Talk:Retroactive continuity

message: After reading the TV retcons, I'm suprised to not see Married with Children mentioned.  They wrote off half a season as merely a bad dream of Al's after Katey Sagal had a miscarriage. -- Crimson30 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married with Children 

message: Certain populations may find the reference to the Bible as literature and in proximity works more universally accepted as fictional offensive. Likewise, the implication that the Bible is subject to revision or inconsistent may also likely offend many readers. Consider that this example may be superfluous among the large body of examples, and the article would lose little in its absence.
--Mwhidden 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not that it's offensive.  It's that it presumes Christianity to be a fiction, thus violating NPOV.  Further, it also presumes that the intended audience for the New Testament didn't suppose that the serpent might be Satan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Einstein's laws of physics aren't retcons of Newton's.  Learning further information doesn't necessarily mean it's a retcon.  But even if Christianity is a lie, The New Testament's authors' supposition that the serpent in the garden was Satan still isn't retcon, since it's not inconsistent with previous expectations.  Incidentally, what reprisal are you referring to?  Are you suggesting Wikipedia is bowing to fears of Christian terrorism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Reference May Be Offensive 

message: This article really needs to be deleted. The majority of the article is personal opinions. If the individuals editing this article just want to share how they and their friends use the term, WIkipedia is not the right place for this.  This term is one of the most overused, misused terms in all of Wikipedia, particularly the comic book listings.  If the use of the term has really changed this much since it was originally coined, then it needs valid references. 24.165.188.30 06:22, 17 August 2007
:I've moved this comment from the top of the page to a new section, I hope that 24.165.188.30 doesn't mind. Personally, I found this article quite interesting and I vote to keep the page. If the term is as well-spread as seems to be the case, it must be possible to find more references however! Bjost 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well most of it is utter bullshit, but hey that's wikipedia for you.  Retcon is when you want to make a change that would contradict something which has gone before so you have to invent a (plausible) explanation of what people thought wrong. --IceHunter (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete article? 

message: In the novel 1984, this was the job of the hero Winston Smith (as far as I recall his name). He retrospectively changed written history by altering the text newspapers etc. I think it desrves a mention in the main artivcle. Anyone agree? 80.0.125.65 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There ought to be an independent page for listed retcons.  There are simply too many, and too debatable to actually be helpful in the article. Perhaps the List page should be created. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was the job of Winston Smith In Orwell's 1984 

message: There is a distinct difference between a retcon and a reboot.  Sufficient that they should remain distinct articles.  I oppose the merger, and will likely try to unflag them within the week. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I just stumbled on this article from outside, it is useful, and distinct from Reboot (fiction). - cohesion 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We could probably roll them both into Continuity (fiction). -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree, with all the discussion about retcon in the Doctor Who TV series I think retcon warrants an article on its own. Derek (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Reboot(fiction)

message: I seem to have very bad luck with moderators accepting my changes, so I'll put this to the talk community to see if it deserved mention in the main article:
Probably the most severe instance of Retcon I can think of was Newhart 's apparent mockery of Dallas ' retcon.  Returning from the final commercial break of the final episode, Bob Newhart's character wakes up to find himself in bed with his wife from the long-cancelled, Bob Newhart Show.  The entire series, wherein Bob Newhart played a Vermont inn-keeper, was thus explained away as a dream had by a character of a previous TV series, wherein Bob Newhart played a New York psychiatrist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am rather amazed that the article makes no mention of Dallas at all - It's a pretty major example still. Lawrie (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Newhart Makes Fun of Dallas

message: I don't know the details sufficiently to add them to the article but in the Men in Black films the characters use their "flashy device" to retcon people who have seen aliens. Derek (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just erasing people's memories, not any actually changing history. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Men in Black

message: "He also retconned Gray Fox's death in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake and brought him back in Metal Gear Solid ."
Also sentences should be edited to like that it wouldn't mean those two examples are the only ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.94.229 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not retcon 

message: I understand that Lex Luthor was initially portrayed as a mad scientist, but later retconned to be a business man. Why is there no mention made of either this or the many other retroactive changes in the Superman universe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.237.198 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comics generally draw a distinction between a retcon and a reboot. In the latter the continuity is usually reset (sometimes with an in-story explanation) and writers freely change and drop whatever they like in the new stories without performing great story leaps to incorporate the old continuity. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Retroactive continuity in the DC Universe (to wich Superman belongs) is mentioned in this article several times. See the bits on The Crisis On Infinite Earths --RoyimDB (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superman 

