• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Let's talk about retcons both good and bad.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CKidAD7.jpg


The Borg Queen is the first thing that came to mind. Terrible retcon that completely altered what the Borg were all about.

Now, good retcons? There've been a couple. The true nature of Parallax and Hal Jordan in GL Rebirth was a good one. Bucky as an elite black ops commando during WWII was another one. Annnnnd... Identity Crisis, which explained that the reason the villains were so goofy and ineffective back in the Silver Age was because of implicitly condoned mind tampering.
 
I don't know too much, but it seems like the bone claws being a part of him, and thus moved by muscles etc that he has, makes sense.

It really doesn't make sense, especially considering the way his adamantium claws tended to be drawn. The bone claws wouldn't even fit in there.

And here's exactly what was retconned.

http://postimage.org/app.php
The length they give makes no sense, though. lol (and is clearly much longer than what is shown on the front, unless he's a giant, which he is the opposite of)
 

wolverine's origin story wasn't a retcon, and wasn't bad
*edit ohh saw TAJ's post, yeah those silicon things were dumb though. dumb like the banana suit.

I wish I could retcon out the gameplay of both, to have ceased to exist with the far superior Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid.

wait, you'd get rid of the Prime series? why?

Bad retcons: The first Highlander movie had an interesting concept, although it wasn't fully explored. Then the sequels and TV series decided to destroy everything interesting about that concept and destroy any potential it had -- finally ending with the 2007 direct-to-TV movie "Highlander: The Source", one of the worst movies ever made.

while The Source is indeed terrible, most Highlander movies past 1 were, and the TV show - barring the last season, prolly the first too - was fantastic

There is no such thing as a good recon.

oh yes there are; some comic retrcons - like updating corny golden age shit to work better - are great
hell, using my prior highlander example: the full version of part 2 said the immortals were aliens. you're gonna tell me the Director's Cut (ironically) retconning that bit out wasn't for the better?


it's been years, but One More Day still stings. youd've been hard pressed selling that deus ex bullshit in the 90's, and it totally killed the momentum the book had. shit was so bad, Slott & crew were doing interesting things a year later and most people were still pissed.
 
wolverine's origin story wasn't a retcon, and wasn't bad
*edit ohh saw TAJ's post, yeah those silicon things were dumb though. dumb like the banana suit.

They didn't even need to mention that part. What were the seals for? To prevent an infection? (heh) I mean what the fuck.
 
They didn't even need to mention that part. What were the seals for? To prevent an infection? (heh) I mean what the fuck.

seriously
they drew them there forever though - you kinda got the feeling that after they revealed them as part of his arms, they played the rest by ear...reading cleremont say he once wanted to write a story where logan truly was a mutated wolverine (...) only plays into that

the first xmen movie was what officially retconned him having them come out over his hands though, yeah? cause i wanna say they started drawing them from between his knuckles sometime after that
 
sthe first xmen movie was what officially retconned him having them come out over his hands though, yeah? cause i wanna say they started drawing them from between his knuckles sometime after that

Yes.
 
CKidAD7.jpg


The Borg Queen is the first thing that came to mind. Terrible retcon that completely altered what the Borg were all about.

Oh I agree, the Borg Queen falls under the "insect colony" trope of Queen bee/ mindless worker drone structure. I really liked the idea that the Borg really were one unifying race with no sub classes or social divides that wanted to assimilate everything into one unifying order.
 
The Days of Future Past movie was a great retcon of X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men 3. Elements of those movies can still happen, but now they don't totally have to suck.
 
yes there is.

Anything which brings
Tony
(24) back, is a good thing
No there isn't.

Even if the original was stupid as hell, changing stuff for what ever reason sucks.

And btw. someone surviving something, or stuff like Vader being Luke's father, snake a clone of bb aren't retcons.

Maybe it came surprising, but wasn't impossible.
 
That's not a retcon. They never said he wasn't before, so it's just a new story element. They didn't erase any story for it to work. Or did they?

Not to get into 'what is a retcon' too heavily, the original poster linked the TV Tropes page on retroactive continuity which establishes a retcon, for the purpose of this thread, as "Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on" under which criteria this is indeed a retcon. In addition, as noted on the Wikipedia article on retconning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon#Addition) some types of retcons occur through the addition of material that while not necessarily contradictory, are clearly not something that was intended.

