TFARCHIVE FORUMS

I was thinking the other day, I tend to ignore some retcons just because I don't like them or they make no sense or they eradicate a story I really enjoyed. Often times these retcons aren't even major or intentional; they're sometimes the cause of a writer doing poor research.

Examples of retcons I don't like/make no sense/ruin a story:

Batman/Scarecrow Year 1: This wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that the writer chose to include Robin for no apparant reason. Because of this, Scarecrow would have to be retconned out of Long Haloween and Dark Victory (which take place before Robin came to be) and possibly his installment of Haunted Knight, as well. Add to this the fact that Year One really didn't change anything seen in his last Year One story (included in Four of a Kind) other than an abusive Grandmother and some convuluted buried treasure story.

Green Lantern Rebirth: The retcon involving Sinestro's first encounter with Hal Jordan retcons out a portion of Emerald Dawn 2. In ED2 Hal first met Sinestro and was taken away for further training while he was in jail for drunk driving. In Rebirth, Hal first met Sinestro and was taken away for training while flying a jet, which would imply that Hal never went to jail and takes away agoo chunk of ED2. Usually Johns is a stickler for continuity, so I don't know why he'd do that. I liked Emerald Dawn 2.

Superman/Shazam First Thunder: The story so far isn't bad, it's just that it takes place shortly after Superman's debut (and before other heroes like the Flash, Green Lantern and even Batman make their marks). In Legends we find out that the events of Power of Shazam happened shortly after the Crisis and that Captain Marvel is new to the job. This wouldn't bug me so much except that having Captain Marvel appear 5 years earlier screws up his age. It's been over 10 years since he first got his Shazam powers and he's STILL a teenager.

Batman Broken City: This one really didn't bug me all that much, except that it retcons out part of Haunted Knight. In Haunted Knight, Batman remembers what happened the moments before he went to the theater with his parents. His Mom read his Alice in Wonderland, which is why the Mad Hatter pisses him off so much. Broken City retconned that out; right before they left for the theater Bruce had an arguement with his parents and told them he hated them, making that the last thing he ever actually said to his parents before they died. No biggy, it just didn't seem necesarry.


So my point is, just because something's newer does that make it the "right" thing that happened, even if that newer retcon totaly clashes with several existing stories and, in itself, isn't very good anyway?

Originally posted by DrSpengler
I was thinking the other day, I tend to ignore some retcons just because I don't like them or they make no sense or they eradicate a story I really enjoyed. Often times these retcons aren't even major or intentional; they're sometimes the cause of a writer doing poor research.

[c'mon, quotes don't need to be that big]

So my point is, just because something's newer does that make it the "right" thing that happened, even if that newer retcon totaly clashes with several existing stories and, in itself, isn't very good anyway?

I treat it like a lot retcons I consider either side stories or a story told from another character's POV. Until other creators expand on the story and make it part of the offical cannon, I tend to go the first story is right (not always mind you) but that's just me though...

yeah spengs I tend to take most "minor" retcons. I just came up with this classification just then but I guess I define it as stories that may contradict but arent specifically desined to do so. This comes up in DC more than anywhere.

for instance at the end of year one bats gets a message about joker and the comic ends. Brubaker recently put out a joker story that continues this but it was also done in the middle of "long halloween" same with two faces origin...this was shown many times over the years but never in relation to a larger plot like "long halloween". year one and 'halloween dont quite match up but they kinda do.

I guess you could look at it in the sameway as ancient mythology or folklore there are variants told of these legends and like playing a game of broken telephone everyone has there own version or interpretations (in this case referring to writers) that doesnt necessarily mean the other work has been "over written". the specific details of these stories are changing and fluid to serve the speaker. in short it all "happened" whichever one you like better will just remain in your head.

i cant really comment on wheter rebirth applies (i didnt read it) but the batman examples apply. now something like superman: birthright or COIE are definetely the more intentional retcon that cause headaches or releive them.

