after effect. No story is a retcon if it is ignored, and yes the writer has no control over that because writers don't make retcons, editors do. -M
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 10:44:46 GMT -5
Perhaps it's better doing a couple of examples: RetconWhen Alan Moore changed the Swamp Thing's origin, he didn't ignore his continuity. (Almost) all of his previous adventures have occurred. There was simply an assumption that (in-universe) everyone misunderstood what the Swamp Thing really was. The narrator acknowledged that what was happening in the stories he wrote was in apparent contrast to what had gone before, and he explains in the story the nature of this contrast. Ignoring ContinuityWhen Bob Haney made Batman mourn over his parents' ashes, he ignored decades of continuity in which it was always explicitly stated that they were buried. And he did not give any explanation (in-story) of this contradiction. The ashes, in the story universe, had always been there because Bruce had his parents cremated. I hope I was clearer now. But Moore still ignored what went before to do what he wanted. And again, it only counted as a retcon because those who came after chose to use it and make it the new continuity, until it too was ignored by writers who wanted to do their own thing. And again, if after issue 25 of Swamp Thing, Karen Berger said, this isn't working Alan, we're replacing you, and the new writer went back to the Wein/Wrightson origin and ignored what Moore had done, Moore's stories wouldn't be a retcon, they were just stories that did what they wanted despite what came before ignoring the previous status quo. It doesn't matter if you are altering it or not using it at all, you re still ignoring what came before to do what you want. If in doing so you happen to establish a new status quo that others follow, in no way changes that you ignored what came before to do what you want and tell the story you wanted that didn't work with what was previously established in some way. Intent doesn't make a retcon, acceptance after the story is published and use of the story as the new status quo is what makes it a retcon. If everyone moving forward had gone with the Wayne's being cremated and not buried, it would have been a retcon. They didn't, so it wasn't. But it could have been. Again, intent had nothing to do with whether it was a retcon or not. It's how that story was used (or not used) by others afterwards that determined if it was a retcon or not. -M At this point I think you and I give two different meanings to the word "ignoring"
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 3, 2023 10:49:21 GMT -5
To me, ignoring is offering ZERO explanation for why something is different. From what I understand, Moore didn't do that. (I have the books but haven't read them yet.) Yep. I don't want to get into spoiler territory, but the previous adventures aren't like they were canceled by Moore's retcon. If instead DC, absurdly, had accepted Haney's version that Bruce's parents had been cremated, this would have automatically invalidated all previous stories in which it had been explicitly said that they had been buried.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 3, 2023 10:52:06 GMT -5
They're funnybooks. It's fine.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Feb 3, 2023 11:02:56 GMT -5
They're funnybooks. It's fine. Ditto, again. If I had to choose between complete canon-adherent continuity, or Batman meeting Sgt. Rock, I would choose the latter. Those stories are so fun and varied, and are no less memorable, or important, in my opinion.
|
|