The Great Evil of Retcons

[winters_night]

imagine Hamlet if it's characters could be resurrected on a whim

what would Lord of the Rings have been like if at the end of "Return of the King" we found out Sauroun had another ring hidden somewhere that the Fellowship had to go find?

could Casablanca have worked if a sequel was made where we find out Ilsa was a nazi spy?

now think what it would be like to have Peter Parker make a deal with the devil and it wipes out his marriage to MJ.

Retconning (with the exception of Swamp Thing's Anatomy Lesson) is the bane of comics and untill creators move past this infantile crutch comics won't be given the respect they rightly deserve.

Thoughts?

[gungadin]

Retconning isn't a bad thing when done right. Look at Green Lantern: Rebirth or the resurrection of Bucky or Colossus....

Stuff like Crisis, when done too much it can be bad... OMD... not so much... Once in a while it's good to clean up about 15,000 books worth of continuity that's accumulated over the course of 20 years...

[esophagus]

I think retconning may be better off gone because it's so often abused, but I don't think it's impossible to do right. Superman: Birthright, Green Lantern: Rebirth, and I'm sure others prove that theory wrong.

[conorkilpatrick]

It's time for the parade of bitter Spider-Man fans! :)

I love retcons. They serve some great purposes.

1. They are fun.

2. They allow the shared universes to slog off years and years of continuity and stories that can't hope to ever fit together and make sense yet practically everyone demands that they do.

3. It allows companies to keep their properties young and relevant to new readers.

[gungadin]

It's time for the parade of bitter Spider-Man fans! :)

I love retcons. They serve some great purposes.

1. They are fun.

2. They allow the shared universes to slog off years and years of continuity and stories that can't hope to ever fit together and make sense yet practically everyone demands that they do.

3. It allows companies to keep their properties young and relevant to new readers.

But should they do them all the time? That's the question. If they're so fun, why don't we do them all the time? The thing about it is, as Eso pointed out, if you overuse it you ruin the little bit where the stories mean something...

Just saying...

Otherwise, I completely agree with you...

[humphrey-lee]

Retconning isn't a bad thing when done right. Look at Green Lantern: Rebirth or the resurrection of Bucky or Colossus....



Those weren't recons though, those were just adding weaves in existing continuity. Captain America didn't, I dunno, go and find the fucking Time Gem and totally change the day Buck got all blowed up so that it never happened, we just found out that instead of dying he lost an arm and fell into a sort of "Cryo sleep" in the water like Cap did. Big difference...

[esophagus]

Conor, I think it's a DC thing. :)

People seem to get so upset by it. "THEY HAD UNIVERSES AND THEN THEY DIDNT AND NOW THEY DO, BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY LEAVING". I love it.

It's definitely mostly just Spidey that has the bitter taste in my mouth at the moment though. Much like I was saying in the Dark Knight thread, I'm willing to suspend disbelief if it makes sense in context, and has a plausible explanation.

[conorkilpatrick]

imagine Hamlet if it's characters could be resurrected on a whim

what would Lord of the Rings have been like if at the end of "Return of the King" we found out Sauroun had another ring hidden somewhere that the Fellowship had to go find?

could Casablanca have worked if a sequel was made where we find out Ilsa was a nazi spy?

now think what it would be like to have Peter Parker make a deal with the devil and it wipes out his marriage to MJ.

Retconning (with the exception of Swamp Thing's Anatomy Lesson) is the bane of comics and untill creators move past this infantile crutch comics won't be given the respect they rightly deserve.

Thoughts?

I'd also like to point out that almost all of the examples you've mentioned are from self-contained stories and not continuing works of fiction. The rules are different for each and they are not comparable.

You would have been better served referencing the James Bond movie franchise, but that probably would have undermined your point.

[gungadin]

Those weren't recons though, those were just adding weaves in existing continuity. Captain America didn't, I dunno, go and find the fucking Time Gem and totally change the day Buck got all blowed up so that it never happened, we just found out that instead of dying he lost an arm and fell into a sort of "Cryo sleep" in the water like Cap did. Big difference...

But I see that as changing existing status quo past the original intent. It's not a universe changing sweeping retcon... But it's retroactively changing continuity... Hence: Retcon

[humphrey-lee]

It's time for the parade of bitter Spider-Man fans! :)

I love retcons. They serve some great purposes.

