Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Doc_coletti t1_j9t2u4p wrote

Not television, though the effects were felt on television, but I still haven’t forgiven Joe Quesada for breaking up that marriage,

3

meowskywalker t1_j9u060f wrote

I don’t think in-universe characters changing the past counts as a retcon. Was Flashpoint a retcon? When Marty wakes up to discover his parents are happy and successful (and I guess kept Lyon Estates a nice neighborhood somehow) is that a retcon?

0

Doc_coletti t1_j9u1tmb wrote

Marty waking up to different parents is part of the narrative of the original story, so yea a retcon, but a retcon that was planned from the start, that was the point.

Flashpoint is totally a retcon, on a massive scale, just with in universe explanation.

Joe Quesada didn’t want Mj and Pete married, so he wrote an in universe explanation to explain why they weren’t, and were never married.

The original question from Op did not specify whether the retcons needed to be diegetic or non diegetic (which I believe is what you are talking about, without knowing the term).

2

meowskywalker t1_j9u3kki wrote

But it’s not retroactive. It’s just active. They actively changed the continuity of the story. They didn’t say “Pete and MJ were never married and that’s always been true” they said “the devil ate their marriage and now it’s never happened.”

0

thealthor t1_j9vqdht wrote

"Retcon is a shortened form of retroactive continuity, and refers to a literary device in which the form or content of a previously established narrative is changed."

That is the literary device they used. But they still changed a previously establish narrative, it is a retcon.

Not to mention that One New Day retconned Brand New Day on how it all worked because they bungled it up the first time. The writers wanted more freedom away from him being married plain and simple and they shoehorned that load we got to get there.

2

Doc_coletti t1_j9u5a9n wrote

I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree here.

1