Talk:List of retcons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Green Hornet
I removed the entry for the Green Hornet, as it is an urban legend. According to Snopes, Kato was described as "a Filipino of Japanese descent" two years before Pearl Harbour. Following Pearl Harbour there was no retcon - they simply stopped talking about the Japanese descent.--Kelmendi 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jabba the Hutt
I misspoke when I stated my reasons for deleting the Jabba example. Of course the footage filmed originally *was* used in the Special Edition release, with a CGI ROTJ Jabba superimposed over the actor originally playing him. But the footage was not used in any release until then. Fred8615 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, but, while I don't know what release, I know for a fact that the scene did appear in theatres... or I would not have seen it and never noticed the retcon in the first place... and I did not follow the comics, or other derivative products, so I can be sure I'm not mixing up the movies with anything else. --Svartalf 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry, but I did some research, and all sources agree the Jabba scene wasn't added to ANH until the Special Edition, with the CGI Jabba. The original footage was shot with a large human actor dressed in dark fur clothing. Lucas claims he intended to put an alien over the actor, but he couldn't then because of both budget and technology. So the scene was cut for this reason, as well as time. And no other version was made until the SE release. So a Jabba as you described doesn't exist. The only possibility is that someone else got hold of the footage, edited themselves and spliced it in, then somehow got a theater to show it. Or your mind is playing tricks on you. Fred8615 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since Lucas is responsible for the retcon in the first place, and always has adopted the public attitude that any changes effected after original release were only to support his original vision, it's only logical that he would deny any retconning. I have seen what I have seen, that may have been 20 or 30 years ago, but I did. (granted, I have not seen the original Jabba since return of the jedi hit theaters, but I did see him 2 or 3 times before then). --82.120.76.191 11:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Jedi mind tricks. --Chris Griswold 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Something that occurred to me last night: The original poster said the Jabba he saw was "lanky." But the actor used in the actual footage shot was a big, burly guy (see the Jabba the Hutt article for a picture of him). While it is true Lucas' description of Jabba changed from ANH to ROTJ, he was always intended to be a large creature. It's why he hired a large actor. And that brings up the problem with the "lanky" Jabba: superimposing a CGI or stop motion construct (the way he was originally going to be displayed in ANH) of the same or larger size is easy to do, because it is covering anything behind it. But putting a smaller construct over the larger not only requires erasing the overlapping part, but recreating the background behind it! That would be expensive and time consuming with modern CGI. It would be even worse, if not impossible, 20 or 30 years ago. And they would not have shot the scene with an actor, especially of that size, if they were going to use a smaller Jabba. They would've used the old talking to empty space routine that movies use for live action/animation blends. Or a smaller actor. The large man they did use makes a "lanky" Jabba all but impossible. Fred8615 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Right, *I* perceived him as tall and thin, while he may actually have been quite burly. I may have been wrong on that count. But his general outline does not match that of Mulholland... he was as tall as Solo, if not taller (ok, platform shoes and a properly angled camera); I think that any error as to bulk would come from his appearing so tall you forgot that he was proportionately wide.--Svartalf 21:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Bond
The passage on James Bond in the article, as it acknowledges, describes how all the Bond movies could not belong to the same continuity. It does not explain how this is an example of changing the continuity retroactively, which, near as I can tell, it is not. I'm in favor of removing the example. Croctotheface 08:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to its removal. Fred8615 18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Planet of the Apes
