Posted: 23 April 2005 at 6:05pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Regarding retcons:
A friend and I were discussing Star Wars and I referred to Darth Vader being Luke's father as a retcon. My friend disagreed, as while in the real world, it's safe to say that Lucas did not intend this to be the case when he wrote the original Star Wars, as far as the actual film goes, the information that Vader and Anakin are separate people comes from one source and is not presented objectively.
In other words, an "everything you know is wrong" is not a retcon if it's simply revealing that what someone said was not correct. Superboy is a retcon because Clark having a career as a superhero in Smallville contradicts the objective reality of the stories that showed Superman debuting as an adult in Metropolis.
JB is often accused of retconning things but I think this is an example of people using the term incorrectly. JB has revealed that -- shock! -- a VILLAIN might have lied about something, but that's not a retcon. Nor is revealing that the reason a character behaved a certain way was because of something about which we were unaware (why the Demon spoke in rhyme for a while).
I will argue that a revelation counts as a retcon if it contradicts simple dialogue (rather than objective reality) if there's no logical reason for the person to have lied (or if it's not in character for that person to have lied, which is why the Star Wars/Obi-Wan lie is a contentious one).
The fifth season ANGEL episode, "Why We Fight," is a retcon in that it reveals that Angel sired someone when he had a soul. In "The Trial," Angel is desperate enough to almost consider turning the dying Darla into a vampire to save her life. He says, "We don't know what would happen because I have a soul now." This simply doesn't make sense when he *did* know what would happen (he would still wind up creating a soulless monster, as the guy was in "Why We Fight").
|