Originally posted by DrSpengler
just because something's newer does that make it the "right" thing that happened

Nah, just official.

I don't care what's published by who, what's fanfic, etc. It's only relevant when arguing within a specific continuity—a whole different geek spectator sport. Whether the story/writing is actually any good is far more important. I can handle multiple conflicting continuities.

yeah denyer pretty much sums it up. I just dont think in some cases stories were "meant" to overwrite continuity. in the case of azzarillo do es anyone really think his story was meant to revitialize essential bat-tinuity that needed to be tweaked? nah it just serves his story to tell it in the way he did.

I think it all comes down to your definition of "Official".

Both Four of a Kind and Batman/Scarecrow were officially greenlit and released by publichers. However, the Four of a Kind entry flows with the rest of the early Batman stories while Batman/Scarecrow contrdicts continuity. Should "Official and recent" override "Official and logical"?


I do dig your explaination, though, Hawkeye. It all comes down to the writers perception of the character. And on several occasions, within DC continuity, it has been revealed to certain characters that in real-reality, they're nothing but comic book characters (back during the Golden Age everybody knew it, Mxyzptlk knows it, and the Psycho-Pirate knew it but forgot). So it's not a bad idea and can even be applied to continuity if you look at it that way.

It's all official stuff. For purpose of current writing, unless a break with continuity is declared, newer generally takes precedence. It's received approval of the publishing house.

Logical? Any long-running character with retcons isn't, simple as that. You also have inconsistencies in style and characterisation between writers, and if a usually solo character appears in a team book, etc. Archetypes sacrifice logic, character and continuity, and that limits my interest.

while we are on this topin i got this old batman annual (1989 i beleive) that has this really cool two face origin. it delves more into the significnce of the coin and attaches itself to a murder case that could not possibly behappeneing at the same time as "long halloween" which I personally consider the quinessential two-face. but i like to take elements of the two and enjoy it as an overall tapestry to the "legend of twoface" so to speak.

Two-Face's origin in the 1992 Annual was the official origin for a while up until Long Halloween retconned it out.

It wasn't included in the Four of a Kind TPB sice it got retconned. However, Two-Face appears briefly at Arkham Asylum in Scarecrow's origin story, which clashes with Long Halloween. But Scarecrow's origin was written before Long Halloween.

I dunno, I find cameos and other little things like that more accepticle to be retconned out than entire stories.

I tend to pick the old stuff where Batman's concerned... the trouble is, most villains in Batman only have one effective story, and that's their origin (or a spin-off that involves recounting it)... basically, I'd find the setting far more palatable if most of the villains rarely (if ever) came back. And all that hoo-ha with Arkham Asylum letting inmates escape every five minutes...

Teams that kill or convert their opponents. Once you try something like The Authority, mustering enthusiasm for yet another take on origin stories... well, I don't find it happens.

I think retconning and writers pissing all over each other's storylines is something that's just never going to leave mainstream comics. It's frustrating, but then so is the fact that in the end, not a goddamn thing will ever really change in a mainstream book. The most successful comics aren't art, they're entertaining cash cows.

See I don't consider conflicting stories like that retcons really. I just think it was some editor not doing his job and telling the writer, "You can't do that, we've already told that story." or "You have to make that fit in with this other story that's already been done."

Sometimes the editors miss something or are too lazy or just don't care. I don't think it's any conscious decision by the publisher to change continuity as more them going, "Oops! Oh well..." As long as the book sells, why should they care?

I think it's a big ego thing. "I'm going to make it different and I have the clout to do it so everybody tip toes around it." these days. Everybody wants to redo the origin.

year 2 was a create story with joe chill that didn't need the zero hour retcon...

i like how they used the basic idea of year two in batman begins.

and if they ever retcon joe kerr's origin from the killing joke i will be angry even tho it's obvious that the writer left himself a way out of that particular origin.