As I understodd it, the event of the films (in particular, Zira's travel through time) meant that the course of history was changed. This isn't really a retcon, is it ? -- Beardo 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it means the events of the first two films don't take place, what else is it? Fred8615 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is saying that within the continuity of the films, the course of history was changed, to give a different future. Surely that is a very different thing to a retcon, where the changes are made outside the continuity, and the original continuity is held never to have occurred. (OK, it's close to something like DC's crisis where the changes are held to be a consequence of the changing of history). -- Beardo 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I still think it is a retcon. Even if it is done within the series as you point out, it still means the events as shown in the first two films apparently don't take place. And DC's Crisis series is regarded as a retcon; perhaps the mother of all retcons considering the changes it wrought. :-) Fred8615 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is saying that within the continuity of the films, the course of history was changed, to give a different future. Surely that is a very different thing to a retcon, where the changes are made outside the continuity, and the original continuity is held never to have occurred. (OK, it's close to something like DC's crisis where the changes are held to be a consequence of the changing of history). -- Beardo 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Highlander
The Second Film Highlander II: The Quickening totally ignores the first movie - it is not a sequel it is a remake with a similar but different plot (But the same main characters!) the remakes Highlander II: The Renegade Version and Highlander II: Special Edition use a totally different plot again inconsistant with both the first movie and the original version of Highlander II, The third movie Highlander III: The Sorcerer ignores all the versions of the Highlander II and is set in the same universe as the first move , although it is not a sequel being set withing the timeline of the first movie. The fourth movie attempts to reconcile the TV series with the original movie and recons the ending of the first move to fit the fact that Connor MacLeod (the only surviving immortal of the first movie) is killed by Duncan MacLeod (the Hero of the TV Series) before the end of the movie? Jaster 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Highlander II does not totally ignore the first movie. Connor is an old man in II, until he kills the first of the two Immortals sent to kill him; he then reverts to his previous age when he became an Immortal. And the love interest from the first film is mentioned as being dead by the time of this film. And I believe it's at least inferred, if not outright said that Connor uses his abilities from winning the "Prize" to construct the earth shield. Fred8615 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Wars?
"The prequels also contain some overt revisions of history, as in The Phantom Menace where it is revealed that Anakin Skywalker built C-3PO"
How is that an "overt revision of history"? Whether or not you think it was clever or ridiculous, the origins of C-3PO weren't mentioned in the original trilogy (beyond some brief mentions of his previous master and duties). So putting forth an explanation of his origins in Episode I isn't revisionist, there was nothing to revise. Suggest that that be deleted.
65.120.75.6 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tim
[edit] Mad Max?
"In the opening of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, Max is shown standing by two crosses right after the scene showing the attack on his wife and infant son from the first movie, strongly implying both were killed. But in the first film, the doctors clearly state his wife will survive."
Huh? I don't remember that, it seemed pretty obvious that she was killed, and she is referred to as having been killed in every reference (including Wikipedia's Mad Max entry). What is the source for this? And what are the sources for anything in this section? 65.120.75.6 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tim
[edit] Die Hard?
"For the third movie however, Die Hard with a Vengeance, McClane is back in New York and he and his wife are separated. In this movie there are numerous references to the first movie, but nothing is ever mentioned as to the events of the second movie (i.e. Why he and his wife are split again, how he ended up back in New York, and while he was mentioned as a hero for his saving the employees at Nakatomi Tower, nothing was ever mentioned of his saving the doomed flights from the second movie)."
Sigh. Where did this list come from? In the case of Die Hard, how is any of that a "retcon"? The events of the first movie are mentioned because the protagonist in the 3rd movie is the brother of the protagonist in the 1st. Part of the plot is based on the speculation of whether the Jeremy Irons character is seeking revenge. If he had been the brother of the protagonist in the 2nd movie would the writer similarly claim that the 1st movie has been retconned out? There is nothing in Die Hard 3 that contradicts or is incompatible with the events in Die Hard 2. ("Not mentioning it" is not the same thing as "retconned out"). 65.120.75.6 20:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tim
[edit] Trimmed several
Zapped a few alleged examples. Some were simple unresolved inconsistancies between separate works. The whole point of a retcon is that it *resolves* such inconsistancies. So, maybe there's a retcon for some of these - but point *it* out , not the inconsistancy. Some others I've zapped because the "resolution" comes from some explation by the author in an interview. Seems to me to be pretty clear that it's not really a retcon if its not either in a subsequent piece of fiction, or in a re-write of the original. Snori 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very true. It is the explanation, not the inconsistancy, that is the retcon. Goldfritha 17:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
