Tweet
... that Collateral Damage and it's apparent glossing over by all parties at DC may have had some part in Dave Gibbons' abrupt departure from GLC?
-
maybe... it's a possibility after the way they have completely retconned it out of existence
M
-
As soon as it was released, too, it seems like. I'm used to the days where something comes out, something else comes out, and then a new team wants to disregard/change something that's come before editorial steps in, goes, "Okay... let's look at this, carefully weigh the pros and cons and see if this is something we need to change/remove from canon."
Nowadays, it's like... any writer on any book can just do whatever the heck they want, to hell with what came out last month or 10 years ago. Which can be fine under certain circumstances, but when there's no system of checks and balances to ensure this isn't being abused just at the whim of one or two gentlemen... it smacks of wrong.
Cowboy diplomacy...Comment
-
was it retconned? It don't feel like it was retconned. I just took it as a stand alone story.Comment
-
I did, too. But the new Secret Files indicates that Guy "used to" own/run Warriors, when we see he still does in Collateral Damage. And less noteworthily, Collateral Damage also reinforced the Vuldarian heritage angle, which the new Secret Files bats down again.Originally posted by PowerRingE3 View PostComment
-
Collateral Damage wasn't particularly well recieved.Comment
-
but in CD, Warriors was destoryed so that may be why they say "used to"Originally posted by Andrew NDB View Post
it was ok, but I was hopin for more.Collateral Damage wasn't particularly well recieved.Comment
-
It was trashed midway through, yeah. But at the very end, it's back in business again and looks fine... Guy's even putting the moves on there again.Originally posted by PowerRingE3 View PostComment
-
true, I don't know, maybe it was retconned. it would be cool to bring it back in GLC but who know!!!Originally posted by Andrew NDB View Post
stop messin with my bar...
Comment
-
I would like that. But much better then they did in Collateral Damage, please!!!!Originally posted by PowerRingE3 View Posttrue, I don't know, maybe it was retconned. it would be cool to bring it back in GLC but who know!!!
stop messin with my bar...Comment
-
DC has seemed to be a strange mix of contradictions lately. On the one hand, you have writers retconning the hell out of the works of other writers, and sometimes even retconning themselves, with seemingly no interference at all from editorial... and yet, on the other hand, you have entire stories laid out by editorial with almost no room left for creativity on the part of the writers at all. Retcons are going to happen, of course, and sometimes they're for the best, but writers shouldn't be allowed to just blatantly contradict themselves and others without someone at least holding up a hand and saying "Hang on, let's talk about why you're doing this before it goes to print." And yet, editors shouldn't be telling the writers exactly what to write, either -- otherwise, why have a writer at all? It should be somewhere in between these two extremes.
Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen more abrupt departures from DC lately, with the way things seem to be going. The DC universe in general has always been very hard for me to understand, let alone keep track of, and it's mostly because of these "are-they-or-aren't-they-canon" stories that we never get any real clarification on. Emerald Dawn, Formerly Known As and I Can't Believe It's Not the Justice League, Collateral Damage and countless others -- in most cases, I believe that something should be decided as in-continuity or not before it goes to print. Elseworlds and alternate realities? Awesome, please write as many of those stories as you want. But when a title comes out, it needs to either be canon or not, period, and it needs to be labelled as such. Sure, there will be mistakes and retcons later when characters are reinterpreted by other writers, but this shouldn't happen with half the books being published within mere months of their publication date!
At best, it comes across as sloppy and confusing. It's ridiculous that half of the characters we love have murky and/or multiple origin stories, so that we don't even know for sure what really happened to them and what didn't! And if you're going to retcon something, at least produce an actual story about why the original telling wasn't correct/the whole truth. Don't just pretend what was prevously written didn't happen at all.
Good (or at least, professionally handled) retcon: All these years, we thought that Jim-Bob's powers came from the mystical amulet given to him by aliens, but it turns out that he was actually an alien himself all along and he didn't really need the amulet at all -- he just didn't know it! (More explanation and exposition follows so that the details makes a little more sense.)
Bad retcon: Jim-Bob is actually an alien. (No explanation, not even any acknowledgement of the fact that he used to have a mystical amulet at all. He's just always been an alien. Deal with it.)
And yet, even with all this, I can't help but enjoy my comics anyway. I just think I'd enjoy them more if I could better determine what I'm supposed to believe really happened and what didn't.Comment
-
I feel the same way, Duskdog. Well put.Comment
Comment