Rewriting Comic Book History: Great Idea or Hack Work?

[Smarty Jones]

It seems a trend in comic book publishers DC and Marvel in the past couple of years to introduce stories and/or characters that have major impact on what we thought was established history.

I'm not talking about a conventional retcon, but major upheavals in established canon that potentially alter the essence of characters.

* "Identity Crisis," in which Dr. Light retroactively raped Sue Dibny and The Justice League of America continuously mindwiped its villains;

* In "Captain America," revelations of The Winter Soldier is really Cap's World War II sidekick Bucky, who was thought dead but was in suspended animation and programmed to be an assassin in today's Marvel Universe;

* The Sentry, a character who is now considered one of the progenitors of the age of superheroes at Marvel, and among other things "fought Galactus to a stalemate;"

* "Sins Past," the "Amazing Spider-Man" storyline that revealed Norman Osborn had an affair with Gwen Stacy and produced a pair of rapidly-aging children with her;

* Rumors that The X-Men "Dark Genesis" will reveal that there was another team of mutants formed prior to the second generation that featured Wolverine, Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler. There is also talk that the villain could be the long-rumored third brother of Cyclops and Havok, who was recruited by Charles Xavier and kept him under wraps for years.

I know that there have been threads on retcons, but these aren't just nip-and-tuck operations -- these are adding new stories into long-established canon that cause readers to look at these characters entirely differently. Is this a case of being creative or is it a case of creators cheapening what has been done? Your thoughts.

[Noah Johnson]

Honestly, I feel that continuity is a weakness as often as it's a strength. The main thing that matters to me is that a story be quality work. If it's quality work that doesn't fit with something previous published... Eh. Don't really care.

[Jeff Brady]

I agree with Noah, but my bigger concerns are with the continuity of characterization. Story contintuity can hinder as much as it can help. When characters are rewritten to suit a story ("I'm the goddam Batman"), that shows weakness on the writers part.

[Noah Johnson]

I agree with Noah, but my bigger concerns are with the continuity of characterization. Story contintuity can hinder as much as it can help. When characters are rewritten to suit a story ("I'm the goddam Batman"), that shows weakness on the writers part.
Good distinction, and one I should have made.

[Paradox]

It's a tool like any other story tool, and is therefore neither good nor bad. Execution is all-important in these cases, just like with retcons.

[Shellhead]

I was pondering this re-writing thing today at the comic shop, while glancing through Deadly Genesis. Used sparingly and effectively, it can be an interesting way to add to continuity. Used frequently and badly, as in the last couple of years, it gets tedious. If these writers don't respect continuity, why do they go retroactive and tamper with it? Can't they just tell modern stories that happen to ignore continuity? Or do they feel that their stories somehow gain legitimacy when retconned into continuity? It doesn't work for me.

Jessica Jones and Sentry feel too gimmicky for this reason. Does Quesada want them to be extremely popular? Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if he thinks that they need retconned Silver Age roots to jumpstart their popularity, he is not showing confidence in these characters and their ability to attract readers.

Contrary to what some modern fans are constantly saying, older fans don't hate new ideas. It's just that we suffered through lots of crappy new comic ideas during the 90's, and now we're wary. And with Marvel re-telling their Silver Age stories as cover tunes in the Ultimate line, and now DC telling continuity-free stories with their All-Star line, we're just not getting much creativity these days. Grant Morrison's ambitious Seven Soldiers project contains more new ideas than the last five years of the entire comic industry. Imo, of course.

[Corrina]

The Winter Soldier story, though, doesn't invalidate all the stories since Bucky's death. The Winter Soldier never appeared before, he's a new character, and Cap always believed he was dead.

You could go back and read older issues of Captain America and the emotional continuity wouldn't change.

Whereas if you go back and read the stories with Gwen Stacy, it's harder not to think 'if this from the time she was sleeping with Norman?" or old JLA issues and wonder if this was before or after the JLA mind-wiped Bats?

[Iangould]

It's a tool like any other story tool, and is therefore neither good nor bad.

Precisely.

"The anatomy Lesson" from Alan Moore's Swamp Thing and the Spider-clone story are both examples of ret-cons.

[king mob]

The Atatomy Lesson isn't a retcon (god, i hate that word) though. Moore only added something not there before and it never interfered or rewrote past continuity (god, i hate that word) in way which would make you go "what??!"

I'm tired though of cheap gimmicky ideas like the "Norman and Gwen were shagging behind Peters back!!!!!", or the reprehensible Sue Dibney rape. They're told badly and told cheaply to get a cheap reaction and add nothing to telling a decent story.

As said, the priority in superhero comics should be the story, often thesedays it isn't. It's one crappy idea after another while wading through a mess of continuity that gets the fanboys drooling.

[Shellhead]

What really troubles me is that there has been a distinct tonal shift since the innocence of the Silver Age. It reflects that the comic industry lost 90% of their readers, the kids, and most of the remaining readers are adults. Accordingly, comics deal with more adult themes now, sex, drugs, more vicious violence, etc. Now, these adult themes are not necessarily dealt with in a mature manner... there is a tendency to go for the shock value. But to retcon these adult themes into the Silver Age is generally a bad idea. It comes across like those implanted fake memories of abuse created by hypnotists back in the 90's. Creepy, dishonest, and shocking for the sake of being shocking. Used sparingly, by talented creatives, we get excellent works like that JSA Elseworlds, The Golden Age. Used heavily, we get a corrupt and degraded DCU, one that disgusts me almost as much as it does Kal-L in Infinite Crisis.

[StoneGold]

The Atatomy Lesson isn't a retcon (god, i hate that word) though. Moore only added something not there before
Guess what you just defined?

No, seriously, guess.

Face it, a pretty huge chunk of Moore's mainstream comic work has involved retcons. Marvelman, Supreme, Swamp Thing... I mean, is what Moore did to Swamp Thing any different in the long run then what they did with the Spider-Clone thing, make the guy you'd been reading for the last however many years turn out to have not been that guy at all?

[king mob]

Guess what you just defined?

No, seriously, guess.

Face it, a pretty huge chunk of Moore's mainstream comic work has involved retcons. Marvelman, Supreme, Swamp Thing... I mean, is what Moore did to Swamp Thing any different in the long run then what they did with the Spider-Clone thing, make the guy you'd been reading for the last however many years turn out to have not been that guy at all?


Yes, a lot of Moore's stuff is 'retcon' but Swamp Thing wasn't, certainly not by the way the word is used by fans today. Moore's intention was never to rewrite past history but introduce something which added to the story without detracting from what went before.
The big difference between Moore's Swamp Thing and the Spider Clone nonsense was first of all, Moores work made sense.Secondly Moores work still left it so the previous stories on Swamp Thing could be read without Moores stories interfering with it.
The Spider Clone stuff was a mess, it mucked around with past stories and was a cheap gimmick which hadnt been worked out in order to make sales.

[Greg Hatcher]

I mean, is what Moore did to Swamp Thing any different in the long run then what they did with the Spider-Clone thing, make the guy you'd been reading for the last however many years turn out to have not been that guy at all?

You didn't ask me, but I'll go ahead and answer anyway: no, it's not technically different. The difference is obvious -- fans LIKED this particular one so it gets a pass.

What gets me is when fans latch on to a retcon with such fervor that all the stuff that came BEFORE is what they declare worthless, null, and void. Try and tell modern readers that Daredevil wasn't always a troubled grim ronin in red spandex and they act like you just threw up on their shoes. Or that the Creeper's craziness used to be a put-on, an act he did for criminals' benefit. Or that Batman and Robin used to behave like a father and son with a GOOD relationship and not a completely depressing dysfunctional one. And so on. Those are all retcons that were embraced so completely that fans today will tell you it was ALWAYS that way.

Truthfully? I just want good comics. I think everybody does. If a retcon's involved, okay, and if not, that's okay too. My personal tastes run towards superhero stories that are tough, cool, and fun; more of a Batman guy than a Superman guy, which is how we divvied up the superhero schools of thought when I was a youngster. But 'my' Batman is the 70's guy -- scary to criminals, relentless in the pursuit of his mission, but still at the core a basically decent guy who had a few good friends that he didn't treat like crap. Started with O'Neil and Adams and ended somewhere around Moench/Colan/Newton. That guy. I miss reading about him. The Batman that's in the comics today, I hardly recognize him. He's a creep. Now if a lame retcon that postulates the rest of the JLA are a bunch of pricks that go around mind-wiping their friends gets us back to where I get more stories with MY Batman in them, I'm okay with it. I think they probably could have handled it better, in fact I think having to HAVE a story that explains it is kind of silly; but if it gets us to the place where I can enjoy Batman comics again, it's all right with me.

[StoneGold]

The big difference between Moore's Swamp Thing and the Spider Clone nonsense was first of all, Moores work made sense.Secondly Moores work still left it so the previous stories on Swamp Thing could be read without Moores stories interfering with it.

Actually, probably the biggest difference is that no one gave a rat's ass about Swampy before Moore started mucking with him. Whereas people cared that Spidey wasn't Spidey. OK, there were a lot of other differences, in that the Spidey story wasn't very good, but look at most of the succesful retcons, and they happened to characters who were near cancellation. Like the previously mentioned DareDevil. Hey, if Infinity Crisis didn't involve half the DCU, and was just about Sue getting raped, say, in an alley or something, there wouldn't have been half the bitching there was about it. Would people still have bitched? Yeah, sure, but not to the same degree.

Hell, people went apeshit when Denny tried to say that Joe Chill didn't off Bruce's parents. OK, I'll admit, I was one of them, but more because while Denny seemed to think that leaving the murder open ended made Batman's war on crime more of a never-ending thing, all I saw it as was eventually, someone was going to write the story where it was really the Penguin or something. Blech.

[StoneGold]

You didn't ask me, but I'll go ahead and answer anyway: no, it's not technically different. The difference is obvious -- fans LIKED this particular one so it gets a pass. And a bunch of other rational arguments that make sense but are cut for time.

Exactly. There's nothing "inherintly evil" about any of it. The answer is if the story is any good.

I mean, you could start a thread complaining about the use of bank robbers hiding out in abandoned warehouses. It's the same thing.



Although I kind of like Batman at least a little dickish. Maybe not as much as he's been lately, but probably a bit more than the Denny stuff.

[Shellhead]

Actually, probably the biggest difference is that no one gave a rat's ass about Swampy before Moore started mucking with him. Whereas people cared that Spidey wasn't Spidey. OK, there were a lot of other differences, in that the Spidey story wasn't very good, but look at most of the succesful retcons, and they happened to characters who were near cancellation. Like the previously mentioned DareDevil. Hey, if Infinity Crisis didn't involve half the DCU, and was just about Sue getting raped, say, in an alley or something, there wouldn't have been half the bitching there was about it. Would people still have bitched? Yeah, sure, but not to the same degree.

Hell, people went apeshit when Denny tried to say that Joe Chill didn't off Bruce's parents. OK, I'll admit, I was one of them, but more because while Denny seemed to think that leaving the murder open ended made Batman's war on crime more of a never-ending thing, all I saw it as was eventually, someone was going to write the story where it was really the Penguin or something. Blech.

I don't disagree with your overall point. I just wanted to make sure that people knew that that Swamp Thing had some great issues before Alan Moore came along. Those early issues written by Len Wein and pencilled by Bernie Wrightson were great, and I think they've been re-printed a couple of times.

[StoneGold]

I don't disagree with your overall point. I just wanted to make sure that people knew that that Swamp Thing had some great issues before Alan Moore came along. Those early issues written by Len Wein and pencilled by Bernie Wrightson were great, and I think they've been re-printed a couple of times.
Yeah, they just came out again in a digest format that's smaller than Marvel's, but costs more money. Bastards.

And I'm not denying the quality of the work, although a lot of it is due to Bernie's pencils. But otherwise, it was generic 70's post-Code horror stuff. And hadn't been done by Len and Bernie in a while, so it was fair game. I mean, hell, DareDevil was done at one point by Stan Lee and Wally Wood, you want to talk about pedigree? But by the time Miller got his hands on him, he was near cancellation.

But I'm just expanding on a point that you said we're already in agreement on, and will probably take it too far at some point, so I'll just leave it here.

[Greg Hatcher]

Although I kind of like Batman at least a little dickish. Maybe not as much as he's been lately, but probably a bit more than the Denny stuff.

Well, of course, mileage varies. And I kind of like the Morrison and Waid JLA take on Batman, where of all the aliens and goddesses and so on, he's the one that the rest of the League are a little freaked out by, because that always makes me snicker. But when I talk about this particular retcon the thing that just sticks in my craw, the part that makes it unacceptable and stupid, is the part where even Alfred and Dick and Gordon and Barbara are constantly being manipulated, hurt, pushed around, and treated like crap. That just ain't right.

Not to drift this into a Bat thread, but Bat comics are what I know best, so it's where I get examples from.

[StoneGold]

Well, of course, mileage varies. And I kind of like the Morrison and Waid JLA take on Batman, where of all the aliens and goddesses and so on, he's the one that the rest of the League are a little freaked out by, because that always makes me snicker. But when I talk about this particular retcon the thing that just sticks in my craw, the part that makes it unacceptable and stupid, is the part where even Alfred and Dick and Gordon and Barbara are constantly being manipulated, hurt, pushed around, and treated like crap. That just ain't right.

That last part I agree with you completly. How many times has Alfred quit on Bruce since, oh, the back breaking? It's been more than once. I tell ya, Alfred's such a co-dependant.

[king mob]

Actually, probably the biggest difference is that no one gave a rat's ass about Swampy before Moore started mucking with him.

Well there was a section of fans who at the time were less than happy, plus Swamp Thing had been a successful title in the Wrightson days but yes, had been more or less an undeveloped character before Moore saw there might be something he could do with it.

Whereas people cared that Spidey wasn't Spidey. OK, there were a lot of other differences, in that the Spidey story wasn't very good, but look at most of the succesful retcons, and they happened to characters who were near cancellation. Like the previously mentioned DareDevil. Hey, if Infinity Crisis didn't involve half the DCU, and was just about Sue getting raped, say, in an alley or something, there wouldn't have been half the bitching there was about it. Would people still have bitched? Yeah, sure, but not to the same degree.


It boils down to good storytelling. Miller's Daredevil never wrote off or disregarded past stories and to an extent Daredevil was as undeveloped as Swamp Thing was.
SpiderMan had a consistant character before the Spider Clone nonsense.Plus the Infinite Crisis story was not only a load of shite, but i would think the Sue Dibney rape (assuming it was handled the same) would have got the same reaction where ever it had been published.

[DOOM2099]

Retcons. What an evil word. Not evil in itself... I think it's the frequency of use that makes it evil... Can't think of an original story? Well, let's retcon a horrible tragic thing into the heroes past and go from there.

Who do you think you are to go against 30-60 years of established storytelling, only to retcon some crap in, that will later be retconned out? Seriously.

It's just a way for creatively bankrupt writers to squeeze a story out.. A story that (re)writes itself!!!

The woorst offenders aren't even the comics themselves, but movies and TV. Is this what we are reduced to? Anybody and his brother can take away Pete's webspinners, a nifty invention that he continually upgrades and modifies, evolving tha character and the stories, but can you take a quiet evening with a fan and make it spellbinding? I don't remember the ish or the writer, but I remember being riveted when Spidey revealed his secret identity to a dying child (drawn by JRJR). It was just a really well told story. What's wrong with well told stories? Don't we have any of those left?

A little retconning once in a while is one thing, but I'm starting to wonder if my mom is Galactus. I'm just not sure anymore. She keeps saying "Mom is above good. Mom is above evil." Makes you look at them bacon and eggs a little different.

[Greg Hatcher]

It boils down to good storytelling. Miller's Daredevil never wrote off or disregarded past stories and to an extent Daredevil was as undeveloped as Swamp Thing was.

Are we talking about the same thing? There were over 150 issues of DD before Miller showed up. He had an established character, history, supporting cast, love life, and so on. The fact that Frank Miller didn't actually bother to write a story in which he said out loud that it NEGATED anything that had come before didn't mean that it wasn't a retcon or that he didn't fundamentally change the character of Daredevil. And that character, the one that Miller re-created, is the one that's been in place ever since. To me that's a retcon.


Who do you think you are to go against 30-60 years of established storytelling, only to retcon some crap in, that will later be retconned out? Seriously.

Seriously? Frank Miller in The Man Without Fear, to name one. Alan Moore in Swamp Thing to name another. It looks to me as though you guys are griping about execution. The fact that you liked some and disliked others doesn't automatically make it not a retcon when you are happy with the result.

[Brian Cronin]

It's like the saying goes, "People don't want characters to not change, they just do not want them to change from when THEY first started reading them."

So people will freak out if Magneto is not a "noble villain," which he was not until, what, 17 years into his comic existence?

-Brian

[ChaosBurnFlame]

If Geoff Johns is doing it, its most definately hack work.

[king mob]

[QUOTE=Greg Hatcher]Are we talking about the same thing? There were over 150 issues of DD before Miller showed up. He had an established character, history, supporting cast, love life, and so on. The fact that Frank Miller didn't actually bother to write a story in which he said out loud that it NEGATED anything that had come before didn't mean that it wasn't a retcon or that he didn't fundamentally change the character of Daredevil. And that character, the one that Miller re-created, is the one that's been in place ever since. To me that's a retcon.
[QUOTE]


Yes, but Daredevil was never anything more than a second rate Spiderman, yes there were some decent runs featuring Colan and Wood art but it was never anything more than a pretty formulaic title.
So yes, it's a 'retcon' but because it was well done and never disregarded the past it's more 'worthy' than whatever they've done to Green Lantern this week.

[StoneGold]

Yes, but Daredevil was never anything more than a second rate Spiderman, yes there were some decent runs featuring Colan and Wood art but it was never anything more than a pretty formulaic title.
So yes, it's a 'retcon' but because it was well done and never disregarded the past it's more 'worthy' than whatever they've done to Green Lantern this week.So what you're saying is, it's perfectly OK, as long as you didn't like what happened before. Because that's what I was saying earlier that you disagreed with. Hmm.

[king mob]

So what you're saying is, it's perfectly OK, as long as you didn't like what happened before. Because that's what I was saying earlier that you disagreed with. Hmm.


No, thats not what i was saying. As i said, there were some good runs on DD but nothing like the Miller run. Plus, the Miller run never rubbished the previous 157 issues prior to his starting work on the title. Though he obviously did rewrite things later.

You can still pick up the Gene Colan issues and enjoy them as much as the Miller issues as they're both enjoyable runs. The main point should always be how the story is done and told, as long as it's done well and makes sense then fine.

[StoneGold]

No, thats not what i was saying. As i said, there were some good runs on DD but nothing like the Miller run. Plus, the Miller run never rubbished the previous 157 issues prior to his starting work on the title. Though he obviously did rewrite things later.

Quite a few things, actually. The radiation giving Matt his powers, for one. And just his very attitude. Prior to Miller, DD was a swashbuckler. A wisecracker. It would be the same as if someone, oh, let's say Frank Tieri, went on, oh, let's say Deadpool, and tried to make him all serious. Really, what Miller changed about Matt was far more fundamentally altering than, say, Batman being a dick because Zatanna gave him brain damage.

[Dennis K]

I don't mind big swerves like Winter Soldier or Sins Past, but I think that epic events like Infinite Crisis are over-reaching and almost always a disappointment.

[StoneGold]

I don't mind big swerves like Winter Soldier or Sins Past, but I think that epic events like Infinite Crisis are over-reaching and almost always a disappointment.
That's because no big epic is ever going to be bigger than Secret Wars or Crisis. Except maybe Marvel vs DC type stuff, but legal keeps those from really being fun. So basically, the cosmic epic hit it's pinnacle in 1986. And you're never, ever going to top it.

[Dennis K]

That's because no big epic is ever going to be bigger than Secret Wars or Crisis. Except maybe Marvel vs DC type stuff, but legal keeps those from really being fun. So basically, the cosmic epic hit it's pinnacle in 1986. And you're never, ever going to top it.


And 1986 falls into the very large space in time that I wasn't reading comics at all, for whatever that's worth, which probably isn't much.

[StoneGold]

And 1986 falls into the very large space in time that I wasn't reading comics at all, for whatever that's worth, which probably isn't much.
The year before I started reading regularly, actually. But that's what trades and back issues are for. All I'm saying is that when you've already had every one of your heroes fight some guy who is collapsing the universe, or had all your good heroes fight all your good villains in a massive battle royal for the fate of the universe, how much do you have left in your tank?

[ChaosBurnFlame]

As stated, when its Geoff Johns doing the retconning, run away. Flee.

[Dennis K]

All I'm saying is that when you've already had every one of your heroes fight some guy who is collapsing the universe, or had all your good heroes fight all your good villains in a massive battle royal for the fate of the universe, how much do you have left in your tank?


That's a pretty good point, I mean, what's left?

[StoneGold]

That's a pretty good point, I mean, what's left?
Wait 20 years, do it all again.


OK, really, they've done it several times since Crisis. But now they're recycling the name.

[Kevinroc]

The rewriting of comic book history is one of the foundations of the industry.

One day Clark Kent works for The Daily Star. The next he's working for The Daily Planet and has never worked for The Daily Star in all his life.

One day Captain America was around in the 1950s, the next he had been frozen since WW II.

Now, each of the retcons that were brought up in the beginning of this thread have interesting stories behind them.

Ideas are only as good as their execution and their acceptance. And of course, what may seem like a cool idea to one person won't necessarly be liked by another.

If it is felt that these ideas work, usually more care is taken in order to fit these retcons into the cannon. If it doesn't, they fall by the wayside and are never brought up again. Byrne's Spider-Man: Chapter One is a great example of the latter.

[PatrickG]

I think the difference is whether it adds to or detracts from what made these us like these characters.

Take the revelation from Futurama that Fry was his own grandfather. It worked for that character and even explained why he was so dense.

Now... If they had revealed that Leela was her own grandmother, it would have stripped the character of integrity. Not that she wasn't sometimes lacking integrity but not in that sense.

Likewise... If you reveal that Lobo killed some obscure Golden Age hero, it's totally incomparable to revealing Alfred Pennyworth as the killer which is, in turn, totally different from revealing Alan Scott as the killer.

In a continuity, retroactive or otherwise, stories that try to change how we perceive these characters are riskier... and while potentially rewarding, they are even more potentially damaging.

[Ultraman Max]

Actually, probably the biggest difference is that no one gave a rat's ass about Swampy before Moore started mucking with him.


Well he had enough of a fandom to warrent a movie apparently, though being outshined by Adrienne Barbeau in his own film didn't help matters.

I would agree though that there's nothing inherently evil about retcons, it's far more about execution, motivation, and whether you intend to add or detract from a character. When Alan Moore retconned Swamp Thing it was in order to find a different angle on the character to build his fandom and tell more stories with him. When Tim Drake was retconned into being it was in order to give him some connection to the original Robin so that he wouldn't seem like a random kid or a carbon copy as both versions of Jason Todd had. But when your driving force behind a story is to redeem your own fandom of something in a "see this wasn't really silly at all!" manner (like Identity Crisis), that's where things usually turn sour.

[StoneGold]

Well he had enough of a fandom to warrent a movie apparently, though being outshined by Adrienne Barbeau in his own film didn't help matters.

I don't think Blade or Men in Black had the fan base to support a movie, but they got them anyways. Fan base /= getting a movie. For some reason.

[Ultraman Max]

I don't think Blade or Men in Black had the fan base to support a movie, but they got them anyways. Fan base /= getting a movie. For some reason.


That's true nowadays, when they'll turn seemingly anything into a movie. Was that still the case back in the early Eighties? I was like 6 when that thing came out so I've got no clue on how it came into being.

[StoneGold]

That's true nowadays, when they'll turn seemingly anything into a movie. Was that still the case back in the early Eighties? I was like 6 when that thing came out so I've got no clue on how it came into being.
Howard the Duck. Nuff said.

[howyadoin]

When Tim Drake was retconned into being it was in order to give him some connection to the original Robin so that he wouldn't seem like a random kid or a carbon copy as both versions of Jason Todd had.Seems to me that when Tim Drake first appeared, he was a kid who trained himself and who figured out by himself who Batman was. What was this connection to the original Robin?

[Ultraman Max]

Seems to me that when Tim Drake first appeared, he was a kid who trained himself and who figured out by himself who Batman was. What was this connection to the original Robin?


His first appearence was in the Batman Year Three story where Tim was retconned into the Circus audience (not that we ever really knew who was in said audience in the first place) and had met the flying Grayson's right before their final show. Him being there played a big part in how he figured out who Batman was.

[howyadoin]

His first appearence was in the Batman Year Three story where Tim was retconned into the Circus audience (not that we ever really knew who was in said audience in the first place) and had met the flying Grayson's right before their final show. Him being there played a big part in how he figured out who Batman was.Ah, okay. Never read Year Three, and now I'm glad.

[Greg Hatcher]

"Year Three" was actually an okay story, and it was really the prelude to "A Lonely Place of Dying" anyway. The thinking was that if the new Robin was tied more to Dick Grayson, readers would have an easier time with the idea. Considering that you could make a case for Tim being the most successful Robin ever, it wasn't such a bad idea.

I had an interesting change-of-viewpoint over the last few hours -- see, in the interim, I went shopping at Half-Price Books to gather up some cheap quarter-bin books for giveaways at my cartooning students' Christmas parties that are coming up in the next couple of weeks, and they had the Identity Crisis hardcover on sale used for, well, half-price. Now, I'd read the first issue and quit, didn't bother with the rest, but this was cheap and it wasn't like DC was getting the money so I wouldn't REALLY be supporting 'rape comics' and, hell, I was curious. So I bought it and just finished reading it a half-hour ago or so.

The weird thing is, I ended up kind of liking it. But it should NEVER, ever, have been used as the template book it's been for the last few months. It should have been a one-off, an Elseworlds. Because really what it walked, talked and shed water like was The Golden Age by James Robinson, or Unstable Molecules by James Sturm and Guy Davis. Same kind of thing, that fascinating-yet-horrid "Behind The Music" feeling permeating the whole endeavor. Except this one COUNTS, it sets a tone. That's the mistake, I think. Because as a single story it works pretty well, it's got great tension and narrative drive, and it's emotionally gut-wrenching. It's only when you have the added weight of continuity on it that it falls apart plotwise and becomes offensive.

So I can appreciate the anger that people felt about what was being done to 'their' Justice League, the creepy innocence-lost vibe it lays over all those old stories. I don't feel that strongly about it because to me the most offensive thing DC ever did remains 1-800-KILL-ROBIN. This "darker, edgier era" is more an editorial direction thing that I think is a bad idea, and I am beginning to think DC agrees with me judging from INFINITE CRISIS #2.

We'll see. But I remain convinced that the people that are railing about continuity being violated aren't really upset about that, so much as they are about nice characters shown as being not-so-nice, and old stories they like being devalued or sneered at. I think the people that hated Identity Crisis or "Sins Past" would hate them just as much even if the plot holes weren't there. I think it's the character changes, the tone, that's troublesome. And I can see that complaint as valid. But retcons in and of themselves? Pfft. Straw man. That's not the problem.

[king mob]

Quite a few things, actually. The radiation giving Matt his powers, for one. And just his very attitude. Prior to Miller, DD was a swashbuckler. A wisecracker. It would be the same as if someone, oh, let's say Frank Tieri, went on, oh, let's say Deadpool, and tried to make him all serious. Really, what Miller changed about Matt was far more fundamentally altering than, say, Batman being a dick because Zatanna gave him brain damage.

It would depend on the execution of the story. If it made sense and was well written then yes, why not.
Having never bothered with the Deadpool title i can't comment, but the Batman example was just an example of what happens when creators make shite and pass it off as 'radical'.

[king mob]

That's true nowadays, when they'll turn seemingly anything into a movie. Was that still the case back in the early Eighties? I was like 6 when that thing came out so I've got no clue on how it came into being.


Swampy was still fairly popular then, the new title had just come out with some lush Tom Yeates art but it was otherwise nothing spectacular.
So i would assume the studio thought there was enough interesting in the idea for a movie to be made.

I caught it fairly recently after having not seen it in years. It really is terrible but in a fun sort of way.

[Cei-U!]

Swampy was still fairly popular then, the new title had just come out with some lush Tom Yeates art but it was otherwise nothing spectacular.
So i would assume the studio thought there was enough interesting in the idea for a movie to be made.

I caught it fairly recently after having not seen it in years. It really is terrible but in a fun sort of way.

The comic was revived *after* the movie deal was made, actually.

Cei-U!
I summon the cause and effect!

[JeffreyWKramer]

The Atatomy Lesson isn't a retcon (god, i hate that word) though. Moore only added something not there before and it never interfered or rewrote past continuity (god, i hate that word) in way which would make you go "what??!"

No, it's very much a retcon. Some appearances of Swamp Thing prior to that - particularly ones in the '70s CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN revival, which followed the cancellation of Swampy's original book, and in which Swamp Thing was a frequent guest-star - featured Swampy acquiring the ability to change back and forth between swamp monster and Alec Holland form. Moore completely retconned all that, in deciding that Swamp Thing wasn't really Holland, and did not have any sort of mammalian body. It was a *good* retcon, though - much more cool, and a lot more effective for a horror-fantasy character, and opening up a lot more story potential.

[west3man]

I've been reading and talking about Crisis on Infinite Earths a lot, recently. I'm of the opinion that this was an incredible story - highly enjoyable. I still think it was incredibly flawed, though.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "hack" job, though. Intentions being what they were, and considering the positive effects, I think it was a great idea with a somewhat flawed execution.

[Slam_Bradley]

I've been reading and talking about Crisis on Infinite Earths a lot, recently. I'm of the opinion that this was an incredible story - highly enjoyable. I still think it was incredibly flawed, though.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "hack" job, though. Intentions being what they were, and considering the positive effects, I think it was a great idea with a somewhat flawed execution.


Interestingly, I'd call it a flawed idea with a fairly decent execution.

[StoneGold]

No, it's very much a retcon. Some appearances of Swamp Thing prior to that - particularly ones in the '70s CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN revival, which followed the cancellation of Swampy's original book, and in which Swamp Thing was a frequent guest-star - featured Swampy acquiring the ability to change back and forth between swamp monster and Alec Holland form. Moore completely retconned all that, in deciding that Swamp Thing wasn't really Holland, and did not have any sort of mammalian body. It was a *good* retcon, though - much more cool, and a lot more effective for a horror-fantasy character, and opening up a lot more story potential.
At the same time though, there were probably some die-hard Swamp Thing fans who couldn't stand it at the time. Less superheroey stuff, and let's face it, it took a couple of issues before you really got a sense of exactly what Moore was doing with the character.

