Talk:Retcon
|
|
There are two general types of retconning, as far as I'm aware. One doesn't introduce inconsistencies; it goes along the lines of "we've been writing about this character for ten years without ever deciding on how he got his superpowers, but let's decide now and retroactively add it to his continuity." The other does, in a sense; it goes along the lines of "you know how we previously established that this character was born in 1930? Well, now he was born in 1960, and always was born in 1960. He was never born in 1930." Comic book universes have gone through massive rewrites of this second type, try looking up "Hawkman" and "Crisis on Infinite Earths" for examples.
Basically, retconning can be used for good or for evil; it can introduce inconsistencies or it can resolve them. -BD
Have I been mistaken in thinking that the term retcon primarily refers to the tendency of comic book (etc) writers to retroactively create new explanations for known facts, introducing new elements to backstory? For example, there might be a well established explanation of how a hero acquired his superpowers, but a later writer might decide that the old explanation was just a misunderstanding by the hero and that the incident was really a failed scientific experiment by Mr. Bad all along... This is similar to, but not quite the same as the first meaning elaborated in the article.
That's one of the meanings of retcon, yes. I don't know if that's its primary meaning, however. I tried to include it in the article, but if it isn't clear enough or prominent enough feel free to elabourate it. --BD
What about the episode of Deep Space Nine where they go back to the space station from the Tribbles episode of the original Star Trek series- when Worf is asked to explain the physical difference between post TNG/Movie Klingons and original (Kirk era) Klingons, simply avoids the issue by stating "it's a long story" or words to that effect IIRC quercus robur 01:06 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Up to that point I really figured they'd retcon smooth-headed klingons ... Worf yells somehting like "it is a shameful part of our past we never talk about". My thory is that the Suliban genetic business in Enterprise will be responsible. So it's the 1st type of "non destructuve" retconning -- Tarquin 09:32 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)
The example cited from Buffy the Vampire Slayer isn't a genuine example of a retcon. It is, I think, deliberately playing with the idea of the retcon (and specifically the character-has-suddenly-always-had-an-extra-relative type of retcon), but it's not a retcon itself. If it was a retcon, Dawn would have appeared without explanation and the viewer would be required to accept that she had always been there; whereas a within-the-story explanation is provided (there was a big spell that changed reality), and the situation presented to the viewer isn't that she has always been there, only that the characters think she has. --Paul A 02:59 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
- Bear in mind also that it isn't just a matter of altered memories of Dawn. There is also a complete set of physical evidence, including hospital records, baby teeth, report cards, etc. As far as the world is concerned, Dawn Sommers is completely real. Some of the (non-canon) comics stories set in the past include her as well.
- I do bear the physical evidence in mind; but I don't see anything in it to alter my position. The Dawn thing is not an example of a retroactive continuity change because it is not retroactive. At the beginning of episode 5-1, Buffy did not have a sister, memories of a sister, nor evidence of a sister; at the end of the episode, she had a sister, memories of a sister, and evidence of a sister. This only means that she magically acquired these things at some point during the episode - it does not alter the fact that, at the beginning of the episode (and in all the episodes before) she did not have them.
- I realise that it seems more complicated because the sister, the memories, and the physical evidence are all pretending to be older than they actually are; but Buffy's new sister is fundamentally no more a retcon than Giles's new car in the following episode.
- --Paul A 02:21 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps I've been overly bold here, but I credited the term "retroactive continuity" in the article to comic book author Roy Thomas. I do believe that he coined it in the early 80s, and I referenced the earliest example I could find. If anyone can come up with an earlier documented example, that could be cool. A more specific date for when and where the abbreviation "retcon" came into use would also be good (my guess is circa 1989 on rec.arts.comics).
If people strongly disagree with crediting the term to Thomas, I still think the reference should be preserved in the article (as the "earliest known use", or something) as I think it has historical value.
--mhr 05:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[moved from user talk pages]
"Retroactive continuity" is not a portmanteau term. Portmanteau terms are words like "smog" and "chortle", where two words have been smooshed together. —Paul A 02:41, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Paul, I beg to differ. Retroactive is one word, and Continuity another. Seeing as Retroactive Continuity is sort a mouthful to get around in conversation written(electronic or hard copy) or on chat f2f or on the Internet; thusly to smoosh the first syllable of the two words together makes sense, and a portmanteau. Incidentally I am a man, although one would not think that from the way I write in terms of my grammar and lexicon...
- Michael Reiter
- jmr
I would argue that "retcon", being composed of the first part of each word, is a simple abbreviation - portmanteau words, as I understand it, require something unusual like combining the first part of a word with the last part of another word (e.g. smoke + fog = smog).
But this is beside the point anyway, because you didn't say retcon was a portmanteau term — you said retroactive continuity was a portmanteau term, which is evidently false.
—Paul A 01:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- OOPS!!! Sorry. I guess you're right. I didn't read you right. I WAS trying to state and consolidate my position that retcon is a portmanteau of Retroactive Continuity. Once again, sorry for the mix up.
- Michael Reiter
- jmr
[end moved]
- The list of portmanteaus includes for instance Interpol, which is also formed from the first part of each word. The term "contraction" is not correct according to the article it links to, which states that a contraction always has an apostrophe.
Fair enough. But "retroactive continuity" still isn't a portmanteau word. --Paul A 07:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
To-may--to or to-mah-to???
It is all in how you look at it.
Tolkien did this too, with the Hobbit
Mark Richards 00:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Serpent in the Garden of Eden
I'm not sure the recently-added example from the Bible is really a retcon, since the reinterpretation is not established in any later work in the canon. It seems to me it's more of an example of fanon. --Paul A 02:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I've deleted it from here. I express no opinion about whether it deserves mention on fanon. JamesMLane 04:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not a Retcon
- The revelation that Darth Vader was actually Luke Skywalker's father despite Obi-Wan Kenobi's earlier statement in Episode IV that Vader had killed Luke's father.
I removed this example, as I don't think it's really a retcon. Obi-Wan is simply bending the truth (speaking figuratively) in his earlier statements. --L33tminion 17:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- That an in-story justification exists is beside the point - the question is, did George Lucas know that Obi-Wan was speaking figuratively when he made ANH, or was it something he only decided afterward? If the latter, then it is a retcon: ESB retroactively changes Obi-Wan's truthfulness and Vader's relationship to Luke.
- That said, I don't intend to argue the point. The article has enough examples already, and we don't need to lumber it with one that is (a) arguable and (b) a massive spoiler anyway. --Paul A 03:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As far as I know (heard/read interviews with George), he had written one big story, couldn't produce it all, and wrote three separate screenplays - taking a lot of things out, apparently (not surprising), but keeping the main storyline intact. He had always intended Vader to be Luke's father. 68.9.205.10 02:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Lucas has said a lot of things over the years about how massively foresightedly he planned out the whole storyline in advance, but some of those things have been found to be contradicted by documentary evidence -- his actual early drafts show things going in directions that Lucas always denied they ever went, et cetera. On the Vader issue, we may simply never know whether Lucas did intend it all along, as he now claims, or whether he came up with it after it turned out Star Wars was going to be a big enough hit to merit sequels. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Just so you'll all know -- and I actually put this in the entry -- "Vader" is Dutch for "Father." Food for thought, 'n' stuff. Yar Kramer
- Yes, which is evidence for, but not proof of, the "Lucas intended it all along" theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SORAS and Growing Pains
I have questions about these two recently-added entries, and whether they really fit the bill of "retcon".
SORAS (Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome): It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that no retroactive alteration of continuity is even attempted to explain why the child given birth to four weeks ago is now fourteen, it just is. It seems to me it would be retconning if they tried to address the discrepancy by saying "my goodness, that experimental rapid-maturation formula the doctor put you on just after you were born certainly was effective!" that would be retconning, but instead, they just don't address the discrepancy at all.
