Legion World Forums LEGION CLUBHOUSE The Legion of Super-Heroes The Complete Continuity Match-Up Checklist: from Baxter to Levitz Relaunch (revised)

In Gone's defense, that is a fair question. And it was rather nice of him to put it inside a spoiler.

My own thoughts on continuity (or rather 'continuity') have been clearly not welcome here, so I will not repeat them. Nor will I blame Gone for any uncivil answers he may receive.

*poof*

With respect to gone's request directly above, I just got finishing typing out my response, and wanted to share it with the larger group instead of directly, in case anyone felt the same.

Anyway...

I agree that it's a valid question. Though I haven't participated in this specific thread, I do enjoy discussions about continuity (even understanding that whatever theories are suggested or conclusions are reached are likely to never even be addressed in print).

I can't speak for anyone else but, from my own perspective, I would say that fictional continuity debates - and the cataloguing of minutia - enhance my enjoyment of the source material by making me feel like a more active participant in the story. It's as though whatever little plot discrepancy I noted - and subsequently solved to my own satisfaction - becomes a bridge to extend my suspension of disbelief.

I don't know if I put that well, so let me give an example that goes back almost to the Legion's beginnings. When the Legion first met Supergirl they said they were the children of the Legionnaires who had previously (from a publishing standpoint) met Superboy. That little bit of plot was subsequently ignored and never addressed in-story... but it always bugged me. I "needed" to know why, from a continuity perspective, that conversation had happened.

I concocted the idea that this was actually, from the Legion's perspective, the first time they ever travelled back to the 20th century. Upon realizing that Supergirl already knew of them from her cousin's stories about his childhood, and knowing that those events hadn't happened yet for them, they suddenly realized the enormity of the time travel repercussions. Not wanting to engage Supergirl in this discussion for fear of messing with their own future, they just sort of panicked and blurted out that "children" thing to quickly change the subject.

Would something so convoluted like that ever be addressed in-story? Probably not... but it answered that niggling point to my own personal satisfaction and I took that away as my own version of continuity. In doing so, I now became - of sorts - a type of co-author of the Legion story that existed in my mind, a hybrid between the printed "facts" and the extension of that in my imagination.

Like I say, I don't know why anyone else likes the process of continuity debate, but that's why I do.

Continuity and solving disparate continuity is fun. Now, when you become invested in it and someone makes a stupid diversion it can be very frustrating, but also an opportunity to solve that conundrum. Different writers play to it with different strengths. John Ostrander was a master of taking lemons and making story lemonade. Johns started out in that vein but lost the thread along the way and started contributing more to unnecessary retcons than fixing bad ones. Levitz is somewhere in the middle. He seems interested in a consistent narrative within his own work, but is perfectly happy to ignore what came before (including some of his earlier stuff).

This expresses my thoughts exactly.

I used to LOVE figuring out continuity. Back in the early '80s, I calculated birthdates for each Marvel hero (most of whom hadn't been around longer than 20 years at that point, so it was *mildly* plausible that Spidey was born in 1945) and being so annoyed when Marvel would throw in a line that violated the "realism" of my timeline (e.g., Ben and Reed having known each other for 20-odd years instead of 40).

Much later I accepted the "realities" of comic book publishing, including the notion that heroes cannot age on par with real people. But during those years when I was inventing my own answers, I felt as if I had something to contribute to the Marvel Universe and that, in some ways, it was "mine".

Of course, this was long before the Internet, so I had no one to share my ideas with. (I did send a letter to Marvel once, outlining the probable birth year of every major character. They ignored it.) Were I reading the current Legion series, I'd probably love engaging in a thread such as this.

What purpose does this thread serve? What purpose does any thread serve, really?

Some of us like speculating on whether a tree that collapsed on an insectoid alien in a story from the sixties might have been a drunken Tree-Man of Arbro.

Other people seem to enjoy collecting data on how the Legion as portrayed in the current run differs from the Legion as portrayed in previous runs.

To each their own.

As far as continuity in general goes, I don't care so much that the current version of the Legion isn't exactly like the version of the Legion from thirty years ago, except incidentally in the fact that many of the changes from then I happen to dislike significantly, such as changing R.J. Brande from a kindly, benevolent self-made man to someone with a weird speech pattern who buys politicians and makes me feel like joining an Occupy Weisinger Plaza movement.

Exnihil I applied exactly the same logic to that conversation as you. I share your feelings on continuity debate as well.

I find the list useful for keeping track of what's been stated officially, so I can decide what to reference for use in my fanfic writing.

And what purpose does fanfic serve? None at all. It just makes me happy.

*poof*

In the spirit that the above posters have shown, I will chime in after all. Perhaps those who made me avoid this forum are no longer as unavoidable.

First, as to continuity itself, i see several types.

There is tight continuity, as exemplified by the Stan Lee 1960s model, in which if the Hulk farts in his own issue, it is cross-referenced when Peter Parker hears it all the way across town. This system works when there is a sigular vison to keep multi-series vectors interactive (a la Lee) or when there is a large staff devoted to keeping track of this (such as within a movie, in the Lucas Star Wars universe, or even in the heyday of TV soaps). Neither. DC nor Legion specifically have ever adhered to this, as much as some fans may wish to the contrary. It did not exist pre-crisis, and every effort to create such an order has failed, insomuch as such efforts require some sort of changes to what has previously been presented. The cat was never in the bag on this front, especially for Legion (magnetic eyes, anyone?).

Next, there is what i shall call sitcom continuity, in which characters essentailly are standardized, so standardized that no matter what happens in any particular episode, they are essentially the same at the start of any episode as they were at the outset of any other. This is typical of precrisis Superboy stories, I Love Lucy, and many many others. The Simpsons uses this to an extent; Homer can be a vice-presidential candidate but it is never referenced again (although, yes, there may be occassional slight changes, like the addition/subtaction of a supporting cast member, but nothing major). Legion established itself early on as not being this, although Superboy remained so.

Next, there is ballpark continuity, in which there is an order, but it is deliberately hard to nail down. Hellblazer is an example of this; a storyteller can refer back to some event or girlfriend from 10 years ago; even though we can look back on the comics and figure out which issues it. Would take place between, it really doesn't. Matter. The character inherently has backstory/sidestory we wil neer know the totality of, and inttroducing new-old characters works. Similarly, rather than Hellblazer fans debating as to the contradictory stories as to whether John can drive a car or not, we just accept that as part of the mystery. Legion has only occassionally gone this route: pre-Adv 300 when there was no real sense of how many legionnaires there were and news ones were introduced on the drop of a dime, within the five year gap, and the pre-#1 events in Threeboot. In general, there is so much Legion lore that fans have enjoyed (or otherwise felt compelled) to place a tighter order on what is perceived to be canon than this approach generally allows.

There are undoubtedly plenty of variations beyond my summaries, but i am limiting my description to four. Thus my last category is what. Will call Arthurian, in which there have been so many storytellers and versions that it is asically impossible to impose a singular structure upon them all while still including all the variants. In many ways, Lancelot may well have originated as a Laurel Kent to Tristan's Supergirl, but it doesn't matter. The canon is thematically true, no matter how many variants and contradictions emerge. As may be guessed, this is the model i think works best with Legion. There are too many variants and contadictions to ever be covered in a singular framework, and i am okay with that, so long as it fits a larger thematic truthiness.

So, having taken the long way around the barn, for those who want to figure out which of the many contadictory elements are being used in this current version, so be it. I pesonally enjoy figuring it as the story unravels, but to each their own. I only object to being told ones opinion does not. Matter because it doesn't fit one poster's individual perception of what is now continuity, simply becuas they have made a big list. I also question the prioritizing of continuity above all else, but again, that is their choice.

As Exxy and the others are saying, continuty can be a fun exercize to put incomgruities and gaps together; that's part of the fun (and i came to the same hypothesis re the 'children of the legion' comment). But it can be an encumberance when continuity gets in the way of story, enjoyment, or both, and such conditions can be created by storyteller or merely inferred by readers.

To me, if i cannot find a way to enjoy it, it isn't worth my time, unless i'm being paid for it. With comics, i am not paid for it, so i am not going to attach great weight to it. If i really cared about which details are in play in the current version, i'd be very vested in this thread. I am content to see where Paul Levitz et al take us; i don't want to overthink the ride. I used to work in a CBS; i lived continuity and breathed it. I foud that i'd lost the sheer joy of surprise and excitement, which i'd rather have. All i ask is that it fits the larger thematic picture, which it does.

Great answers/thoughts, guys, to an interesting question!

I currently watch Fringe and Once Upon a Time and have watched/read many other 'alternate reality' and 'rebooted' and 'continuity additions or reworkings' stories over my long years with myths/sci-fi/fantasy media.

