What If Comics Could No Longer Reboot?

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Marvelito

Exactly. This is the best and worst thing to happen to comics.

I think the more interesting question would be "what would happen to comics if continuity were no longer allowed?"

This is a great question; I'd suggest, actually, that this is in some ways coming to pass. With all the restarts and retcons and the like, I think continuity is more or less being abandoned. I think we're seeing comics move into a more timeless model--short arcs that just tell a story, and then leave the passage of time completely out of the equation.

I'd agree with RS and Marvelito that continuity is simultaneously boon and bust for comics; it's what's kept them alive during the lean times, for sure, but it's also what's sort of killing them now, from the sheer weight of history.

I don't know that it's bad--in some ways, it's good, since more fans can jump in. But the fan base that's been buying back issues for years will fall away, for the most part. I know I am. And when that happens enough, the back issue market will falter. The OA markets might do okay, since the characters will survive. But old books will become inconsequential. I think they already are, and will definitely become so more and more, as the fans that have kept it going fall away from collecting.

[protector2814]

W/o a doubt, the most far-fetched, wacky "What-If?" I've read here. The big two seem completely unable to tweak their universes almost bi-annually now, which drives me crazy. And ... I blame modern writers for this. Seems all of them want to mark their territory with earth shattering changes in attempts to prove how gonzo, cool, and relevant they are. When, for decades & decades the writers before them seemed to respect those that came before them more than modern writers. Messes created, while semi-enjoyable at the time, require Reboots now to erase. This is a modern problem for this long time reader. Until Crises, comics rolled on for decades with no need for rebooting. Layers were built on layers with all honoring what came before. Killing X-Men, Robins, Girlfriends, heroes, villains, entire Cities & Universes, (I could go on) is a relatively modern comic phenomenon created by writers so anxious to prove themselves, that they worry little about what the F writers are supposed to do after. I see this in a lot of today's pop culture, tv especially. Painting yourself or characters in to corners that have to be cleaned up w/ reboots is the new norm.

[Babytoxie]

John Byrne wrote and illustrated a trio of miniseries titled Generations that had the DC Universe (specifically, Batman and Superman) aging in real time from the Golden Age - onward. IMO, it's one of the best things DC has ever published, and a prime example of what could be possible with the approach you suggest.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by protector2814

W/o a doubt, the most far-fetched, wacky "What-If?" I've read here. The big two seem completely unable to tweak their universes almost bi-annually now, which drives me crazy. And ... I blame modern writers for this. Seems all of them want to mark their territory with earth shattering changes in attempts to prove how gonzo, cool, and relevant they are. When, for decades & decades the writers before them seemed to respect those that came before them more than modern writers. Messes created, while semi-enjoyable at the time, require Reboots now to erase. This is a modern problem for this long time reader. Until Crises, comics rolled on for decades with no need for rebooting. Layers were built on layers with all honoring what came before. Killing X-Men, Robins, Girlfriends, heroes, villains, entire Cities & Universes, (I could go on) is a relatively modern comic phenomenon created by writers so anxious to prove themselves, that they worry little about what the F writers are supposed to do after. I see this in a lot of today's pop culture, tv especially. Painting yourself or characters in to corners that have to be cleaned up w/ reboots is the new norm.

Great post, and one I mainly agree with--with one exception: I don't think this is relatively new. I just think it's gotten progressively worse. There's a huge difference, IMHO, between the narrative courage of killing Gwen Stacy and killing Jean Grey for the sixty-eighth time. Or "no more mutants." Or whatever.

Granted, the death of Gwen Stacy was what ushered in all this madness...

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Babytoxie

John Byrne wrote and illustrated a trio of miniseries titled Generations that had the DC Universe (specifically, Batman and Superman) aging in real time from the Golden Age - onward. IMO, it's one of the best things DC has ever published, and a prime example of what could be possible with the approach you suggest.

Great series, but this is an example as to why complete continuity couldn't work. We don't want to read about Kal-El and Bruce Wayne's grandsons all the time; we want to read about Kal-El and Bruce Wayne (and their alter egos).