In the case of Solid Snake being a clone, one would think that if he was that there would be some mention of this prior to Metal Gear Solid. Finally, even if there is disagreement on this, as noted on the Metal Gear Wiki (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Retcon) "Big Boss had informed Snake that he was his father. Snake later learns that he and Liquid Snake are actually clones of Big Boss, created in the Les Enfants Terribles project" which is a contradiction.

Whether or not you agree that it's possible for retcons to also be an additive process, there is a clear reason why many would accept that this is indeed a possibility, so it seems contrary to the thread's intent to start a semantic argument over what is actually a retcon.
 
Trickster from Supernatural

normal_hotg_01_0000751.jpg


He used to be just almost omnipotent being, but then they retconned him as angel Gabriel. And it made perfect sense, fit like a glove with the whole mythos and strenghtened it. Best retcon I've ever seen.
 
Not to get into 'what is a retcon' too heavily, the original poster linked the TV Tropes page on retroactive continuity which establishes a retcon, for the purpose of this thread, as "Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. The ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions. In its most basic form, this is any plot point that was not intended from the beginning. The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on" under which criteria this is indeed a retcon. In addition, as noted on the Wikipedia article on retconning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon#Addition) some types of retcons occur through the addition of material that while not necessarily contradictory, are clearly not something that was intended.

In the case of Solid Snake being a clone, one would think that if he was that there would be some mention of this prior to Metal Gear Solid. Finally, even if there is disagreement on this, as noted on the Metal Gear Wiki (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Retcon) "Big Boss had informed Snake that he was his father. Snake later learns that he and Liquid Snake are actually clones of Big Boss, created in the Les Enfants Terribles project" which is a contradiction.

Whether or not you agree that it's possible for retcons to also be an additive process, there is a clear reason why many would accept that this is indeed a possibility, so it seems contrary to the thread's intent to start a semantic argument over what is actually a retcon.
That makes a hell of a lot of things retcons though, and barely leaves any distinction between something intended but not told about (if the writer had it in their head all along but didn't give anything away) and an addition retcon. I'm not a fan. But if it's accepted as part of retconning, then fair enough.

If I wasn't wrong, then it would have been relevant to point out what was and wasn't a retcon, as it would have helped stop the thread being full of things that weren't retcons.

_______

In Futurama, didn't they retcon Fry's dog's fate? They showed that sad scene of him lonely, waiting outside the pizza shop for years until he got old and died. Then in one of the 4 part episodes (I don't remember too much about it) it showed the dog being killed as a result of Fry's home exploding.
 
J.R.R Tolkien was guilty of this to an extent; in particular with his character 'Gollum'. A retroactive change to not only to his personality, but events too. But the professor quite ingeniously dealt with this, so most readers who aren't privy to such information hardly notice the difference.
 
I forget her name but Lori's character from prison break was a terrible retcon. Probably the worst one I've seen on a TV show

They basically
un-decapitated
her so they could bring her back and made up some bs excuse
 
Best and worst retcon:

screen_shot_2012-08-22_at_9.00.50_am.png
 
Good retcon: The first Stargate movie had an interesting concept, although it wasn't fully explored. Stargate SG-1 took everything good about the concept, ditched all the things that didn't work and created a rich, longlasting franchise out of it.

Definitely agree. I love the first movie, but no way you could have taken that concept and turned it into the series it became without some good tweaks. (Luckily they were all fairly elegantly done.)

For bad: Halo: Reach. Retconned the franchise's most beloved novel for no pressing reason. To add insult to injury: they hire the novel's author to help try and retcon his own stuff.
 
Worst Retcon Ever:
Chrono Cross, and being retconned into Chrono Trigger DS

None of that ever happened.

You know, CT is pretty much my favorite game of all time and I never really liked Cross, but the DS additions that tied the two together never really bothered me. At least it didn't take anything away from my enjoyment of it.
 
I thought a pretty good retcon was from Marvel's Secret War, which explained the reason why so many B-list supervillains could afford such high tech equipment was because they were being secretly bankrolled by the Latverian Prime Minister in an attempt to wreck havoc on American soil by proxy.
 