1. They are fun.

2. They allow the shared universes to slog off years and years of continuity and stories that can't hope to ever fit together and make sense yet practically everyone demands that they do.

3. It allows companies to keep their properties young and relevant to new readers.

Showing the biggest flaw and probably the greatest asset of franchise comic book characters... they never end.

[winters_night]

I'd also like to point out that almost all of the examples you've mentioned are from self-contained stories and not continuing works of fiction. The rules are different for each and they are not comparable.



Imagine The Shield where Vic Mackey turned out to be an FBI agent investigating Shane and the guy he "shot" in the first episode was all a hoax.

[esophagus]

But I see that as changing existing status quo past the original intent. It's not a universe changing sweeping retcon... But it's retroactively changing continuity... Hence: RetconThe stories you mentioned didn't change continuity.

Say you have a friend. Your friend goes missing for a few weeks. The police show up at your door one day and say "Sorry, your friend is dead". Two weeks later your friend shows up and explains that he didn't die, he was just missing. Did your friend come back from the dead? No.

[humphrey-lee]

But I see that as changing existing status quo past the original intent. It's not a universe changing sweeping retcon... But it's retroactively changing continuity... Hence: Retcon

No, they didn't sweep the universes, but they didn't really change the way characters acted and events that went on either. Instead of Bucky being dead sure, he was doing some Cold War stuff. Either way everyone still thought he was dead and nothing changed in Cap's life until Brubaker made it do so in the present day. Same thing with Colossus, he was dead but he really wasn't, and everyone just carried on like he was but they didn't know better. A true retcon changes the perception on EVERYTHING that happens, even if it's just in the run of that character and not a universe.

Spidey didn't just lose a marriage and moved on, people were brought back from the dead, his identity was forgotten to all, some side characters that were doing one thing were mystically doing something else instead. Basically it completely negated two or three of the biggest moments in his "life".

[conorkilpatrick]

Imagine The Shield where Vic Mackey turned out to be an FBI agent investigating Shane and the guy he "shot" in the first episode was all a hoax.

I don't have to worry about my kids following Vic Mackey in 20 years. His story ends - it's finite. Spider-Man's does not.

[winters_night]

The stories you mentioned didn't change continuity.

Say you have a friend. Your friend goes missing for a few weeks. The police show up at your door one day and say "Sorry, your friend is dead". Two weeks later your friend shows up and explains that he didn't die, he was just missing. Did your friend come back from the dead? No.

But Jason Todd did when Prime punched time.

and the ultimate example of bad retcons. . . "Dallas" it was all a dream. Nuff' Said.

[esophagus]

But Jason Todd did when Prime punched time.

and the ultimate example of bad retcons. . . "Dallas" it was all a dream. Nuff' Said.I know. I'm just talking about the three specific examples Gunga used.

[winters_night]

I don't have to worry about my kids following Vic Mackey in 20 years. His story ends - it's finite. Spider-Man's does not.

your right, Retconning definitly does throw away the trash. and i can accept it as a necessary evil do to it's long form. much the same way i acceot the comic time and real world time aren't the same thing.

however character development dosent have to come to a stand still for a ret-con to happen and i think thats what my biggest gripe is about. creators who want to shoe-horn their pet characters into one time slot and just leave them there.

when Green Arrow came back from the dead, it worked. why? because they didn't bring him back and immediately drop him into a cross country road trip with green lantern fighting social injustice. The character grew, developed, and his resurrection served to further define and change who GA is.

[gungadin]

No, they didn't sweep the universes, but they didn't really change the way characters acted and events that went on either. Instead of Bucky being dead sure, he was doing some Cold War stuff. Either way everyone still thought he was dead and nothing changed in Cap's life until Brubaker made it do so in the present day. Same thing with Colossus, he was dead but he really wasn't, and everyone just carried on like he was but they didn't know better. A true retcon changes the perception on EVERYTHING that happens, even if it's just in the run of that character and not a universe.

Spidey didn't just lose a marriage and moved on, people were brought back from the dead, his identity was forgotten to all, some side characters that were doing one thing were mystically doing something else instead. Basically it completely negated two or three of the biggest moments in his "life".