I tend to just take it in stride, although I like to sometimes play with continuity ideas, like Ex and others have stated that they like to indulge in from time to time, too.
And for all the reasons that they've stated.

My perspective is as a visual artist, though, so my solutions might be more literal.
The example used, the Legion 'parents', I just took at face value and created characters for.


I agree with Kent's terms, as well.
I think that DC had a harder time than Marvel because it's an older franchise, which makes keeping things straight, even before any rebootings, more difficult.

When Marvel started, IIRC, everything (or ALMOST everything) was written/drawn by one team, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

That kind of cohesiveness hasn't been possible since those very early days, in any of the largest companies.

Reboots are needed, I'm afraid, since even stretching lifespans only works so long when characters have events happen in their lives.

Even on sitcoms like I LOVE LUCY or Everone Loves Raymond children are born and character staples get sick and die.

imo

I believe that the long-term goal of the 52-boot was/is to establish this type of continuity at DC. It'll be interesting to see how long they can keep it up.

Well, sure. After all, those characters are played by actors - who ultimately quit/get fired or get old/sick/die. Even on the Simpsons, a show which doesn't have to deal with aging so directly, a few characters have been written out due to actors quitting/dying.

The problem with DC was that each comic and even strip within a comic was pretty much stand-alone. So the Atlantis in Aquaman bore no resemblence to the Atlantis in Superman and so on.

Even when characters crossed over (World's Finest or All Star) quite often a different Atlantis or whatever was created.

With the Silver Age and later DC tried to create a consistant universe but had too much legacy. This was probably the main reason for Crisis on Infinite Earths - to get a single consistant universe. But different editorial teams have continued to protect their properties and the inconsistency has grown back.

Reboots can to some extent solve problems caused by bad editors but what reboots do clear up is the problem of aging heroes (unless you have a relaunch where Batman has still had countless Robins while only being a young Bruce Wayne).

The Legion, having started out as kids and not having the dynamic of a 'current' timeframe should not need reboots. It is only the knock on effects of changes to Superman and Supergirl and possibly Mon-El and XS that cause problems for the Legion. DC know this and appear this time around to have at least tried to grasp the nettle.

Yes, Reboot, I was trying to take into account what Kent was saying about sitcoms where the episodes are self contained and used interchangeably.

That is done, but life and scripted events still date the episodes.
Lucy's little Ricky was scripted in to coinside with Lucy's real first child, for example, but her second real child wasn't written into the timeline.

I suppose that the relevance to the Legion is when the creative teams add relationships, marriages, children, injuries, resignations, new members, updated tech, etc..

Tech especially, which hit the Star Trek series, for example.
That's super important to the Legion, which is why Levitz changed parts of the origin continuity this time, even though he was trying to keep most of the original boot storylines and characters.

Silver Age Lad - I agree, but in the earlier days, weren't most of the characters 'owned' by their creators? We know that Superman and Wonder Woman were and are, anyway.
I know that family ownership was why Diana and Bruce couldn't appear on Smallville, IIRC.
And I think I've read in some interview or something, that that's why there won't be any Superman, WW or Batman descendants in the Legion this time around, no Laurel Kent or Kent Shakespeare.

I also think that in the precomputer/internet days it would have been very difficult to keep different creative teams and stories aligned.
Look how Wonder Girl was taken literally by the Teen Titans creators/editors and it was only discovered later that she didn't even exist in their timeline since she was Wonder Woman at the time.
I think the problem was the medium itself, more than DC not caring or trying.

*poof*

Actually, Little Ricky was born when Desi, Jr. was born. Lucy was pregnant with their first child (Lucy, Jr.) when they filmed the pilot, and she was born before the show's first season.

Sorry for the digression.

This thread is simply wonderful!
Such attention to detail!
Salut!

*poof*

So, anyone want to write up a new "order of membership"?

It's not just the order but also how. Jo for instance couldn't have had the same initiation test.

Ha! Ha!
Darling, you're such a Silly Sandy!

1-3 Cosmic Boy/Lightning Lad/Saturn Girl

4 Triplicate Girl

5 Phantom Girl

6-8 Chameleon Boy/Colossal Boy/Invisible Kid

9 Ultra Boy

10 Brainiac 5

11 young Superman/Superboy?

Added the reference to Lydda and Rokk holding hands in Adventure #9, and Sorcerer's World being back in Legion of Three Worlds (from this thread .)