message: Since adding continuity does not alter what is previously established, but only fills in spots that were not filled in and build on the established continuity without contradicting, it can be argued that adding continuity is not a true form of retcon. (See the definition in the first paragraph.) In my opinion only alteration and subtraction is true retroactive continuity. --RoyimDB (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section on Origins of the term. Especially the bit about All-Star Squadron. The first recorded use of the term in reference to a comic book was in the additive sense. Subsequent usage has been mostly in the alteration or subtraction senses, but the additive sense has never completely disappeared. --Khajidha (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: (Disclaimer: I am the Damian Cugley who coined the word.) For what it's worth, I would argue that the "adding" case is the only case that can be described as retroactive continuity, because it is continuity that is added retroactively. That is the sense Roy Thomas used. The other cases are often described as retcons but are not retroactive continuity, which I would claim shows that while the term originated by abbreviating the phrase "retroactive continuity", it is used today to mean something different. This is OK—words evolve and change their meanings to suit new situations. But it suggests that renaming this article from Retcon to Retroactive Continuity was a mistake. DamianCugley (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retcon types: adding is not true retcon 

message: A number of the examples given weren't cases of the term or concept of retconning itself being used or otherwise discussed, but were instead examples of retconswhich is something different. A couple were dubious even by that standard: just because something works on a metafictional level doesn't mean it's a retcon. I've left in the examples where retconning is actually described as such in the examples, or where discussions of retcons seem fairly significant. Ergative rlt (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming examples from Popular Culture section 

message: has claimed at my talkpage that retcon isn't common in manga. A simple google search seems to contradict that, but I wanted to open a discussion here for comments. LHMask me a question 12:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retcon in manga 

message: I remember that he changed the part in the hobbit where Bilbo steals the ring from gollum to make gollum freak out more about it, instead of just shrugging it off.
Probably worth mentioning. 92.20.129.239 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by J. R. R. Tolkien to Hobbit 

message: How about a section retconning the history of the two NBA teams? Originally the Pelicans was a continuation of the Charlotte Hornets who relocated to New Orleans in 2002 until the Pelicans agreed to relinquish the pre 2002 history back to the Charlotte Bobcats in 2015 which was originally an expansion team who started in 2004. This now retconned the Pelicans as an expansion team who started in 2002 and the Bobcats as the original Hornets who suspended operations between 2002-04. Night Tracks (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlotte Hornets/ New Orleans Pelicans 

message: Hi. Perhaps I'm not that astute, but the example of a 'subtle' retcon given in the introduction seems unclear, and furthermore how this is an example of a plot point being expunged is unclear to me (leaving aside the fact that the word expunge is an unusual vocabulary choice here.) What is the plot point? Why should she get hungry?
Presumably the sentence is intended to describe a class of more subtle retcons then, say, those that bring characters back from the dead. But the division of what retcons are subtle is confusing, especially given the bare bones example.
I don't edit Wikis enough to propose a revision but something is wrong here.
 Taifunbrowser (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroine leaving without food example sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Retroactive continuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622033230/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=400b0b01-ec31-42e1-8421-1cb78f133c7c&k=44564 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=400b0b01-ec31-42e1-8421-1cb78f133c7c&k=44564
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe that a very common form of minor retcon is revising for recent historical events, and therefore it should be emphasized in the article. For example, Ender's Game was changed to refer to the Russian Federation instead of the Soviet Union. This change did not alter the plot, but does prevent reader confusion over a non-existent 21st century Soviet Union. Examples like this can be found in many, many retcons. The current article alludes to these types of changes in the Alteration section, but it really needs to be emphasized, if not given its own section. What are your thoughts? --Ebakunin (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on revisions for historical events 

message: I found an instance in a 1988 issue of British game magazine Page 6 of "a concept known in the comics world as Retrospective Continuity" in case that is useful in any way. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrospective continuity 

message: I think the section about "Comic Book Death" needs some clarification. Maybe it's just me. I ran into this idea elsewhere and it seems to be an assumption here... but the average "comic book death" doesn't seem to me to be a proper retcon, in that it doesn't really recontextualize past stories. It just reveals that one fact that appeared to be permanently true (a character dying) was only temporarily true (a character was somehow removed from events and then returned - by a coma, an abduction, a faked death, whatever). The death of the character was merely an apparent death. The character's return only alters the future, yet-to-be-written continuity, not the pre-existent continuity, so it's not actually *retroactive*, other than at the point of (apparent) death. A retcon, to my way of understanding, is when new evidence makes all of a character's past stories appear in a different light - In Sandman, Wesley Dodds *actually* started fighting crime because Dream was imprisoned... in Swamp Thing, Alec Holland *actually* survived his chemical/fire/drowning accident because The Green needed a new avatar. The "*actually*" in those examples is the key element the way I understand a retcon. Is this not a distinction other people make? Is this distinction merely a difference in degree? I'm genuinely curious. -grant (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a "Comic Book Death" really a retcon? 

message: Does Tolkien Black’s name
being retconned from Token Black bear noteworthy significance enough to be mentioned in the article? -- WA1TF0R䷟ 16:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park: Token→Tolkien Black 

message: A VERY high percentage of this page is given to discussion of The Rise of Skywalker, with quite a lot of repetition, and with only a tenuous link to the overall topic, retcons. 82.41.9.78 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incredibly long Star Wars section