But Bucky and Colossus don't have an effect on continuity until they show up. But it still changed what originally happened. Brubaker made it so Bucky didn't die and twisted the continuity and changed it so that it's now different from the original intent. Whedon made Colossus die from the retcon but had it so Ord of the Breakworld brought him back to life... Those are still retcons. It's not a universe spanning retcon (like OMD (no matter what Quesada says) or Crisises) but it's still changing existing continuity...

[esophagus]

But Bucky and Colossus don't have an effect on continuity until they show up. But it still changed what originally happened. Brubaker made it so Bucky didn't die and twisted the continuity and changed it so that it's now different from the original intent. Whedon made Colossus die from the retcon but had it so Ord of the Breakworld brought him back to life... Those are still retcons. It's not a universe spanning retcon (like OMD (no matter what Quesada says) or Crisises) but it's still changing existing continuity...
See my original example. The continuity didn't change. They thought he was dead, turns out they were wrong. Everyone thought he was dead. A retcon would have been them saying "Bucky has secretly been alive and helping Cap out whenever he needs it, we just didn 't tell you".

[conorkilpatrick]

See my original example. The continuity didn't change. They thought he was dead, turns out they were wrong. Everyone thought he was dead. A retcon would have been them saying "Bucky has secretly been alive and helping Cap out whenever he needs it, we just didn 't tell you".

It's true - we're really talking about REBOOTS not RETCONS.

[animalvader1]

imagine Hamlet if it's characters could be resurrected on a whim

what would Lord of the Rings have been like if at the end of "Return of the King" we found out Sauroun had another ring hidden somewhere that the Fellowship had to go find?

could Casablanca have worked if a sequel was made where we find out Ilsa was a nazi spy?

now think what it would be like to have Peter Parker make a deal with the devil and it wipes out his marriage to MJ.

Retconning (with the exception of Swamp Thing's Anatomy Lesson) is the bane of comics and untill creators move past this infantile crutch comics won't be given the respect they rightly deserve.

Thoughts?

I can’t believe how people never point out the most obvious movie retcon of all time while on the subject: Star wars

“Vader betrayed and murdered your father”

“Luke, I am your father”

“What I told you was true, from a certain point of view…”


Between this and the POW thread, you guys are going to think I’m a huge Star Wars Nerd, when I’m really just a nerd in general. My Star Wars days are well past there prime, trust me.

[gungadin]

I can’t believe how people never point out the most obvious movie retcon of all time while on the subject: Star wars

“Vader betrayed and murdered your father”

“Luke, I am your father”

“What I told you was true, from a certain point of view…”


Between this and the POW thread, you guys are going to think I’m a huge Star Wars Nerd, when I’m really just a nerd in general. My Star Wars days are well past there prime, trust me.

Didn't Lucas say that was always his intent?

[winters_night]

Didn't Lucas say that was always his intent?

yeah and he also originally said that there were going to be 9 movies.

and in the novels the emperor was originally a patsy to the generals

and he thinks Empire was the worst of all 6 films

oh, and he swears that it's a completly original idea and not just an american remake of Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress

. . . and since we're talking about retcons; he also thought it was a good idea to have Greedo shoot first.


Lucas stumbled into a good idea once and has been milking that same cash cow ever since.

[xyzzy]

To me, the issue isn't retcons. It's the lack of consequences. Why should I care about what happens to a big two character when I know that he will never change and that any appearance of change is either illusionary or will be undone later. There's no dramatic tension because I know that everything will resolve to the status quo.

[racemccloud]

Imagine The Shield where Vic Mackey turned out to be an FBI agent investigating Shane and the guy he "shot" in the first episode was all a hoax.

Isn't "The Shield" ending too? Should they end "Spider-Man"? "Superman?" "Batman?" Because that's really the only way to avoid retcons.

[racemccloud]

Lucas stumbled into a good idea once and has been milking that same cash cow ever since.

And God bless him for it.

[ryan79]

You know, I miss the days when Marvel would give away a No-Prize to the fan that could come up with ways to explain continuity problems. Now that was fun and it seemed to work just fine. Why can't that still be the way things work?

[racemccloud]

It's true - we're really talking about REBOOTS not RETCONS.

Let's see if we've got this:

A REBOOT is "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" and "Superman: Man of Steel". A RETCON is "Green Lantern: Rebirth" and "The Illuminati" miniseries. Right?

Also, writers and artists do retcons. Editors do reboots. How about that?

[racemccloud]

You know, I miss the days when Marvel would give away a No-Prize to the fan that could come up with ways to explain continuity problems. Now that was fun and it seemed to work just fine. Why can't that still be the way things work?

I'd be totally cool with that, but here's how I think it would work now in the days of the message board.

Step 1.) Fan A would write in with a continuity fix; Marvel would say, here's your No-Prize.

Step 2.) Fans B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K etc., etc. would immediately post on the Marvel message board, "HORSESHIT! Who is this guy? HERE'S what should have happened."

Step 3.) Repeat.

[ryan79]

I'd be totally cool with that, but here's how I think it would work now in the days of the message board.

Step 1.) Fan A would write in with a continuity fix; Marvel would say, here's your No-Prize.

Step 2.) Fans B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K etc., etc. would immediately post on the Marvel message board, "HORSESHIT! Who is this guy? HERE'S what should have happened."

Step 3.) Repeat.


You're exactly right.

Damn you, internet....damn you to hell.

[xyzzy]

Isn't "The Shield" ending too? Should they end "Spider-Man"? "Superman?" "Batman?" Because that's really the only way to avoid retcons.

They could have a rotating cast, like ER. That show has been successful, despite the fact that nobody from the first season is still around. DC has done the legacy thing before. Let the characters change, evolve and die. The mantle can carry on.

[dave-accampo]

Showing the biggest flaw and probably the greatest asset of franchise comic book characters... they never end.

Agreed. This is exactly what it is. I've seen so many retcons that I understand them, but here's what, in general, I don't like:

The stories that ENACT the retcons.

I know I"m in the minority, but I thought GL: Rebirth was a very mediocre story. I don't think Crisis or Infinite Crisis were very good. And while i didn't read it, we're seeing exactly the trouble with retcon stories in One More Day. Stories that are geared toward creating a retcon are created to server a purpose. Thus, it's often harder to craft a really good emotional story out of it. But the story has an ulterior motive, and you can't organically follow the characters.

This is, of course, in general, and more specifically geared toward events that hit a giant reset button.

That said, very often the stories that FOLLOW this stage-setting exercise can be quite good.

[deezer]

most retcons kinda suck. I wouldn't really call Rebirth a retcon though, mainly because he had died (true), but became Parallax and then the Spectre, so it's not like they completely erased everything he's done in the past, they just made him a Lantern again.

I mean, no one's letting him forget anything that he did as Parallax, especially the surviving lost lanterns and Batman

[xyzzy]

most retcons kinda suck. I wouldn't really call Rebirth a retcon though, mainly because he had died (true), but became Parallax and then the Spectre, so it's not like they completely erased everything he's done in the past, they just made him a Lantern again.

I mean, no one's letting him forget anything that he did as Parallax, especially the surviving lost lanterns and Batman

Rebirth was definitely a retcon.

Prior to rebirth, Hal Jordan went crazy and killed a bunch of people because he cracked under stress.

After rebirth, Hal Jordan went crazy and killed a bunch of people because he was possessed by an evil spirit.

The events are the same, but additional facts have been inserted to change the context. That's the very definition of a retcon. It's like if you say, "That wasn't Doctor Doom in that issue, it was a Doombot." That doesn't change that the events happened. It just changes the context. Which is what a retcon is.

[conorkilpatrick]

most retcons kinda suck. I wouldn't really call Rebirth a retcon though, mainly because he had died (true), but became Parallax and then the Spectre, so it's not like they completely erased everything he's done in the past, they just made him a Lantern again.

I mean, no one's letting him forget anything that he did as Parallax, especially the surviving lost lanterns and Batman

It was definitely a retcon. It said that it wasn't actually Hal that snapped and went crazy and turned evil - he was possessed and not in control of his actions. "What you thought you knew to be true wasn't actually true" is the definition of a retcon.

[dave-accampo]

Rebirth was definitely a retcon.

Prior to rebirth, Hal Jordan went crazy and killed a bunch of people because he cracked under stress.

After rebirth, Hal Jordan went crazy and killed a bunch of people because he was possessed by an evil spirit.

The events are the same, but additional facts have been inserted to change the context. That's the very definition of a retcon. It's like if you say, "That wasn't Doctor Doom in that issue, it was a Doombot." That doesn't change that the events happened. It just changes the context. Which is what a retcon is.

Damn, I was typing this exact same thing! You beat me to it!

Yes, I think you've nailed it.

[xyzzy]

I wrote this (http://revision3.com/forum/showpost.php?p=215866&postcount=51) about retcons in a prior thread. I think it's a fairly accurate description of what is and is not a retcon. You may or may not agree.

[gungadin]

It was definitely a retcon. It said that it wasn't actually Hal that snapped and went crazy and turned evil - he was possessed and not in control of his actions. "What you thought you knew to be true wasn't actually true" is the definition of a retcon.

That's an almost perfect definition. But I'd like to tack on one extra little bit: "After an extended period of time" because you COULD say that the one scene in Astonishing 22 and then showing it in Astonishing 23 was a retcon... But it's a stray from the original intent that shanges it and makes it a retcon...

[esophagus]

Let's see if we've got this:

A REBOOT is "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" and "Superman: Man of Steel". A RETCON is "Green Lantern: Rebirth" and "The Illuminati" miniseries. Right?

Also, writers and artists do retcons. Editors do reboots. How about that?Close.

Brand New Day is both. They've retroactively changed everything you've read. Peter took off his mask? Sure did, but that was in the privacy of his own home. you're crazy to think it involved anything else. Peter has no secret identity? Lies.

[conorkilpatrick]

Close.

Brand New Day is both. They've retroactively changed everything you've read. Peter took off his mask? Sure did, but that was in the privacy of his own home. you're crazy to think it involved anything else. Peter has no secret identity? Lies.

That's actually not true. Peter did still reveal himself publically, Mephisto just made everyone forget who he was.

Like The Sentry and when The Spectre made everyone forget Wally West was The Flash.

[xyzzy]

That's an almost perfect definition. But I'd like to tack on one extra little bit: "After an extended period of time" because you COULD say that the one scene in Astonishing 22 and then showing it in Astonishing 23 was a retcon... But it's a stray from the original intent that shanges it and makes it a retcon...


Time isn't the essential factor there, it's the intent of the author. What happens in Astonishing is a mislead, not a retcon. There's nothing retroactive about it. It was always written with the later information reveal in mind.

[dave-accampo]

Steven Grant (http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=10) briefly mentions retcons in his column today:

Meanwhile, Marvel has made the risky move of breaking up Spider-Man's marriage the really hard way. I can understand why they'd want to; if there was ever a character who should never have been subjected to domestic bliss, it's Spider-Man. Spider-Man and bliss just shouldn't ever be on speaking terms, except momentarily. (Sorry, but his whole shtick is the sad sack determined to overcome all adversity. He's the Job of superheroes.) Plenty has been written elsewhere about the, um, "wisdom" of using Mephisto to do it. All I can say is it's the wrong way for this reason: you want to make a change like that, you just make it, say "okay, this is how it is now," and then never refer to it again. There's no way to do a retcon story like that that isn't innately stupid, and that's not a criticism of those involved, it's just the nature of such beasts. (Personally, I think it would have been a much better story for Tony Stark to be the devil Spider-Man cuts a deal with, letting Mary Jane and Aunt May go off into anonymous witness protection while Spidey pays for it by serving a "master" whose policies he disagrees with and trusting that Tony Stark will remain innately noble and never use the women as hostages if Spider-Man goes off reservation again. But I guess that wouldn't have solved that pesky secret identity problem.)

[gungadin]

Time isn't the essential factor there, it's the intent of the author. What happens in Astonishing is a mislead, not a retcon.

Even more clarification. Disco.

[sullivan85]

Regardless of what we think, retcons (especially from the big Two) are not going anywhere. They help keep their licensed properties accessible which is where the real money is made.

[esophagus]

Regardless of what we think, retcons (especially from the big Two) are not going anywhere. They help keep their licensed properties accessible which is where the real money is made.Regardless of money, it keeps the stories fresh. They shouldn't go anywhere. It's just depressing when they're handled poorly.

[dave-accampo]

Regardless of money, it keeps the stories fresh. They shouldn't go anywhere. It's just depressing when they're handled poorly.

What I tend to do is...skip 'em.

Yeah. I still sometimes get sucked in, but...I never had any intention of getting One More Day. However, if reviews of Brand New Day are good, then I might jump in on that.

This goes to the point that I don't need to assemble everything into a chronological timeline. A lot of that probably has to do with reading DC through Crisis, Zero Hour, Infinite Crisis, etc. Once you accept it that it just happens, it's easier to enjoy the stories.

