Talk:List of retcons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-12. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Simpsons 2 Jason Voorhees 3 The Green Hornet 4 Jabba the Hutt 5 James Bond 6 Planet of the Apes 7 Highlander 8 Star Wars? 9 Mad Max? 10 Die Hard? 11 Trimmed several 12 Rocky V 13 Terminator sequels 14 These are NOT retcons! 15 Clean-up 16 TMNT 17 Ignored Sequels: Alien The Director's Cut? 18 Star Trek retcons 19 no sources 20 Clean-up following AfD 21 Removed sentence 22 Secret History of Star Wars

[edit] Simpsons

for addition: recent episode rewrites Homer/Marge's early romance as occuring in the 90's, whereas it has been previously shown as occuring in the seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.88.14 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Voorhees

Here's a rather infamous example of retconning that I didn't find anywhere on here. In nearly every film in the Friday the 13th Series, the hockey masked killer Jason Voorhees is "re-invented" by the particular writer or director of nearly each new film. In Part 1, he was not the killer and was written as a dead, retarded child of Pamela Voorhees and only exists as a hallucination. In part 2, he is alive and well, and is the killer, setting out to avenge his mother's death. Somewhere along the line, Jason is depicted as undead. From this point, most of the movies have "killed him off once and for all" at the end of the film, only to re-emerge complete and well with no reason given. Most notably are the following examples: In "The Final Chapter" his skull was impaled by Tommy Jarvis. In "Jason Takes Manhattan" he is disintegrated with acid into nothingness. In the next film "Jason Goes To Hell", he is alive and well. Also at the end of that film, he was sent completely to hell. And in the film "Freddy vs Jason", once again, he is merely buried in the ground and comes to life once again. I dare say there is no fictional character retconned as many times as Jason Voorhees has been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.242.41.219 (talk) 09:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[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)

This is all original research anyway; you can't just say "I saw it" when all research points the other way. You are wrong. The clip, without CGI, has been shown numerous times, but never in a theater.

[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)

According to the wikipedia entry on 'retcon', time travel *and* DC's "Crisis" are both debatable uses of the word retcon. The reason being, "retcon" is essentially a meta word describing what the writers are doing to the characters, whereas time travel and "Crisis" are basically writers writing the characters retconning themselves. ThatGuamGuy 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)sean

[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

Star Wars has several Ret-cons....most notably the introduction of the Midichlorians, which prior to Phantom Menace were never mentioned. Lucas claims it was because he didn't want to complicate the idea of the force... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.105.61 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Rocky V

Does Rocky V count as an ignored sequel? Rocky Balboa seems to disregard the events of Rocky V. --(trogga) 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) --- yeah, the Sports Guy (Bill Simmons) said the same thing in his review --- jb

[edit] Terminator sequels

Does terminator 3 contain retcons where it adds links between characters and disregards the coda in terminator 2? cyclosarin 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These are NOT retcons!

By the descriptions themselves (I have no familiarity with the majority of the discussed subject matter), the majority of these listings are not retcons, but are merely inconsistencies in long-running fiction.

• An example of inconsistency is giving (or implying) two histories for the same event or character.
• A Retcon is when an inconsistency is Retroactively (after the inconsistency occurs, in our time, not the fictional timeline) made to actually be part of the same Continuity (sequence of events).
• A Better definition might be "Any addendum to a continuity which combines two continuities previously established as not (or not previously intended as) being the same continuity"

These are two SEPERATE CONCEPTS. You can't* have a Retcon without first having an inconsistency, but you don't always have a retcon every time you have an inconsistency either. Most of the mentions on this list are ignoring the "continuity" part.

*Okay, actually you can, in two ways:

• Combining two continuities which, while not intended or assumed to be the same, do not actually contradict eachother (often by taking place in different places or time periods) (eg: Even thought two super heros act like they're the only game in town, they can still have a Race)
• By making a change to the continuity which (while not actually contradicting anything which explicitely happens), contradicts the previous intended interpretation (eg: We saw that character die, but she comes back and explains that Dr Infecto actually used a mind-ray to make them think that's what happened)

Retcons often introduct inconsistencies on their own, but the important point is that those inconsistencies (even those!) do not by themselves constitute the whole of the concept of what a "Retcon" is.