Edmond Dantès;121579444 said:
J.R.R Tolkien was guilty of this to an extent; in particular with his character 'Gollum'. A retroactive change to not only to his personality, but events too. But the professor quite ingeniously dealt with this, so most readers who aren't privy to such information hardly notice the difference.
What happened?
 
Good retcon: The first Stargate movie had an interesting concept, although it wasn't fully explored. Stargate SG-1 took everything good about the concept, ditched all the things that didn't work and created a rich, longlasting franchise out of it.

Bad retcons: The first Highlander movie had an interesting concept, although it wasn't fully explored. Then the sequels and TV series decided to destroy everything interesting about that concept and destroy any potential it had -- finally ending with the 2007 direct-to-TV movie "Highlander: The Source", one of the worst movies ever made.

Man, this is a fantastic example.
 
What happened?
Essentially, in The Hobbit (first edition) Gollum was passive, eager and willing to give Bilbo his Ring in consideration for helping Bilbo to escape from the goblin tunnels.

In the second edition (which would become the standard edition read by everyone today), the character was substantially different, the Gollum that most people recognize; conniving, obsessive and willing to kill for his precious Ring, utterly distraught after realizing Bilbo's deception.

Not only that, but in the Lord of the Rings, Tolkien also made it clear that Bilbo's story was actually untrue to an extent, and that the events of the 'Riddles in the Dark' chapter were not to be taken as the absolute truth. Thus, when now reading The Hobbit once must take that into consideration.

Another facet to the intrigue is that The Hobbit was originally of a different world, unrelated to The Lord of the Rings, but having written the Lord of the Rings, this was changed. This is an opinion held by some quarters, but having personally examined the draft manuscripts of The Hobbit in detail, it is clear to me that The Hobbit was always intended to be a part of the world of the Lord of the Rings.
 
I think the G1 retcon makes a ton of sense. Once the Autobots found a way back to Cybertron it made no sense for them to have such a large force on Earth, and it was especially nonsensical for Prime to stay.
 
The worst retcon of all time was in season 7 of 24. There was just no need to go into such detail over how Tony survived.
 
Metroid Other M retconned out some of the funniest parts of the Prime trilogy with its idea that the Space Pirates are mindless animals.
I don't remember Other M making Space Pirates into mindless animals.

I also like Wolverine's retcon, for starters I think it's much cooler that the claws are already part of him, it wasn't one of those retcons that make no sense considering his past was always a mistery and it makes a lot more sense, especially because simply putting some blades in him wouldn't give him the ability to make them pop. I honestly don't see what's the problem, I think lots of fans are just purists.
 
Crazy how the worst and best retcons both come from Star Wars.
The best, I think, is that Vader wasn't intended to be Luke's father and Lucas[?] only came up with that angle for Ep. V.

Not even sure that's true and obviously it's debatable whether it's a retcon in the first place.
 
Crazy how the worst and best retcons both come from Star Wars.
The best, I think, is that Vader wasn't intended to be Luke's father and Lucas[?] only came up with that angle for Ep. V.

Not even sure that's true and obviously it's debatable whether it's a retcon in the first place.

Yeah I wouldn't class that as a retcon. Vader being Luke's father was by every sense of the definition a plot twist. It's not a retcon at all.
 
What is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demi-Gods_and_Semi-Devils

An wuxia novel by one of the great pioneers of the genre.

Him and the different editions of the books.
Most of Cha's works were initially published in instalments in Hong Kong newspapers, most often in Ming Pao. The Return of the Condor Heroes was his first novel serialised in Ming Pao, launched on 20 May 1959. Between 1970 and 1980, Cha revised all of his work. The result is called the "New Edition" (新版), also known as 修訂版, in contrast with the "Old Edition" (舊版), which refers to the original, serialised versions. Some characters and events were written out completely, most notably mystical elements and 'unnecessary' characters, such as the "Blood Red Bird" (小红马) and "Qin Nanqin" (秦南琴), the mother of Yang Guo in the first edition.