However, I'll often skip the story that enacts the retcon: Superboy punch, Mephisto Deal, Hal Possession, etc.

Also: in terms of keeping properties fresh: What do you guys think is better: retcons or All-star/Ultimate-type treatments?

See, I think I favor stuff like Ultimate Spider-man because it simply avoids the retcon story. It just says, OK, this is Spider-man now. You can read this series for a fresh take on Spidey. Boom. Over and done.

And you know, I'm OK with that. As long as it's well written, of course.

[esophagus]

Also: in terms of keeping properties fresh: What do you guys think is better: retcons or All-star/Ultimate-type treatments?

See, I think I favor stuff like Ultimate Spider-man because it simply avoids the retcon story. It just says, OK, this is Spider-man now. You can read this series for a fresh take on Spidey. Boom. Over and done.

And you know, I'm OK with that. As long as it's well written, of course.There would currently be at least 70 ongoing Superman titles. It just doesn't work.

[racemccloud]

There would currently be at least 70 ongoing Superman titles. It just doesn't work.

My God. Who here would read 70 Superman monthlies? Show of hands... okay, Conor... who else?

[dave-accampo]

There would currently be at least 70 ongoing Superman titles. It just doesn't work.

Well, that might be taking me too literally.

I wouldn't keep them all going. Some would have to fade out.

Basically, I'm just suggesting eliminating the "event" that has the sole purpose of rebooting something.

But I guess the majority of fans need the event to wrap their brain around it.

[xyzzy]

There would currently be at least 70 ongoing Superman titles. It just doesn't work.

Let's not overexaggerate. They'd have to split off a new title every year to have that many. USM has been around for about 7 years. Let's say 3 more years before it's own continuity becomes too burdensome. So, a new splinter title every 10 years. That woudl be 7 Superman titles. As opposed the the current... 4 or 5, depending on how you count. Not saying that it's ideal, but the numbers aren't that extreme. And that's assuming that none of the splinter titles died out, which they probably would.

[gungadin]

Well that's one of the reasons I think the three a month Spider-man is a good idea. If they keep it at three a month and in one title there should be minimum (and I mean minimum) continuity issues within the title... By just having one, it really limits their need to clean house all the time...

And they can tell more stories. If you think about it, three a month Amazing is a really great move for Marvel...

[esophagus]

Let's not overexaggerate. They'd have to split off a new title every year to have that many. USM has been around for about 7 years. Let's say 3 more years before it's own continuity becomes too burdensome. So, a new splinter title every 10 years. That woudl be 7 Superman titles. As opposed the the current... 4 or 5, depending on how you count. Not saying that it's ideal, but the numbers aren't that extreme. And that's assuming that none of the splinter titles died out, which they probably would.
They would die out, and that's the problem. I guess ongoing made it sound different than what I meant. They would start an ongoing Superman series, and it wouldn't materialize. If each time you had a new direction for a character you started a new series, it would be ridiculous. Things limited to a miniseries like Superman: Red Son would become its own ongoing title and just run out of steam. Not every idea is as good as USM, or meant to last the same way.

Edit: And I didn't even mention continuity. Lets say there are 7 Superman titles. Now each of those titles is it's own "all-star" universe, and each character has a fairly similar line-up of books. Tying these books together would be next to impossible, and lead to far too many DCU's and whatnot.

[xyzzy]

They would die out, and that's the problem. I guess ongoing made it sound different than what I meant. They would start an ongoing Superman series, and it wouldn't materialize. If each time you had a new direction for a character you started a new series, it would be ridiculous. Things limited to a miniseries like Superman: Red Son would become its own ongoing title and just run out of steam. Not every idea is as good as USM, or meant to last the same way.

Edit: And I didn't even mention continuity. Lets say there are 7 Superman titles. Now each of those titles is it's own "all-star" universe, and each character has a fairly similar line-up of books. Tying these books together would be next to impossible, and lead to far too many DCU's and whatnot.

I guess I don't see what the big deal is if there are a lot of off-shoots that never go anywhere. You can think of Red Son, Secret Identity all as splinter continuities that only lasted for 6 issues.

As far as how the books relate to each other, that would be a mess. I think that's why they did the Crisis back in the day. On the other hand, I think that of the books on the shelves today, Superman is in three different settings.