[JeffreyWKramer]

At the same time though, there were probably some die-hard Swamp Thing fans who couldn't stand it at the time. Less superheroey stuff, and let's face it, it took a couple of issues before you really got a sense of exactly what Moore was doing with the character.

Hardly anyone was reading the book when Moore took over, and I have never heard anyone complain of that change in direction, because the previous one - and, indeed, the status quo for Swampy for years - had been pretty lame.

In other words, by and large, this was one occasion in which the readers seemed very supportive of the retcons.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Interestingly, I'd call it a flawed idea with a fairly decent execution.

I kind of lean in your direction, Slam, since I was of the opinion then and am more so now convinced that elimating the multiverse was a bad idea. Personally, I never had trouble -- even as a 7 year old reading the old JLA/JSA team-ups -- with the idea that there were alternate earths. While I understood the desire on the part of DC to streamline the DCU and to get all their heroes on one Earth, the problem was creating an Earth where Plastic Man and Captain Marvel could exist side-by-side with Batman and Superman. I think most would agree that has never been accomplished, even now, some 20 years post-Crisis.

The only caveat I have is that I would have liked to have seen Crisis implimented as I believe Marv Wolfman intended, i.e. ALL comics re-start from scratch at issue 1. DC attempted to do things half-way and thus Crisis was a half-way solution that took repeated revisions, retcons and "fix-its" (like the dreadful ZERO HOUR) to try to resolve.

For example, as much as I loved Ostrander's work on HAWKWORLD/HAWKMAN, the interminable retcons and explanations for what had gone before were extremely troubling and/or unsatisfying. And, trying to pry Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman out of the JSA and then pry Carter Hall and Black Canary into the JLA drove me crazy.

How much simpler would it have been if in 1985, Superman and Batman debuted, followed by Flash, WW, GL et al, who decided to start the JUSTICE LEAGUE. A JSA comic set in the late 1930s could have explained prior JSA continuity from the beginning, sans Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. A mini-series here and there could have explored and explained the DCU in the 50s, 60s and 70s, akin to Marvel's LOST GENERATION (it would have been easy to use characters like Dr. Fate, the Spectre, Vandal Savage, etc as well as develop heretofore unknown characters to bridge the "gap").

My problem was that DC tried to have it both ways: restart their continuity while simultaneously trying to hang onto all of its past continuity. If DC had simply decided to start over fresh with a Post-Crisis universe, I think I would have had fewer problems with the execution of COIE.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Hardly anyone was reading the book when Moore took over, and I have never heard anyone complain of that change in direction, because the previous one - and, indeed, the status quo for Swampy for years - had been pretty lame.

In other words, by and large, this was one occasion in which the readers seemed very supportive of the retcons.

Yeah, I can't remember anyone getting too bent out of shape during Moore's run on SWAMP THING.

I do remember talking to the owner of my local comics' shop and him pissing and moaning about Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN. "What the crap is this? Where's the gas gun? Where's Sandy?" Of course, 12 issues later, the guy was Gaiman's biggest fan.

I also remember reading the letters pages of the UNCANNY X-MEN circa issues 98-103 or so protesting these New, lesser "X-men" and I do recall many vehemently demanding the return of the "real" X-men. What a flash in the pan they turned out to be.

There's always going to be someone bitching about a big change over what's be done before (except for LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES fans, who are, by now, used to having their entire continuity screwed with), but how well that revision is executed is the main thing.

[Ray R.]

Interestingly, I'd call it a flawed idea with a fairly decent execution.

Yep, and I'm feeling the exact same way about the new Crisis.

Derivative, disjointed, confusing, and characters with histories dating back to the forties getting wiped out like termites.

Sue Dibny got seven issues to deal with her death. Phantom Lady, which was one of the Quality books coopted by D.C., and having a VERY interesting and risque history (which I'll spare the details right now -- unless people are curious), dating back to the late forties/early fifties, speared like a shish-ke-bab in two panels. Meanwhile, Bizarro goes absolutely psychotic and beats the Human Bomb literally into lunchmeat on the same page.

Between the graphic brain-splattering of Charlton's (and back to 1939 - Fox's) flagship character (as rendered by Steve Ditko), Blue Beetle, to killing off the major Quality characters, to killing off Fawcett's Shazam -- D.C. is on a murder spree of acquired properties. Fawcett, Fox, Quality, Charlton....take out Dell's Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge, and E.C. & Mad's Alfred E. Neumann and the Crypt Keeper, and we can really put the forties and fifties in the rearview mirror.....

And sadly, this new Crisis, it could be worse....it's still moderately entertaining, in a weird sort of way......

[west3man]

My problem was that DC tried to have it both ways: restart their continuity while simultaneously trying to hang onto all of its past continuity. If DC had simply decided to start over fresh with a Post-Crisis universe, I think I would have had fewer problems with the execution of COIE.I absolutely agree.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, I can't remember anyone getting too bent out of shape during Moore's run on SWAMP THING.


That was also pre-Internet, so it's a slightly different scenario.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

That was also pre-Internet, so it's a slightly different scenario.

Very true, but I'm not sure that there would have been an internet-wide uproar over Moore's Swamp Thing. Both of Swamp Thing's fans would probably have been just as happy that he had an ongoing series at all.

[StoneGold]

Very true, but I'm not sure that there would have been an internet-wide uproar over Moore's Swamp Thing. Both of Swamp Thing's fans would probably have been just as happy that he had an ongoing series at all.
You might be surprised. Look at the New Warriors.

[Ray R.]

Very true, but I'm not sure that there would have been an internet-wide uproar over Moore's Swamp Thing. Both of Swamp Thing's fans would probably have been just as happy that he had an ongoing series at all.

Zing.

Put another way, Swamp Thing could have remained Man-Thing, if not for Alan Moore.

[Shellhead]

That was also pre-Internet, so it's a slightly different scenario.

[cranky old man voice] Dagnabbit! Back then, we had letter pages in comics. Almost every month, you could read a few select letters reflecting fan opinion of the issue from 3-4 months ago. These days, when I'm reading back issues, I sometimes read the letter pages, too, to remember how fans thought about that comic at that time.

[Cei-U!]

The only caveat I have is that I would have liked to have seen Crisis implimented as I believe Marv Wolfman intended, i.e. ALL comics re-start from scratch at issue 1.

But IIRC* Wolfman didn't want to reboot the Titans and since that was DC's best-selling title at the time of Crisis, the folks in charge went along with that. The experiment would thus seem to have been doomed from the start.

*And if I don't RC, my sincere apologies to Marv.

Cei-U!
I summon the fly in the ointment!

[Slam_Bradley]

The only caveat I have is that I would have liked to have seen Crisis implimented as I believe Marv Wolfman intended, i.e. ALL comics re-start from scratch at issue 1. DC attempted to do things half-way and thus Crisis was a half-way solution that took repeated revisions, retcons and "fix-its" (like the dreadful ZERO HOUR) to try to resolve.



It seems to me that there may be a few reasons this didn't happen.

1. Kurt may be right and there was creator (and possibly editorial) pressure against it. I just don't recall.

2. Logistically it would have been a nightmare. On "X" month we are going to completely reboot all of our titles. We must have completely new story-lines and everything in place for that time. From a practical business standpoint it would be extremely difficult.

3. They had rebooted before piece-meal and it worked out fine. The Silver Age really came about over a period of time and very much piece-meal. There still isn't a very good single spot you can look to for the switchover from the GA to the SA Superman or Wonder Woman. It's there...kinda. But what came out of that nebulous switch lasted 30 years.

[west3man]

I've got Crisis on the brain, so holla if I go on about this too much, BUT...

Despite its flaws, I'm quite smitten with CoIE. I was in the 5th grade when Crisis and Secret Wars came along and I was in LOVE.

I like to think I can put that emotional attachment aside and evaluate the real, but maybe I'm too biased.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

It seems to me that there may be a few reasons this didn't happen.

1. Kurt may be right and there was creator (and possibly editorial) pressure against it. I just don't recall.

2. Logistically it would have been a nightmare. On "X" month we are going to completely reboot all of our titles. We must have completely new story-lines and everything in place for that time. From a practical business standpoint it would be extremely difficult.

3. They had rebooted before piece-meal and it worked out fine. The Silver Age really came about over a period of time and very much piece-meal. There still isn't a very good single spot you can look to for the switchover from the GA to the SA Superman or Wonder Woman. It's there...kinda. But what came out of that nebulous switch lasted 30 years.


There was a great deal of editorial/creative team resistance to restarting all titles from No. 1. Actually, I don't recall now if Wolfman wanted to restart DC continuity from scratch or just restart all titles from scratch, with the understanding that all titles weren't starting from the origin story forward. Now that Kurt raises the issue with TT, I get the feeling that he's right in that Marv probably didn't want to restart the DCU from ground zero b/c he would have had to Titans either restart either sometime later than Superman, Batman, et al (impractical), do some "filler" stuff until the DCU caught up (unlikely) or invent a bunch of Titans other than Robin, Kid Flash, etc. (equally unlikely).

It may have been a logistical nightmare, but I'm sure someone could have come up with a solution of "graduated" restarts or some such. My point is that without restarting everything from the ground up with COIE, it was doomed from the start.

[StoneGold]

I've got Crisis on the brain, so holla if I go on about this too much, BUT...

Despite its flaws, I'm quite smitten with CoIE. I was in the 5th grade when Crisis and Secret Wars came along and I was in LOVE.

I like to think I can put that emotional attachment aside and evaluate the real, but maybe I'm too biased.
I don't think anyone is saying anything was wrong with the Crisis itself. Well, it was convoluted like crazy, and there were a couple of parts somewhat dependant on the spinoffs, but that's besides the point. It's the aftermath of Crisis that got all fudged up.

[west3man]

There was a great deal of editorial/creative team resistance to restarting all titles from No. 1. Actually, I don't recall now if Wolfman wanted to restart DC continuity from scratch or just restart all titles from scratch, with the understanding that all titles weren't starting from the origin story forward. Now that Kurt raises the issue with TT, I get the feeling that he's right in that Marv probably didn't want to restart the DCU from ground zero b/c he would have had to Titans either restart either sometime later than Superman, Batman, et al (impractical), do some "filler" stuff until the DCU caught up (unlikely) or invent a bunch of Titans other than Robin, Kid Flash, etc. (equally unlikely).

It may have been a logistical nightmare, but I'm sure someone could have come up with a solution of "graduated" restarts or some such. My point is that without restarting everything from the ground up with COIE, it was doomed from the start.
Trying to remember pre- versus post-Crisis info. is fun for some of us, but as a writer... right at the beginning of the post-Crisis era, I could imagine it being a real pain in the arse.

Heck, it seemed to be that, even for the architects of the Crisis.

[Shellhead]

Simultaneously re-booting all the post-Crisis DCU titles would have been very risky. It would have been a convenient time for readers to drop titles.

[StoneGold]

Simultaneously re-booting all the post-Crisis DCU titles would have been very risky. It would have been a convenient time for readers to drop titles.
One year later...

[west3man]

Simultaneously re-booting all the post-Crisis DCU titles would have been very risky. It would have been a convenient time for readers to drop titles.
What StoneGold said... and they DID reboot some stuff.

Did those titles get dropped, big-time, or did the "Oh, look! It's got a '#1' on it!" mentality (among other things) boost their sales?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I just did some digging around on the web and this link (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/1185/crisis.html) seems to confirm that Wolfman intended that, as of Jan., all DC issues were to restart with issue 1 and all that had gone before was out of continuity. I haven't found any direct quotes by Wolfman on the issue, but that's how I remember it.

In any event, I think that's the only way it could have been properly done. The problem with pre-Crisis DCU was that you have to be an ubergeek to keep track of continuity on not just Earth-1, but Earth-2, -3, -X, -S, etc.

The problem with post-Crisis DCU is that NOBODY KNOWS what has or has not gone before. There is some sort of vague continuity that lies post-JSA and pre-Superman in the post-Crisis DCU, but no one's exactly sure what remains unchanged, what's different and what's out in terms of DC continuity. ZERO HOUR was supposed to clear that up, but obviously didn't. Then "Hypertime" was introduced as kind of a meta-explanation that all of the stories from the past happened, but if it conflicts with "established" continuity, then it obviously took place in Hypertime, i.e. "if it don't fit, then Hypertime it."

I think it would have been interesting to see how Wolfman would have handled a TEEN TITANS No. 1 that was published just as SUPERMAN #1 and BATMAN #1 were coming out.

Whatever the case, the number of revisions, retcons and miniseries that have come out since COIE to "fix" the DCU convince me that the only "good" way to have done it, would have been to have done it as Wolfman originally intended. As it is, it came off half-assed because it essentially was half-assed.

I haven't been following Infinite Crisis except via spoilers posted on the Board, but I can't imagine this is going to turn out much better. OYL seems to me to be just as flawed as COIE was. Now, the DCU is going to have this mysterious "year" of continuity out there and no one will really know exactly what happened during that year, except as it's retold in the OYL books. Thus, we'll more than likely get all kinds of loose ends, retcons and revisions over the years, all conveniently dumped back into the missing "year" to explain away the threads left over from IC.

Can't wait.

[howyadoin]

The problem with post-Crisis DCU is that NOBODY KNOWS what has or has not gone before. There is some sort of vague continuity that lies post-JSA and pre-Superman in the post-Crisis DCU, but no one's exactly sure what remains unchanged, what's different and what's out in terms of DC continuity. ZERO HOUR was supposed to clear that up, but obviously didn't. Then "Hypertime" was introduced as kind of a meta-explanation that all of the stories from the past happened, but if it conflicts with "established" continuity, then it obviously took place in Hypertime, i.e. "if it don't fit, then Hypertime it."So Hypertime is DC's version of "the Lord works in mysterious ways"?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

So Hypertime is DC's version of "the Lord works in mysterious ways"?

Pretty much my take on it. The ultimate deux ex machina.

[StoneGold]

So Hypertime is DC's version of "the Lord works in mysterious ways"?
That, combined with the way Marvel has always dealth with imaginary stories. They all exist, just somewhere else.

[StoneGold]

Pretty much my take on it. The ultimate deux ex machina.
Less of a deux ex machina, because that would be something to further (or end) a plot. Hypertime was more of a "wizards did it" answer to continuity.

[Joe Rice]

I don't think anyone is saying anything was wrong with the Crisis itself.


I definitely am. It was a terrible comic: poorly structured, bad plot, and a horrendous idea. The art isn't my thing, I think it's ugly and gaudy, but I can at least see the skill behind it. The story? Bleargh.

[Joe Rice]

Less of a deux ex machina, because that would be something to further (or end) a plot. Hypertime was more of a "wizards did it" answer to continuity.

It was also a "Got an awesome story that doesn't fit in because of something someone else wrote? No problem!" thing. But, of course, all superhero comics must fit together like a puzzle so it was scratched.

[StoneGold]

I definitely am. It was a terrible comic: poorly structured, bad plot, and a horrendous idea. The art isn't my thing, I think it's ugly and gaudy, but I can at least see the skill behind it. The story? Bleargh.
OK, but you weren't really in the discussion at that point, so I was still right. And that's all that matters, damnit!!!!

[west3man]

I *am* bothered by situations like what someone else described... long-standing characters getting the axe (almost literally), for no good reason.

Bugs me. *shrugs*

[Joe Rice]

OK, but you weren't really in the discussion at that point, so I was still right. And that's all that matters, damnit!!!!

I was shouting it at the screen. So you were wrong. I was saying it.

[StoneGold]

I *am* bothered by situations like what someone else described... long-standing characters getting the axe (almost literally), for no good reason.

Bugs me. *shrugs*
Depends on what you count as a good reason. Is the attempt to tell a good story a good reason?

[west3man]

Depends on what you count as a good reason. Is the attempt to tell a good story a good reason?
Depends on if the death was necessary to tell a good story.

[StoneGold]

Depends on if the death was necessary to tell a good story.
What if it wasn't exactly necessary, but it still made the story that much better?


Suddenly I'm wondering what would fandom have done if Moore got to do what he originally wanted to do with the Watchmen, use the Charleton characters.

[west3man]

What if it wasn't exactly necessary, but it still made the story that much better? I think you know which side I fall on.


Suddenly I'm wondering what would fandom have done if Moore got to do what he originally wanted to do with the Watchmen, use the Charleton characters.
That would've been out-of-continuity, I believe, so fandom wouldn't have shit the brick you may be thinking of.

[StoneGold]

I think you know which side I fall on.



That would've been out-of-continuity, I believe, so fandom wouldn't have shit the brick you may be thinking of.
Keep in mind, the only reason that the Charleton characters were in DC continuity at all was because of plans to use them in the Crisis. If there was no Crisis, they would have just been Earth-C. And odds are, Watchmen would have been considered either Charleton's swan song, or a launchpad for a new series, depending on how it did.

[Joe Rice]

To answer the original question, no, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But it's a delicate procedure that is only really pulled off well by skilled, talented writers of higher caliber than the average. So can Alan Moore pull it off? Easily. Can Chuck Dixon? Not so likely.

[howyadoin]

To answer the original question, no, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But it's a delicate procedure that is only really pulled off well by skilled, talented writers of higher caliber than the average. So can Alan Moore pull it off? Easily. Can Chuck Dixon? Not so likely.Ooh, nicely done.

[Ray R.]

That would've been out-of-continuity, I believe, so fandom wouldn't have shit the brick you may be thinking of.

I agree. I hardly think the Charlton heroes had the fan-base that D.C. or Marvel had. I think E-man and Rog 2000 from the mid- to late-seventies probably had much more of a following than any of the sixties-based Charlton heros like Captain Atom or Blue Beetle.

Substitute Blue Beetle for Night Owl, the Question for Rorschach, Captain Atom for Doctor Manhattan, etc., and it's still an awesome story, one way or the other.

[Brian Cronin]

About Swamp Thing...remember, Moore wrote an issue wrapping up all the plotlines of the PREVIOUS writer in one issue BEFORE his retcon.

And he did it very nicely, I think.

So I am sure that that blunted the ire of the readers.

Plus, Anatomy Lesson was written soooooooo well, it would be hard to muster much of an outrage.

-Brian

[Ray R.]

In any event, I think that's the only way it could have been properly done. The problem with pre-Crisis DCU was that you have to be an ubergeek to keep track of continuity on not just Earth-1, but Earth-2, -3, -X, -S, etc.

Io Annotated Link (http://www.io.com/~woodward/chroma/crisis.html)
Earths Seen in the Crisis
[Earth-1 - The Silver Age. Justice League, Superman II, Flash II (Barry Allen). Largely identical in history to the real world. Almost all post-Golden Age comics through the Crisis took place here, beginning between 1945 (first appearance of Superboy) and 1955 (first appearance of the Martian Manhunter). First defined in Flash v1#123 (1961), first named in JLA v1#21 (1963).

Earth-2
The Golden Age. Justice Society, Superman I, Flash I (Jay Garrick). Largely identical in history to the real world up through the mid-70s, at which point minor differences creep in (such as South Africa becoming free decades early). Only a few post-Golden Age comics were ever set there, notably Infinity Inc., the second run of All-Star Comics, and All-Star Squadron. "Defined" and "named" info same as for E1.

Earth-4
Charlton Comics. Captain Atom, Blue Beetle. First DC appearance and named in Crisis #1.

Earth-S
Fawcett Comics. Captain Marvel (Billy Batson). First appearance in Whiz Comics #2 (1940), first DC appearance in Shazam! #1 (1973), first named in JLA v1#135 (1976).

Earth-X
Quality Comics. Freedom Fighters, Uncle Sam, the Ray. Noteworthy in that World War II continues into the 1970s. First DC appearance and named in JLA v1#107 (1973).

Earth-3
"Reversed" Earth. Crime Syndicate, Ultraman, Johnny Quick II. First suggested in JLA v1#22, first appeared in JLA v1#29, destroyed in Crisis #1.

Earth-5
Proposed name for the world seen only on pages 2 and 3 of Crisis #1. No apparent superheroes. (Note: The real reason there is no explicitly-named Earth-5 is that "5" and "S" look too much alike, particularly when hand-lettered, so that number was skipped.)

Earth-6
"A cosmic anomaly." Lady Quark, Lord Volt, Princess Fern. Only appearance in Crisis #4.

Earth-K
The name given to the future timeline of Earth-1 which Kamandi inhabited, to distinguish it from the "real" timeline which led to the Legion of Super-Heroes. First appearance in Kamandi #1, last appearance in Crisis #4. (Technically an alternate timeline, not an alternate universe.)

Qward
The antimatter universe which contains the planet Qward is usually called "Qward" itself. It is the home of the Anti-Monitor. First appearance in Green Lantern #2 (1960).

Earth-Prime
In theory, the "real world". In actuality, merely a variant Earth with very few superbeings, in which most DC Comics characters are just comic book characters. Devastated by nuclear war in the late 80s. First appearance in Flash v1#179 (1968), named in JLA v1#123 (1975). Destroyed circa Crisis #10. (Does not technically appear in Crisis, but is referred to.)

Earth-Omega
Proposed name for Pariah's home universe, the first one destroyed by the anti-matter wave. Only appearance in flashback in Crisis #7.

Earth-Sigma
Proposed name for the post-Crisis, pre-Zero Hour universe. "Sigma" for "the sum of what came before". Merger of Earths 1, 2, 4, S, and X, with characters from at least 2 others present. First appeared in Crisis #11, destroyed in Zero Hour #1.

Earth-D
The Earth that appears in - and is destroyed in - Legends of the DC Universe: Crisis on Infinite Earths (1998). It features an ethnically diverse range of heroes, and is rumored to be what Wolfman thought the DC Universe should have been like after the Crisis.


What's convoluted about that? Seems logical.....

Whatever the case, the number of revisions, retcons and miniseries that have come out since COIE to "fix" the DCU convince me that the only "good" way to have done it, would have been to have done it as Wolfman originally intended. As it is, it came off half-assed because it essentially was half-assed.

My personal pet peeve was the complete continuity breakdown of previously having Superboy and Supergirl as members of the Legion of Superheros to them not existing in the first place. And it being explained off as a Time Trapper false existence. Yeah, okay. 100 issues of Adventure & Action & Comics, 100+ or so issues of "Superboy and the Legion of Superheros" - all a Time Trapper trick. Originally, the WHOLE REASON the Legion of Superheros came into existence was being inspired by the adventures of Superboy. But now, Superboy no longer even existed in the first place......

Don't get me started on the reboots, and the Biehrbaums, and anything but the original Adventures, the Grell, Levitz/Giffen, and now Waid versions....

Half-assed. Yeah, just a little.

[Tadhg Adams]

About Swamp Thing...remember, Moore wrote an issue wrapping up all the plotlines of the PREVIOUS writer in one issue BEFORE his retcon.

And he did it very nicely, I think.

So I am sure that that blunted the ire of the readers.

Plus, Anatomy Lesson was written soooooooo well, it would be hard to muster much of an outrage.

-Brian

Plus I don't think anyone was even reading Swamp Thing at the time.

[Cei-U!]

OK, but you weren't really in the discussion at that point, so I was still right. And that's all that matters, damnit!!!!

I'm with Joe. CoIE is a terrible story: nonsensical, padded, badly paced. I, however, like the art.

Cei-U!
You mean you've never heard my anti-Crisis rant?

[Tadhg Adams]

I'm with Joe. CoIE is a terrible story: nonsensical, padded, badly paced. I, however, like the art.

Cei-U!
You mean you've never heard my anti-Crisis rant?

It seems a lot of us hate Crisis. Though, hey, it did make Psycho Pirate cool.

[StoneGold]

It seems a lot of us hate Crisis. Though, hey, it did make Psycho Pirate cool.
I dunno, you'd figure with a name like that, he'd look either like a psycho or a pirate, as opposed to a playing card.

[Cei-U!]

Earth-Prime
In theory, the "real world". In actuality, merely a variant Earth with very few superbeings, in which most DC Comics characters are just comic book characters. Devastated by nuclear war in the late 80s. First appearance in Flash v1#179 (1968), named in JLA v1#123 (1975). Destroyed circa Crisis #10. (Does not technically appear in Crisis, but is referred to.)

Your source is wrong about the nuclear war... sort of. According to Justice League of America #207-09 (and All-Star Squadron #14-15), the war occured in 1962 when time-traveling Earth-2 baddie Per Degaton stole all the Russian missiles from Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. When the JLA, JSA and All-Stars defeated Degaton, this timeline was erased and Earth-Prme went back to its original no-nuke history. I know, I just indexed this story arc last week.

Cei-U!
I'm a geek, okay?

[Charles RB]

I *am* bothered by situations like what someone else described... long-standing characters getting the axe (almost literally), for no good reason.

I dunno, if you do it in a way that doesn't suck and (this is an important bit) are able to not seriously damage the cast by doing so, I have no problem with it. One of the more famous moments in 2000AD was when Judge Dredd's buddy Giant, a major supporting character, was casually shot dead by Orlock in just a few panels. Another was MACH 1, a strip that had been around since the first issue and was one of the more popular ones, ending with the hero being gunned down. Or Johnny Alpha's comrade Wulf getting shot dead on a mission. The sudden deaths were shocks and had impact, as you wouldn't expect major characters to go down like that.

It also emphasises they're doing dangerous jobs and adds an element of risk. You no longer know for certain that the hero is going to come out alive or that his friends & allies will come out alive.

The downside to this is when a long-term supporting character is killed or otherwise removed, but there's no effort to bring in new blood into the supporting cast so you just end up with a big hole where they used to be and it hurts the series. How much of Spider-Man's supporting cast has bought it over the years? Do it too much or without care, it's detrimental- but that's a sign of a bad writer, not that killing characters is inherently bad.

[howyadoin]

The sudden deaths were shocks and had impact, as you wouldn't expect major characters to go down like that.But that stopped having much impact years ago, in North American comics.

I mean, show of hands, who here believes Jean Grey is dead?

[Charles RB]

But that stopped having much impact years ago, in North American comics.

That's only because people keep bringing the dead back. Of course it has no impact. Stop bringing them back, you'll get impact again.

[Paul McEnery]

About Swamp Thing...remember, Moore wrote an issue wrapping up all the plotlines of the PREVIOUS writer in one issue BEFORE his retcon.

And he did it very nicely, I think.

So I am sure that that blunted the ire of the readers.

Plus, Anatomy Lesson was written soooooooo well, it would be hard to muster much of an outrage.

-Brian
It gets overlooked, but Bissette and Totleben had already done two issues before Moore came on board; issues that set up plot points that Moore used. It's too bad those stories don't get into the trades.

[Brian Cronin]

Agreed, Paul.

That, too, helped blunt the change.

Heck, it also didn't hurt that the PREVIOUS artist was from the same studio as Totleben, so the style was not even all that different.

-Brian

[MacQuarrie]

But that stopped having much impact years ago, in North American comics.

I mean, show of hands, who here believes Jean Grey is dead?

http://www.monkeyspit.net/4thwall/082404.php
http://www.monkeyspit.net/4thwall/030105.php
http://www.monkeyspit.net/4thwall/032205.php

Sure she is.

[howyadoin]

Stop bringing them back, you'll get impact again.I don't really buy that. The cynicism is already there; it won't just go away.

[Tadhg Adams]

I don't really buy that. The cynicism is already there; it won't just go away.

The deaths in Hitman had impact.

[howyadoin]

The deaths in Hitman had impact.Okay, that's a fair point. But if they were mainstream DCU characters who weren't created by Ennis & McCrea, would you be at all surprised if DC brought them back?

[Pól Rua]

The Atatomy Lesson isn't a retcon (god, i hate that word) though. Moore only added something not there before and it never interfered or rewrote past continuity (god, i hate that word) in way which would make you go "what??!"

Um.
Moore changed Swampy so that he was no longer Alec Holland. Before 'The Anatomy Lesson', it was pretty much indicated that Swamp Thing has always been Alec Holland.
Mackie changed Spidey so he was no longer Peter Parker. Before The Spider Clone it was pretty much indicated that Peter Parker had always been Spider-Man.
Same thing.

[MacQuarrie]

Well he had enough of a fandom to warrent a movie apparently, though being outshined by Adrienne Barbeau in his own film didn't help matters.
That's not how movies get made.

The movie studios could not give one good crap about the sales figures on a comic. They look for something that will look good on screen and sell tickets, and since they are devoid of imagination, having something in print in front of them is all the security they need to move forward.

The worst-rated show on network TV has over 20 times the viewership of the best-selling comic book. Swamp Thing did not get made because of its popularity, but because somebody thought that the story and visulas would translate to the screen in a way that people would pay to see.

Same with Road to Perdition, Ghost World, Men in Black, A History of Violence...

[Pól Rua]

You didn't ask me, but I'll go ahead and answer anyway: no, it's not technically different. The difference is obvious -- fans LIKED this particular one so it gets a pass.

What gets me is when fans latch on to a retcon with such fervor that all the stuff that came BEFORE is what they declare worthless, null, and void. Try and tell modern readers that Daredevil wasn't always a troubled grim ronin in red spandex and they act like you just threw up on their shoes. Or that the Creeper's craziness used to be a put-on, an act he did for criminals' benefit. Or that Batman and Robin used to behave like a father and son with a GOOD relationship and not a completely depressing dysfunctional one. And so on. Those are all retcons that were embraced so completely that fans today will tell you it was ALWAYS that way.

Truthfully? I just want good comics. I think everybody does. If a retcon's involved, okay, and if not, that's okay too. My personal tastes run towards superhero stories that are tough, cool, and fun; more of a Batman guy than a Superman guy, which is how we divvied up the superhero schools of thought when I was a youngster. But 'my' Batman is the 70's guy -- scary to criminals, relentless in the pursuit of his mission, but still at the core a basically decent guy who had a few good friends that he didn't treat like crap. Started with O'Neil and Adams and ended somewhere around Moench/Colan/Newton. That guy. I miss reading about him. The Batman that's in the comics today, I hardly recognize him. He's a creep. Now if a lame retcon that postulates the rest of the JLA are a bunch of pricks that go around mind-wiping their friends gets us back to where I get more stories with MY Batman in them, I'm okay with it. I think they probably could have handled it better, in fact I think having to HAVE a story that explains it is kind of silly; but if it gets us to the place where I can enjoy Batman comics again, it's all right with me.

You are totally my hero.

[Pól Rua]

I don't mind big swerves like Winter Soldier or Sins Past, but I think that epic events like Infinite Crisis are over-reaching and almost always a disappointment.

I kind of agree with you, but my sixteen year old self couldn't disagree more.
Seriously, when I was a young'un, Crisis on Infinite Earths blew my mind.

[Guts/Batman]

The execution of storytelling in DC (I'm not a huge reader of Marvel) is sub-par right now in general.

As long as the retcon is done right and executed well (I don't like it that Jason Todd is back) it's fine.

I just want good comics.

[Charles RB]

I don't really buy that. The cynicism is already there; it won't just go away.

OK, it'll take a while for the cynicism to die down. But after several consecutive years of no dead characters coming back, it'll start having an impact. Being more sparing about how many heroes & supporting cast die would help too (villains are fair game).

[west3man]

I kind of agree with you, but my sixteen year old self couldn't disagree more.
Seriously, when I was a young'un, Crisis on Infinite Earths blew my mind.
My eleven- and twelve-year-old selves would have to concur.

[howyadoin]

OK, it'll take a while for the cynicism to die down. But after several consecutive years of no dead characters coming back, it'll start having an impact.Theoretically. But what are the chances of Marvel or DC ever doing that when they've got trademarks to protect?

[StoneGold]

Theoretically. But what are the chances of Marvel or DC ever doing that when they've got trademarks to protect?
Worst case scenario, new characters using old identities, the occasional look back into the past, and do reprints count as protecting trademarks?

[howyadoin]

Worst case scenario, new characters using old identities, the occasional look back into the past, and do reprints count as protecting trademarks?I'm not talking about a comic company in a lollipop house on Gumdrop Lane. I'm talking about the way Marvel and DC have always handled this kinda thing in the past.

[Charles RB]

Theoretically. But what are the chances of Marvel or DC ever doing that when they've got trademarks to protect?

Well, like StoneGold says, there are ways to kill a character and still keep the trademark. They could also just kill the character and come up with new characters & trademarks instead*.

And did they really need to preserve the Colossus trademark, which they can only use in conjunction with the X-Men which has dozens of characters anyway?

(*Yeah, Marvel and DC are unlikely to do that, but the point is they can. They don't because they're dumb-dumb's.)

[StoneGold]

Yeah, I wasn't saying that's what they do, or even should do, just what they in theory could do.

[howyadoin]

Well, like StoneGold says, there are ways to kill a character and still keep the trademark. They could also just kill the character and come up with new characters & trademarks instead*.

And did they really need to preserve the Colossus trademark, which they can only use in conjunction with the X-Men which has dozens of characters anyway?

(*Yeah, Marvel and DC are unlikely to do that, but the point is they can. They don't because they're dumb-dumb's.)None of which answers my question.

[Charles RB]

None of which answers my question.

OK, the chances of them doing it as they are right now? Probably not that high. But that just means they're dumb, since there's easily ways around it.

[Guts/Batman]

But that just means they're dumb,

Something we already knew.

I'm guessing that Infinite Crisis will not have staying power and we will probably see most of the dead characters back again in a few years.

[Tadhg Adams]

Damn DC and Marvel and their crappy soap-opera storylines that never resolve because they're more concerned with IP than with stories. If only there were some alternative.

[howyadoin]

OK, the chances of them doing it as they are right now? Probably not that high.My point exactly. Which means that ultimately-meaningless shock deaths will continue to occur and people will continue to be cynical because of them, and we'll continue to have cyclical conversations like this one.

Yay.

[Kurt Busiek]

It seems a trend in comic book publishers DC and Marvel in the past couple of years to introduce stories and/or characters that have major impact on what we thought was established history.

I'm not talking about a conventional retcon, but major upheavals in established canon that potentially alter the essence of characters.

Just for fun, some other examples...

* "Identity Crisis," in which Dr. Light retroactively raped Sue Dibny and The Justice League of America continuously mindwiped its villains;

X-MEN, in which Magneto was revealed to be an old friend of Charles Xavier's, and a Jewish concentration-camp survivor at that, radically altering the essence of the character and redefining him.

* In "Captain America," revelations of The Winter Soldier is really Cap's World War II sidekick Bucky, who was thought dead but was in suspended animation and programmed to be an assassin in today's Marvel Universe;

AVENGERS, in which Bucky was revealed to have been dead since early 1945 despite numerous appearances since then, shaping Captain America stories for years thereafter. Or the various DOOM PATROL revivals, in which it was revealed first that Robotman survived the atomic blast that killed the others, then that the Chief and Negative Man survived too. [It'd take a whole different kind of retcon to bring Elasti-Girl back...]

* The Sentry, a character who is now considered one of the progenitors of the age of superheroes at Marvel, and among other things "fought Galactus to a stalemate;"

Union Jack and Spitfire, now considered significant players in Marvel's WWII era, despite not being created and inserted until the 1970s. Or the Eternals, Deviants and Celestials, pasted wholesale into Marvel's backstory in such a way that all mutants (and maybe all superpowers, even) were the work of the Celestials, even though it created two Greco-Roman pantheons in Marvel history.

* "Sins Past," the "Amazing Spider-Man" storyline that revealed Norman Osborn had an affair with Gwen Stacy and produced a pair of rapidly-aging children with her;

X-MEN again, revealing that orphaned Scott Summers had a brother years after he debuted, without a hint of his existence prior to this. Not to mention their father being revealed to be a space pirate years later. Or Mister Sinister mucking with the Summers boys' lives all the way back to before their debut. Or Liz Allan suddenly revealing that the Molten Man is her stepbrother. Or the revelation that the Whizzer and Miss America, two characters who'd only twice appeared in the same story, had married and spawned Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. No, wait, not them, it was Magneto. Oh, and Lockjaw's not a dog. Wait, yes he is. And the Flash's wife, Iris -- she's really from the future.

* Rumors that The X-Men "Dark Genesis" will reveal that there was another team of mutants formed prior to the second generation that featured Wolverine, Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler. There is also talk that the villain could be the long-rumored third brother of Cyclops and Havok, who was recruited by Charles Xavier and kept him under wraps for years.

There was a WWII team called the Invaders you never heard of before -- no, wait, two teams. There was the Liberty Legion, too. And Reed Richard's dad was a time-traveler who had a kid in the future who was an ancestor of Kang!

I know that there have been threads on retcons, but these aren't just nip-and-tuck operations -- these are adding new stories into long-established canon that cause readers to look at these characters entirely differently. Is this a case of being creative or is it a case of creators cheapening what has been done? Your thoughts.

Mostly, I rattled off these examples to show that adding big whacks of conceptual modification or continuity-troweling isn't anything new, whether you're grafting the Blackhawks into the DC Universe, building up a new cosmology for Atlantis in ARION (and later in ATLANTIS CHRONICLES) or finding out that the Falcon was created by the Red Skull. Sometimes you get good stories out of it, sometimes you get bad ones, but previously-unmentioned secrets revealed and big honks of inserted history are a technique that's been around a loooong time.

kdb

[Shellhead]

Just for fun, some other examples...



X-MEN, in which Magneto was revealed to be an old friend of Charles Xavier's, and a Jewish concentration-camp survivor at that, radically altering the essence of the character and redefining him.



AVENGERS, in which Bucky was revealed to have been dead since early 1945 despite numerous appearances since then, shaping Captain America stories for years thereafter. Or the various DOOM PATROL revivals, in which it was revealed first that Robotman survived the atomic blast that killed the others, then that the Chief and Negative Man survived too. [It'd take a whole different kind of retcon to bring Elasti-Girl back...]



Union Jack and Spitfire, now considered significant players in Marvel's WWII era, despite not being created and inserted until the 1970s. Or the Eternals, Deviants and Celestials, pasted wholesale into Marvel's backstory in such a way that all mutants (and maybe all superpowers, even) were the work of the Celestials, even though it created two Greco-Roman pantheons in Marvel history.



X-MEN again, revealing that orphaned Scott Summers had a brother years after he debuted, without a hint of his existence prior to this. Not to mention their father being revealed to be a space pirate years later. Or Mister Sinister mucking with the Summers boys' lives all the way back to before their debut. Or Liz Allan suddenly revealing that the Molten Man is her stepbrother. Or the revelation that the Whizzer and Miss America, two characters who'd only twice appeared in the same story, had married and spawned Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch. No, wait, not them, it was Magneto. Oh, and Lockjaw's not a dog. Wait, yes he is. And the Flash's wife, Iris -- she's really from the future.



There was a WWII team called the Invaders you never heard of before -- no, wait, two teams. There was the Liberty Legion, too. And Reed Richard's dad was a time-traveler who had a kid in the future who was an ancestor of Kang!



Mostly, I rattled off these examples to show that adding big whacks of conceptual modification or continuity-troweling isn't anything new, whether you're grafting the Blackhawks into the DC Universe, building up a new cosmology for Atlantis in ARION (and later in ATLANTIS CHRONICLES) or finding out that the Falcon was created by the Red Skull. Sometimes you get good stories out of it, sometimes you get bad ones, but previously-unmentioned secrets revealed and big honks of inserted history are a technique that's been around a loooong time.

kdb

Ugh, those are some excellent examples of some retcons that I accepted without question and have completely forgotten that they were retcons. I was just a kid when Invaders first came out, but thanks to my great-uncle's raggedy old golden age comic collection, I was pretty sure that the Invaders weren't around in the golden age, let alone Union Jack or Spitfire.

[StoneGold]

Ugh, those are some excellent examples of some retcons that I accepted without question and have completely forgotten that they were retcons. I was just a kid when Invaders first came out, but thanks to my great-uncle's raggedy old golden age comic collection, I was pretty sure that the Invaders weren't around in the golden age, let alone Union Jack or Spitfire.
Hey, for a good chunk of us, those didn't appear to be retcons, those were simply the status quo. I remember when I was a little kid, one of the first issues of a comic I had was the Invaders issue where Union Jack killed Baron Blood. I thought it was actually from WWII.

[howyadoin]

Hey, for a good chunk of us, those didn't appear to be retcons, those were simply the status quo. I remember when I was a little kid, one of the first issues of a comic I had was the Invaders issue where Union Jack killed Baron Blood. I thought it was actually from WWII.That's because you're a whippersnapper.

[StoneGold]

That's because you're a whippersnapper.
And you're an old fart.

[Kurt Busiek]

Hey, for a good chunk of us, those didn't appear to be retcons, those were simply the status quo.

Right. And the current crop will appear that way to the readers of the future.

Except the ones that get forgotten, of course...

kdb

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Right. And the current crop will appear that way to the readers of the future.

Except the ones that get forgotten, of course...

kdb

And just to add to your list of retcons, I'll throw in the "death" of Charles Xavier (to Grotesk?), who later returned and explained that a heretofore unknown mutant called the Changeling had taken his place. This was a bit before my time, but as I recall, it was a couple years after his "death" that Marvel came up with the Changeling story to explain Chuck's death.

[Greg Hatcher]

And you're an old fart.

I hadn't quite realized what an old fart *I* was until Mr. Busiek brought up the Red Skull/Falcon/"Snap" Wilson story. I remember that as provoking quite the letters-page storm of controversy back then. The more things change...

[Kurt Busiek]

And just to add to your list of retcons, I'll throw in the "death" of Charles Xavier (to Grotesk?), who later returned and explained that a heretofore unknown mutant called the Changeling had taken his place. This was a bit before my time, but as I recall, it was a couple years after his "death" that Marvel came up with the Changeling story to explain Chuck's death.

Oh, there were lots more I could mention. I was trying to limit it to stuff that had a major effect on how we see the characters, though, rather than just a "Well, he wasn't really dead" retcon, of which there are hundreds, mostly involving villains.

kdb

[StoneGold]

Oh, there were lots more I could mention. I was trying to limit it to stuff that had a major effect on how we see the characters, though, rather than just a "Well, he wasn't really dead" retcon, of which there are hundreds, mostly involving villains.

kdb
And if you did want to do that, it goes what, all the way back to Captain America #2 by Simon and Kirby? Not to mention an instant retcon of the Red Skull no longer being American industrialist George Maxon.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Oh, there were lots more I could mention. I was trying to limit it to stuff that had a major effect on how we see the characters, though, rather than just a "Well, he wasn't really dead" retcon, of which there are hundreds, mostly involving villains.

kdb

Gotcha. I brought up Chuck's precursor to Phoenix because it's one of my favorite "forgotten" retcons. Like I said, it was before my time, but from what I've read since, Chuck's death caused quite the stir among the scant-but-dedicated X-followers of the day. And the story that brought him back was so bad that it was akin to Bobby "It was all a dream" Ewing return from "Dallas." And this was before it was almost de riguer for super heroes to return from the dead. Sure, the supervillains returned all the time from "certain death," but that was almost to be expected. The heroes didn't die much (save for your example of the Doom Patrol) and, when they did, they tended to stay dead.

[MacQuarrie]

Funny that you should post in this thread, Kurt, being as how (in my opinion anyway) you're about the only writer in the last 25 years or so who knows how to write true retroactive continuity. "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" is the textbook for how it ought to be done. Poking around in the nooks and unexplored corners of the old stories and dropping new bits "between the pages" of them it exactly how it should be done.

Just had to say that. You may all label me an ass-kisser now.

[Pól Rua]

Funny that you should post in this thread, Kurt, being as how (in my opinion anyway) you're about the only writer in the last 25 years or so who knows how to write true retroactive continuity. "Untold Tales of Spider-Man" is the textbook for how it ought to be done. Poking around in the nooks and unexplored corners of the old stories and dropping new bits "between the pages" of them it exactly how it should be done.

Just had to say that. You may all label me an ass-kisser now.

What you mean we have to wait until we're invited now?
Dang you and your Rules, Cronin!!!

[howyadoin]

Just had to say that. You may all label me an ass-kisser now.Since StoneGold's not here:

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/asskisser-36950.jpg

[Cei-U!]

You may all label me an ass-kisser now.

Ass-kisser.





I agree with every word, mind you, but somebody was gonna say it. Might as well be me. :D

Cei-U!
I summon the golden opportunity!

EDIT: Too slow! DAMN it!!!

[MacQuarrie]

Truth be told, it's my wife who kisses an ass every morning just before I leave for work.

[howyadoin]

Too slow! DAMN it!!!You gotta be quick, my friend.

[Jeff Brady]

Truth be told, it's my wife who kisses an ass every morning just before I leave for work.

What, your face?

(sorry, far too easy to pass up).

[MacQuarrie]

What, your face?

(sorry, far too easy to pass up).
That's the joke I was going for. Very good.

[Pól Rua]

That's the joke I was going for. Very good.

It's alright, Jim, we'll retcon it good later.
Nobody'll know the difference, except howy's a chick now.

Go figure.

[PatrickG]

That's the joke I was going for. Very good.

If you were going for the OTHER obvious joke, I'd wonder who hacked your account. :rolleyes:

[Jeff Brady]

That's the joke I was going for. Very good.

Yeah, I know I'm lame. Whatever.

[Gilda Dent]

I'm just curious.

Am I the only one here who makes a distinction between a retcon and a reveal?

To me, this seems an important difference. I've always thought of a retcon as something that changes established continuity, that actively contradicts previously published events, while a reveal is something that fits neatly in with previously established continuity.

For example: Sue having force field powers from the very beginning would be a retcon. It's right there in the first few dozen issues, she could turn invisible, and nothing more. However, the idea that there was a solar flare, or cosmic storm on the day of that flight would be a reveal. It doesn't actually say that in FF #1, the implication is that Reed messed up because of inadequate planning, but it's not a direct contradiction, just new information that fits in with what we already know and at the same time puts events in a new light.

Either kind can be done well or done poorly, but I think a reveal, as defined above, takes a bit more skill. Dan Slott's Spider-Man / Human Torch mini is an excellent example of a a series of extended reveals that fit in with established continuity, and do so very well. Byrne's Year One is just a big retcon, and not very well done, and unnecessary.

And I think, for me, that's the key to a true retcon. Does the newly established continuity improve on the previous one? If so, by all means, go for it. Leave out the references to Reed and Ben serving in WW2, or Reed and Sue meeting as college students when those elements no longer serve the storytelling well. But don't change the stuff that's still working as a long term storytelling base just for the sake of a single story unless the new situation is a better one for long term storytelling.

Gilda

[howyadoin]

I'm just curious.

Am I the only one here who makes a distinction between a retcon and a reveal?

To me, this seems an important difference. I've always thought of a retcon as something that changes established continuity, that actively contradicts previously published events, while a reveal is something that fits neatly in with previously established continuity.I never gave it much thought before, but that makes a lotta sense. Too bad we don't see more of the latter.

[Guts/Batman]

Hmmmmm...

Could Re-Birth be a reveal and not a retcon?

[Pól Rua]

Hmmmmm...

Could Re-Birth be a reveal and not a retcon?

Naw, it's a RetCon, because it made me Retch Convulsively.

[Greg Hatcher]

I never gave it much thought before, but that makes a lotta sense. Too bad we don't see more of the latter.

You know who raised the 'reveal' to an art form all its own, at least for me, was Steve Englehart. I think he was the one that did the aforementioned 'Snap' Wilson Falcon story, and also the Green Lantern Corps/Zamaron/Star Sapphire=Predator riff with Carol Ferris, the Vision's connection with Phineas Horton and the original Human Torch... he had a real knack for taking something previously established and turning it on its ear without contradicting anything that had come before. Sometimes he fell on his face but when he pulled it off, like in (the original) Green Lantern #192's "A Sapphire's Story!" it was really something to see.

[StoneGold]

Not that the Falcon reveal was all that great.

[howyadoin]

You know who raised the 'reveal' to an art form all its own, at least for me, was Steve Englehart.He sure did it well with Peggy Carter.

[StoneGold]

He sure did it well with Peggy Carter.
Yeah, although it really makes no sense now. Sharon Carter, looking in her mid-30s, had a sister in WWII? But hey, who knew the characters would last this long.

[howyadoin]

Yeah, although it really makes no sense now. Sharon Carter, looking in her mid-30s, had a sister in WWII? But hey, who knew the characters would last this long.Maybe Nick shared the Yellow Claw's serum with Sharon?

[StoneGold]

Maybe Nick shared the Yellow Claw's serum with Sharon?
Problem is, Cap's met Peggy's parents. Mamma Carter apparently has the world's longest fertile womb.

[howyadoin]

Problem is, Cap's met Peggy's parents. Mamma Carter apparently has the world's longest fertile womb.I just meant that while Sharon may look 30, maybe she's actually a fair bit older.

[StoneGold]

I just meant that while Sharon may look 30, maybe she's actually a fair bit older.
Yeah, but her parents must be mainlining the stuff too then, because they didn't look old enough. But then again, IIRC, they looked about Peggy's age anyways.

[howyadoin]

Yeah, but her parents must be mainlining the stuff too then, because they didn't look old enough. But then again, IIRC, they looked about Peggy's age anyways.For a second there I thought you meant they were still around now.

[StoneGold]

For a second there I thought you meant they were still around now.
You know, I don't think they ever actually had a death written. I mean, why bother, especially after Sharon "died." But I think they're still alive through the omission of their deaths.

[howyadoin]

You know, I don't think they ever actually had a death written. I mean, why bother, especially after Sharon "died." But I think they're still alive through the omission of their deaths.And is Peggy still sleeping with that black guy from SHIELD?

[Cei-U!]

Since my dad was 23 years younger than his oldest brother, the age difference between Peggy and Sharon never struck me as odd.

Cei-U!
I summon the generation gap!

[StoneGold]

And is Peggy still sleeping with that black guy from SHIELD?
Gabe? It hasn't been brought up. I don't think so though. I seem to remember her seeing someone else on the Avengers support staff when she was controlling communications for the team, but I can't remember who, if it happened at all. But I think it might have.

[Gilda Dent]

Since my dad was 23 years younger than his oldest brother, the age difference between Peggy and Sharon never struck me as odd.

Cei-U!
I summon the generation gap!

I'm 29 and have a sister who just turned 7. Half-sister technically, but it's the same general principal. I had a friend in highschool who had an aunt who was a year younger than he was, his mom's younger sister.

Gilda

[StoneGold]

Since my dad was 23 years younger than his oldest brother, the age difference between Peggy and Sharon never struck me as odd.

Cei-U!
I summon the generation gap!
Eh, it's a little odd originally, although not unheard of. Although at this point, we're talking like a 50 year gap or something.

[Kurt Busiek]

Not that the Falcon reveal was all that great.

To be fair, while it was a screwy idea, it was very well delivered -- nice foreshadowing and a slammer of a surprise. Had Englehart not left the book in the middle of that issue, it's conceivable he'd have gone somewhere with it that would have shown us more in the idea.

But it was a very well-crafted reveal.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Yeah, although it really makes no sense now. Sharon Carter, looking in her mid-30s, had a sister in WWII? But hey, who knew the characters would last this long.

And there's no reason to cling to it.

Just like the stories of