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Teague

Great post, and one I mainly agree with--with one exception: I don't think this is relatively new. I just think it's gotten progressively worse. There's a huge difference, IMHO, between the narrative courage of killing Gwen Stacy and killing Jean Grey for the sixty-eighth time. Or "no more mutants." Or whatever.

Granted, the death of Gwen Stacy was what ushered in all this madness...

Death has been used to launch many heroes, i.e, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Daredevil, Robin, Magneto, Dr. Doom and so on. In fact, death largely defines them. When it later became a gimmick to raise sales, something got lost in the meaning as it felt ingenuine. This was especially because we no longer believed the character would stay dead.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by risingstar

Death has been used to launch many heroes, i.e, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Daredevil, Robin, Magneto, Dr. Doom and so on. In fact, death largely defines them. When it later became a gimmick to raise sales, something got lost in the meaning as it felt ingenuine. This was especially because we no longer believed the character would stay dead.

Very good point, but most of those origin-deaths were of characters we didn't (and to some degree couldn't) know. Their backstories may have gotten filled in (and even retconned, especially in terms of Kal-El and Uncle Ben, etc.), but they were originally meant to be characters like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru in Star Wars--i.e. the loss that requires the heroic journey away from home.

Killing actual players in the narrative, like Gwen, like Jean, like...well, pretty much everyone? That's a different thing altogether.

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Teague

Killing actual players in the narrative, like Gwen, like Jean, like...well, pretty much everyone? That's a different thing altogether.

I think the Gwen, Sharon, Elektra, Jean deaths were good deaths because they felt authentic. The hero's evolution absorbed the tragedy and changed because of it, and evolved in a good way, I think.

Batman, Superman, DD, all the characters I noted earlier, seem to embody a strong sense and fear of abandonment. They do not do well with death so introducing further loss to those characters needs to be handled well. Batman copes with his abandonment issues by repelling anyone and everyone trying to get close to him. Spiderman copes by trying to please every single father figure who comes his way. Superman copes by trying to be the world's 24/7 savior because on some level he thinks if he disappoints someone, he'll be rejected. No one is harder on himself than Superman.

However, killing off a character just because a book isn't doing well will rarely ever work. The audience simply won't buy it, and they'll likely leave the book shortly afterwards.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by risingstar

I think the Gwen, Sharon, Elektra, Jean deaths were good deaths because they felt authentic. The hero's evolution absorbed the tragedy and changed because of it, and evolved in a good way, I think.

Batman, Superman, DD, all the characters I noted earlier, seem to embody a strong sense and fear of abandonment. They do not do well with death so introducing further loss to those characters needs to be handled well. Batman copes with his abandonment issues by repelling anyone and everyone trying to get close to him. Spiderman copes by trying to please every single father figure who comes his way. Superman copes by trying to be the world's 24/7 savior because on some level he thinks if he disappoints someone, he'll be rejected. No one is harder on himself than Superman.

However, killing off a character just because a book isn't doing well will rarely ever work. The audience simply won't buy it, and they'll likely leave the book shortly afterwards.

All good points. I do agree that the deaths you list were narratively positive (though Jean's return was ill-advised, as were her ensuing deaths). Same with Elektra (and the fact that she was brought back is one reason that Frank Miller is still pissed at Marvel...and rightly so, if you ask me.)

I do think that if deaths like this are taken seriously, then narrative can flourish. Winter Soldier, for example, overturned the previously held belief that the only two Marvel characters who'd never come back were Uncle Ben and Bucky.

The problem always comes back to bad writing, I guess.

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Teague

The problem always comes back to bad writing, I guess.

I agree with you there.

I'm trying to think when I felt the most 'betrayed" as a reader... As a kid, I never quite understood the Gwen clone. I actually bought those issues (Amazing #144) when they were first published at the newsstand (mid 70s) and it confused the crap out of me. The Harry Osborn Goblin also pissed me off as a youngster. As an adult, I can now say that I felt those story beats belittled my grief. I also felt manipulated. When the clone came back years later, I was never quite able to enjoy the book in the same way. I came back for a little while when JMS was at the helm, and then came One More Day, and that was it.