- This seems more like loose or sloppy continuity, than a retcon. It's a subjective distinction, but retconning generally involves an assertion of "this is what really happened" rather than simply ignoring consistency. Tverbeek 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Growing Pains: I've read two different accounts of what actually happened in regards to this. One is that an entire season was retroactively declared, the next season, to have been Mike Seaver's dream. The other is that the completed season ended on a cliffhanger suggesting that Mike Seaver was going to marry his girlfriend; when Kirk Cameron had the actress playing his girlfriend fired, nothing that had previously happened was retconned out of existence; the girlfriend character instead abandoned Mike at the altar without explanation in the first episode of the new season.
- According to TV Tome (http://www.tvtome.com/GrowingPains/season5.html), the latter retcon-free account is closer to what happened. It even cites an episode later in the season in which the girlfriend bumps into Mike and a new girlfriend. Evidently the left-at-the-altar episode contains a dream sequence, which (combined with the Dallas retcon) is probably where the "it was a dream" legend came from. Tverbeek 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Any clarifications/commments? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On a similar note: What about the "Rudy Wells" entry, where one actor left the part and was replaced by a different actor? It seems to me that it's like SORAS; it's less an attempt to rewrite continuity and more to ignore continuity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is the title of the article "retcon on willys!" when there is no mention of an extended title in the article itself? Shouldn't the article just be called "retcon"?
Because a vandal named Wheel on Willys wanted to move it. The vandal has been blocked, and you may move it back. Georgia guy 15:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Same character, different actor -- retcon?
The character remains the same, but the actor has changed -- is this a retcon or not? I am inclined to say not, because as far as continuity is concerned, there isn't an actor. Darren is Darren is just Darren; there is nothing in continuity about "he is played by Dick Sargent" or "he is played by Dick York" because in continuity, he is himself and not played by anyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the less I think this counts. If they actively inserted the new actor into old continuity (e.g. reshooting a "flashback" scene with the new actor), that might be a retcon, but just ignoring the change is more a matter of "loose continuity" than "retroactive continuity". Tverbeek 12:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The only case of that situation I can think of is "Third Rock From The Sun", where a season-ending cliffhanger had Phil Hartman in a key role, and he died before the new season started filming. I believe they reshot his scenes with a new actor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about Alien Resurrection?
If I understood correctly the concept of retcon, the "rebirth" of Ripley in Alien 4 would be quite a fine example of filmmaking audacity.
- "The return of a previously deceased character is a common type of retcon in many genres of film..." --Paul A 04:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but most stories just use the gimmick "well, he wasn't dead after all" (e.g. Ninja Turtles 2), not cloning characters who died by (spoiler) 200 years before.
- Then I don't think you understand what a retcon is. "We thought he was dead (and the movie clearly intended him/her to be dead) but now it turns out, he/she didn't actually die at that time at all" -- that's a retcon. "We thought he/she was dead, and he/she was, but now we want the character to be alive, so we're saying that the old character got cloned," is not a retcon. It may still be an example of audacity, but the producers aren't changing what happened in the past, just saying "okay, here's what happened after that."
- Now, if movie 3 shows a character dying, and movie 4 starts off with "Hey, you know when X died in movie 3? That wasn't really X, that was their clone!" then that is a retcon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, now I understand the difference. Still, from a writer's point of view it's the same trick, they implied something before but decided to change it so a sequel could me made.
Dragonlance
- The Dragonlance series is notorious for retcons. Many fans simply ignored some of the Preludes and Meetings books, among others. In the book The Second Generation, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman introduced Steel Brightblade, son of Sturm and Kitiara. As one fan put it 'why didn't Sturm's moustaches fall off when he saw Tanis in Dragons of Autumn Twilight?' indicating this was somewhat out of character.
Can anyone cast this in a form where non-Dragonlance fans can understand what is being talked about? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If i could explain further i would, but i happen to be one of the afor menioned fans who ignore the preludes nad meetings book, but more so with the Seconed gen books. I suppose i can explai, here inthe discussion at least, the example presented above. Strum Bightblade died in the original triology with out ever having a single romantic relation ship presented to the readers. As well as Kitiara,(i may be wrong, its been a long time) being dead at the end of the first gen books, there is no place within the story that the two would have met long enough to couple and cause Kitiara to be pregnent with Strums child. And YET his child comes into existence anyway. Dragonlance doesnt retcon, so much as they forget who they've killed off----Iorek Brynson