In Taiwan, the situation is more complicated, as Cha's books were initially banned. As a result, there were multiple editions published underground, some of which were revised beyond recognition. Only in 1979 was Cha's complete collection published by Taiwan's Yuenching Publishing House (遠景出版社).

In mainland China, the Wulin (武林) magazine in Guangzhou became the first to officially publish Cha's works, starting from 1980. Cha's complete collection in Simplified Chinese was published by Beijing's SDX Joint Publishing (三联书店) in 1994. Meanwhile Minheshe Singapore-Malaysia (明河社星马分公司) published Cha's collection, in Simplified Chinese for Southeast Asian readers in 1995.

From 1999 to 2006, Cha revised his novels for the second (and probably last) time. Each of his works is carefully revised, re-edited and re-issued in the order in which he wrote them. This revision was completed in spring 2006, with the publication of the last, The Deer and the Cauldron. The newly revised edition, known variably as the (世紀新修版), (新修版) or (新新版), is noted for annotations in which Cha answers previous criticisms directed at the historical accuracy of his works. In this revision, certain characters' personae were changed, such as Wang Yuyan,[13] and many martial art skills and places have their names changed.[14] This edition faced a number of criticisms from Cha's fans, of whom some are more willing to stick to the older storyline and names. The older 1970–80 修訂版 is no longer issued by Cha's Minheshe (明河社).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Yong#Editions

Some of the changes are quite huge. I can't remember what he changed for the book posted by that poster but for one he changed the ending from the main character having 7 wives to all 7 leaving him at the end. Some of the changes seems quite troll-ish while many corrections were made to reflect history more accurate. His novels are all based around real historical events involving fictional people who know gongfu.

Apparently this particular novel received the most number of changes, from retcons that affect the Jinyong universe (his novels are set in the same continuity, albeit across the history of china, with some books more connected than others) to love relationships that didn't exist in the last two editions and changing the relationship between the main character and his lover.

I think only a few of his novels have been translated to English and this particular one wasn't.
 
I don't remember Other M making Space Pirates into mindless animals.
"Without a malicious force to lead them down that path, wouldn't they continue to merely follow their instincts, ultimately becoming no more than a swarm of feral creatures?"

Basically, without Ridley the pirates are somehow mindless animals.
 
Yeah I wouldn't class that as a retcon. Vader being Luke's father was by every sense of the definition a plot twist. It's not a retcon at all.

I would consider it a such an "out there" asspull that I would call it a retcon, it's just that this is now common.

It's still one of the worst possible twists to put in place of actual drama or character development. It's THE example of Bad Writing (tm, George Lucas).

Consider the parody lines on it in Spaceballs, or the fact that it was so bad, Brooks considered it necessary to parody it in the first place.
Mark Hamill pretty much also hammed the shit out of that "nooooooo" as a reply to it.

I have no idea why people think this is a great retcon. "my dad is a superpowered space nazi", the movie. Come ooooooon
 
wait, you'd get rid of the Prime series? why?

Because -

terrisus hates first-person games.

Plus, it's such a shame we haven't had a Metroid game anywhere near as good as Super Metroid - or even as good as the original Metroid - on consoles since then.
Sure, there's Metroid Fusion for GBA, but would love something on the level of Super Metroid on consoles again.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demi-Gods_and_Semi-Devils

An wuxia novel by one of the great pioneers of the genre.

Him and the different editions of the books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Yong#Editions

Some of the changes are quite huge. I can't remember what he changed for the book posted by that poster but for one he changed the ending from the main character having 7 wives to all 7 leaving him at the end. Some of the changes seems quite troll-ish while many corrections were made to reflect history more accurate. His novels are all based around real historical events involving fictional people who know gongfu.

Apparently this particular novel received the most number of changes, from retcons that affect the Jinyong universe (his novels are set in the same continuity, albeit across the history of china, with some books more connected than others) to love relationships that didn't exist in the last two editions and changing the relationship between the main character and his lover.

I think only a few of his novels have been translated to English and this particular one wasn't.

Ah man I loved The Deer and the Cauldron trilogy. The English translation cost me a quite a bit to pick up back in the day despite working in book retail. I recall the main character in this series having 7 wives...is this a recurring theme in his novels?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom