Batman continuity

[Dirk Anger]

Is Morrison's current run on "Batman" considered the official in-continuity Batman book? If not, what is? I'm enjoying Dini's Detective Comics and would like to pick up Batman's current story.

[Drink]

That's part of the problem. What's going on in Batman proper seems apart from everything else in the Bat-Books.

[Joe Acro]

Both Detective and Batman are in-continuity. However, they rarely reference one another.

[Lorendiac]

That's part of the problem. What's going on in Batman proper seems apart from everything else in the Bat-Books.

Sure! That's actually a Pretty Normal Condition when one character is the lead, or at least one of the regular cast members, in multiple books being written by different people simultaneously.

There was a time in the early 1980s, for instance, when Marv Wolfman's run on "Action Comics" included a long arc in which Superman was magically split into two guys, each with just half of his superpowers. (One had the awesome strength, but the other guy had the invulnerability -- the skin that couldn't be bruised or penetrated; the bones that couldn't be broken, etc. Other powers were similarly divided up between them on a piecemeal basis.)

As far as I know: although this problem dragged on for quite some time in "Action Comics" -- maybe 7 or 8 issues? -- it was generally ignored in the "Superman" title coming out each month, and also generally ignored in the "DC Comics Presents" title that was featuring teamups between Superman and a different hero or team in each issue in the early 1980s, and also generally ignored in the "World's Finest" title that always led off with teamup stories showing Superman and Batman working together, and also generally ignored in the "Justice League of America" title where Superman was a member in good standing, and probably also ignored in most of the other titles in which Superman may have made the occasional guest appearance during that 8 or 9 months (or however long it was).

My best guess is that all the other writers doing Superman stories during that period of 8 months or so were of the following opinion: "He's going to get his powers back eventually, same as ever, so why should I tear out my hair trying to 'coordinate' with the nitpicking details of how Wolfman is developing this idea? I don't expect Marv to coordinate with the nitpicking details of what I have Superman doing 'at the same time!' Fans will just have to mentally make allowances by assuming that all of my stories about Full-Powered Superman are happening either just before, or else just after, Wolfman's current stories about 'Two Half-Powered Supermen!'" :)

Superman's problem did get referenced in a cameo in an issue of "The New Teen Titans" during that time. Robin (Dick Grayson) begged him to go catch a runaway starship that had their kidnapped friend Starfire on it, and Superman said something like, "I'd love to, Robin -- but I can't. Quite literally, I'm only half the Superman I used to be!" But of course, the writer of "The New Teen Titans" was . . . Marv Wolfman! It was the simplest thing in the world for him to "carefully synchronize" his treatment of Superman in "Action Comics" with his treatment of Superman in "The New Teen Titans" at the same time.

As long as Wolfman didn't try to do something really drastic and permanent like killing off Lois Lane and having her stay dead for several years (instead of two or three issues), which would have caused great inconvenience for any other Superman writers who wanted to use her in different stories at the same time, I gather that his stories could just go their own way to a considerable extent.

(Superman fans got spoiled in the 1990s when Superman had 4 monthly titles of his very own and they were all exploring a single ongoing narrative in "weekly soap opera" fashion, with all four writers being forced by the editors to tightly coordinate their stuff so that if Lois Lane was about to get killed by a terrorist at the end of one issue of one title, a week later the next issue of a different title by a different writer would show us how she got out of this one, and so on and so forth. But that was something of an aberration -- the Superman titles later went back to more of a "every writer for himself!" mode. Batman currently appears to be in a very similar mode in his titles.)

[TheTen-EyedMan]

It's ironic but this is the exact reason why Doug Moench was fired off Batman in 1998. His refusal to faze out Vesper Fairchild from Batman, coupled of course with his vehement hatred of Cataclysm (And rightly so) led to Denny being forced to fire one of his old friends from Marvel.

And then again, Larry Hama was fired from Batman because he was doing a contrary version of the character to Greg Rucka.

Will Grant Morrison be fired because his Batman is contrary to what's happening in JLA and Detective?

I seriously doubt it. This is Grant Morrison we're talking about. He can write complete nonsense and people swallow it like Grape Flavor Aid.

[Chad]

Has it yet been explained how the Kate Kane Batwoman in 52 (which Morrison is a part of) is related to the Kathy Kane Morrison referenced in his first issue of Batman?

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Has it yet been explained how the Kate Kane Batwoman in 52 (which Morrison is a part of) is related to the Kathy Kane Morrison referenced in his first issue of Batman?

I think you can safely take it as read that they are one and the same Chad.

But that means that Bruce was either such a great lover or a complete swine and she became a Lesbian after him.

So it may well just be poor editing.

[JKCarrier]

But that means that Bruce was either such a great lover or a complete swine and she became a Lesbian after him.

Or, perhaps, that Kathy was still in the closet at the time, and dated Bruce a couple of times to maintain appearances. Which would be ironic, since "maintaining apperances" is pretty much the only reason Bruce ever dates anybody...

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Or, perhaps, that Kathy was still in the closet at the time, and dated Bruce a couple of times to maintain appearances. Which would be ironic, since "maintaining apperances" is pretty much the only reason Bruce ever dates anybody...

My feeling is poor editing rather than any gay angst.

Cookie cutter emotions.

Quality stuff.

And there I was thinking Renee Montoya was the worst lesbian since Anne Heche.

[umbc8]

For now, it is in continuity. However, considering that the book it is referencing was not considered until Morrison started on the title, it's possible that at some point in the future, it will be considered an "imaginary story" or forgotten altogether.

Grant will not be fired though. He is considered a "super-star" writer, and is currently at the point in his career where just about everything he writes is considered gold. Moench and Hama are great writers, but they weren't considered "super-star" writers at the time they were fired.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Grant will not be fired though. He is considered a "super-star" writer, and is currently at the point in his career where just about everything he writes is considered gold. Moench and Hama are great writers, but they weren't considered "super-star" writers at the time they were fired.


This much is correct. He won't get fired.

Should he is another question.

[Damo]

...I can't find my copy of that issue. What was the exact line?

Because there WAS another Kathy Kane post Crisis. She just... kinda... died at the hands of the League of Assassins in order to get at Batman.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

...I can't find my copy of that issue. What was the exact line?

Because there WAS another Kathy Kane post Crisis. She just... kinda... died at the hands of the League of Assassins in order to get at Batman.

You may well be thinking of the Detective Comics issue...485 if I remember correctly. But very pre-Crisis.

http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/87/400/87_4_000485.jpg

[glennsim]

You may well be thinking of the Detective Comics issue...485 if I remember correctly. But very pre-Crisis.

I think what he's referring to is the fact that, post-Crisis, while we didn't have a Batwoman, DC still wanted for the Bronze Tiger to have the death of Kathy Kane on his hands. So they sorta hinted around that Bronze Tiger had still killed Kathy Kane, but it was a Kathy Kane who wasn't also Batwoman.

Lately, they seem to have retconned that out of his history, so there's nothing that prevents a new Kathy Kane from showing up.

[Rich L]

I think you can safely take it as read that they are one and the same Chad.

But that means that Bruce was either such a great lover or a complete swine and she became a Lesbian after him.

So it may well just be poor editing.

I recall reading an interview with possibly Didio that mentioned that Kathy had a history with both Bruce and Renee. She may simply be bi-sexual, or have discovered her preference after dating Bruce.

This does happen quite a bit - I had a friend who seemed to go through a phase of his ex-girlfriends coming out as lesbians. Shook his confidence no end. :D

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I recall reading an interview with possibly Didio that mentioned that Kathy had a history with both Bruce and Renee. She may simply be bi-sexual, or have discovered her preference after dating Bruce.

This does happen quite a bit - I had a friend who seemed to go through a phase of his ex-girlfriends coming out as lesbians. Shook his confidence no end. :D

Like Lou Diamond Phillips and Julie Cypher. That would mess my stuff up.

[The Shadow]

Regarding the continuity issue: Both titles don't have to happen at the EXACT same time of the month. One could take place over a day while another over a week... but at different times of the month... that allows Batman to do those wonderful superhero things he does.

Should they reference each other? Would it benefit Morrison's story to have an offshoot line about Poison Ivy? I guess it all depends on personal preference.

[VanEyck]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does a story have to be in-continuity?

I mean, there are books where Lancelot retrieves the Holy Grail, and books where Galahad does it, and books were Percival does it. These are all Arthurian books but they disagree and no one really cares because each is a separate work.

In my opinion, you only need continuity within-series. As long as Detective Comics maintains continuity with past Detective Comics stories, that's fine. As long as Batman is continuous with itself, that's fine. And ditto for all other titles.

The problem with this approach is that any Crisis-like mega-crossover will force every "spinoff" title to restart itself, with only the main title (Detective Comics, no?) continuing.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I remember after the first Crisis there was talk of rebooting Batman and Detective Comics. There was one mother of a fufurall and the plans were dumped.

Even I accept that trying to keep the continuity of a nearly 70 year old character is nearly impossible but when the creators and editors actively savage that continuity then there's no way that that continuity can possibly survive.

[glennsim]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does a story have to be in-continuity?

I mean, there are books where Lancelot retrieves the Holy Grail, and books where Galahad does it, and books were Percival does it. These are all Arthurian books but they disagree and no one really cares because each is a separate work.

In my opinion, you only need continuity within-series. As long as Detective Comics maintains continuity with past Detective Comics stories, that's fine. As long as Batman is continuous with itself, that's fine. And ditto for all other titles.

The problem with this approach is that any Crisis-like mega-crossover will force every "spinoff" title to restart itself, with only the main title (Detective Comics, no?) continuing.

I'd say the biggest problem with this, other than the general "it's the same guy, being published by the same company, under the same imprint" reason, is that if I'm remembering a previous Batman story, I might not remember whether I read it in "Batman" or "Detective Comics", so it will be hard to tell whether that story should have any ramifications on the story I'm reading now.

[Lorendiac]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does a story have to be in-continuity?

I mean, there are books where Lancelot retrieves the Holy Grail, and books where Galahad does it, and books were Percival does it. These are all Arthurian books but they disagree and no one really cares because each is a separate work.

In my opinion, you only need continuity within-series. As long as Detective Comics maintains continuity with past Detective Comics stories, that's fine. As long as Batman is continuous with itself, that's fine. And ditto for all other titles.

The problem with this approach is that any Crisis-like mega-crossover will force every "spinoff" title to restart itself, with only the main title (Detective Comics, no?) continuing.

Back on April Fool's Day, I posted something that was meant to be amusing -- a hypothetical summary of the wide range of Spider-Man titles that might be coming out in one month in the year 2037, his 75th Anniversary. In it, I essentially proposed (by pretending to "predict" it would happen) something very similar to what you're describing, as the way Marvel might rearrange its approach to continuity in the future. By the time I was done writing it, I was thinking the idea had serious possibilities! (Except that I don't actually see the current regime at Marvel making such changes any time soon.)

Here's a quote; one paragraph from that post. Remember that when it says "today" it's describing the world of 2037, not 2006 :)

So today, any writer who can make a successful pitch to the Spider-Man editors can get permission to start up a new series. He can annonce it’s “spinning off” from “classic” Spider-Man continuity at some previous point, or he can pretty much start all over from scratch. He can recycle any series title that isn't currently being used by someone else, starting over with a new #1 in most cases. When he leaves (or gets canned), the series ends unless some other writer explicitly wants to pick up where he left off, further developing the “same” continuity. This means that the Spider-Man “character concept” is habitually being used six, eight, or ten different ways, in mutually exclusive “timelines” (or whatever you want to call them) that have no bearing upon one another’s development.

And here's a link to the original post, wherein I explored the possibilities in more detail.

Notes from the Future: Spidey's 75th Anniversary (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=117552)

On the subject of Crisis-like mega-crossovers, my approach would be: only let them draw upon the resources of titles that are still part of the "old Marvel Universe continuity" and ignore any titles that have long since "branched off" and gone their own ways. For instance, if "Amazing Spider-Man" keeps being published for the next 31 years, it could stay in the "regular continuity," whereas all other Spider-titles would long since have established their own separate niches and would not be affected by anything that happened in the handful of "old titles."

[Lorendiac]

I'd say the biggest problem with this, other than the general "it's the same guy, being published by the same company, under the same imprint" reason, is that if I'm remembering a previous Batman story, I might not remember whether I read it in "Batman" or "Detective Comics", so it will be hard to tell whether that story should have any ramifications on the story I'm reading now.

But haven't we already got that problem now? And we cope with it somehow? If I'm remembering a previous Batman story that I once read, years ago, in the original issues or in a TPB reprint volume or whatever, and if I'm wondering if its dramatic events will be referred to the next time Batman squares off with the Joker (or whoever), it could easily be a story that currently belongs in any of the following categories!

01. Pre-Crisis, Earth-2 Batman's continuity, which is now erased.

02. Pre-Crisis, Earth1 Batman's continuity; specifically from that portion of it that is now erased.

03. Pre-Crisis, Earth-1 Batman's continuity; specifically from that portion of it that "carried over" as part of the Post-Crisis Batman's continuity and is still solid as far as we know.

04. Post-Crisis, a story arc from "Legends of the Dark Knight," many of those stories being considered "fuzzy, apocryphal continuity" or definitely "out of continuity" -- that was the original mission statement of the title, as I recall; letting various rotating creative teams do stories that would not be set in stone as New Official Continuity for everybody else to slavishly respect.

05. Post-Crisis stories that were definitely set "out of continuity" from day one, such as anything with "Elseworlds" on the cover.

06. Post-Crisis stories that were set in "animated TV series continuity," such as the old "Batman Adventures" title.

07. Post-Crisis stories that were definitely set "in continuity" when they were published, and they are still valid as far as anyone knows. (Of course, a new writer on a Bat-title could simply forget some of this stuff -- or else he had never read it -- with the result that his new story wildly contradicted other stuff even though he was not even trying to "officially retcon" anything in particular!)

08. Post-Crisis stories that were definitely "in continuity" when they were published, but have subsequently been erased from continuity. (I hear that this category includes Starlin's miniseries "The Cult" and Sam Hamm's "Blind Justice" story arc.)

09. Comic book adaptations of the live-action movies.

10. Post-Crisis comic books of stuff that allegedly started out being "apocryphal," i.e. "out of continuity," but that one or more people have subsequently tried to retroactively drag into continuity after all. (Some say that Loeb's "The Long Halloween" fits into this category.)

And there are probably other categories that I missed. With a few exceptions (such as the Elseworlds logo) these stories generally don't come with warning labels that tell us exactly what category they are supposed to be when we first read them, and of course if they are later moved by editorial fiat from one category to the next, that won't magically show up in the form of a new warning label on the cover of something that's already been in our collections for the last ten years! :(

But we struggle along, somehow. If we can cope with all that, then I think we could also learn to cope with each title Officially Going Its Own Way, continuity-wise, from now on!