To be a retcon, you need:

• A continuity
• An addendum which would be an inconsistency, unless:
• A further addendum which explains away the inconsistency (possibly causing its own, seperate, inconsistency)

Please discuss below. If you are the maintainer of this article I'd love your input. I won't start mass-deleting until there's some discussion. --vstarre 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A retcon is defined in the Retcon article as "the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts". All the examples seem to fit that definition to me. However, I don't think new historical information should count as a retcon since that would mean that every prequel and flashback in existence would be a retcon. 218.215.143.69 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

This page could use some clean-up; as it is, it's difficult to find specific examples, because the lists are completely random. I think they should be either chronological or alphabetical; the order should have some sort of obvious logic to it. I also think it would be a good idea if it was limited to hard-retcons (re-writing previously established continuity) and not include any soft-retcons (filling in previous gaps in the story), because the latter will quickly cause the list to grow to an unmanageable size. ThatGuamGuy 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)sean

[edit] TMNT

The article says that TMNT "disregards the events of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III as if it never happened, but still contains nods towards it." This sentence seems self-contradictory to me. If it contains nods towards it then it doesn't disregard it. Can someone elaborate?218.215.137.20 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ignored Sequels: Alien The Director's Cut?

There was a deleted scene in Alien (the cocoon scene) where Ripley finds Brett and Dallas slowly mutating into alien eggs and incinerates them with her flamethrower. In Aliens it is explained that eggs are laid by an Alien Queen. This is not a retcon because the cocoon scene is a deleted scene. But in Alien The Director's Cut the cocoon scene has been reinserted. It's possible that the alien species has too different ways of producing eggs but in the second movie, Ripley says she doesn't know where eggs come from. The Brett-cocoon looked different from a normal egg so is it possible that Ripley didn't realize what she saw? If not then Aliens is an ignored sequel from the point of view of Alien The Director's Cut. Opinions? Should I put it in or leave it out?218.215.143.69 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek retcons

I know lots of retcons in Star Trek that aren't on the list. Should I add all of them? 218.215.143.69 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no sources

If you don't have a source for your info as per WP:RS and WP:V, don't put it on the list. Without sources, this whole thing is just a random collection of fannish observations, and if the reader is unfamiliar with these comic books and TV shows, they have to take your word for it that you know what you're talking about. I won't make that leap of faith, sorry :) wikipediatrix 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up following AfD

Given that this article has been tagged for lacking sources since May 2007 and as original research since September 2007, I'd say it's time to clean it up. First, I think we should adopt the definition of retcon given at Retcon: deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction. I think a crucial factor here is that the change is deliberate; many discrepencies are the result of loose continuity, rather than intentional changes. I would propose therefore, that:

Every entry should have a citation which supports the assertion that the writers or artists made a deliberate change to the established canon.

I think this kills a few birds with one stone: it limits the page to retcons significant enough to be discussed in reliable sources, it prevents OR and speculation by requiring verifiability, and it ensures every entry has a real-world context. Even in the case of a major change, such as the famous Dallas dream, it would be necessary to provide a citation to demonstrate that it hadn't been intended all along to make the season a dream, and that the change was in fact retroactive as opposed to a planned plot twist. An entry like the current one on Jean Grey/Phoenix is a good model, aside from it lacking a citation in support of its claims.--Trystan (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I've removed this part from the lead:

To avoid speculation, they don't attempt to justify alteration-type retcons in the context of their respective continuities (a popular activity among some fans known as fanwanking), nor to explain the real-world reasons for them.

The first part of the sentence is editorial discussion more suited to the talk page. The second part is, I think, an undesirable standard. We should be providing reliable sources to support each retcon listed, and these sources may well describe the real-world reasons behind the change. We would want to include this information to provide real-world context. It's also impossible to show that something meets the definition of a retcon -- an intentional change -- without discussing the real-world motivation.--Trystan (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret History of Star Wars

The book The Secret History of Star Wars outlines the development of the series and confirms that the revelation of Darth Vader as Luke's father, and Leia as his sister were in fact retcons, not revelations that Lucas had in mind all along. (e.g. The Darth=Anakin idea wasn't even in early drafts of Empire, let alone being intended from the beginning of the first film.) We don't need (or want) a laundry list of every retcon in Star Wars, but the two big ones from the original trilogy ought to be included, especially now that they are documented. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)