While I was watching Justified last night, the recap of previous episodes that played prior to the start of the new episode made me realize that one of the fundamental differences in the way continuity is handled on TV in contrast to how its handled in comic books is that everything that happens prior to any given episode has consequences of value to the narrative (something that is true of many, if not all, TV shows. I use Justified as a proxy for them all). In comics, many readers and writers alike shrug at continuity like it was a bad thing. It used to be that a TV series would be on the air for five seasons (a total of 110 one-hour long episodes) that aired sporadically across the 260 weeks that make up that five year time frame. Many shows run for double that now. Depending on the show (like, for instance, Babylon 5) events that transpired in the first season can be of consequence on the last season (i.e. let us assume OHare had remained with the show. That would mean that the series would have ended with his transformation into Valen, as opposed to occur halfway through the series run like it did). Viewers are expected to be so invested in what they are watching, that they will remember details (i.e. the set ups) from the first season so they can better enjoy the conclusion on the final season (i.e. the payoffs). In that same time frame, a comic book will publish 60 issues released month to month. 60 ISSUES. In that amount of time, DC rebooted Superman three times. Today, were lucky if continuity in a comic book series is respected for more than 12 issues. The excuses for this range from accusing continuity of constricting creativity (which it doesnt), or keeping new readers away (which, again, it doesnt).
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:58:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015