Retcons and Negative Continuity

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I've been wanting to discuss this for the longest time, but time constraints had prevented me from making it. Anyway, onto the main topic. This is perhaps the most annoying trope ever used in any entertainment media. For those of you who don't know its definition but have heard of the word before, a retcon is basically a change in something that was already pre-established in the medium's lore. Of course, retcons also create negative continuity, in which one important piece of lore contradicts another important piece of lore. I've seen this everywhere in long-running series from the Simpsons to Family Guy to South Park, where you have character backstories constantly changing (e.g. Abraham Simpson), characters rejecting a belief system despite having to encounter that system's deity from an early episode (e.g. Brian Griffon) and characters not named Kenny who are suppose to be dead from one episode but later come back in another episode alive and well (e.g. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg). Even old cartoons from the golden age of animation suffer from negative continuity. In one cartoon, you have Mickey interacting with human characters, being one of the only anthros living in a human world, but then in another cartoon, he's interacting with other anthromorphic animals, with no human in sight. And don't get me started on the SpongeBob Squarepants and Fairly Odd Parents continuity. In today's age, where world-building has become more important for good story telling, retcons and negative continuity should've stop being a thing by now to prevent any confusion from newcomers to the series who decide to watch the older episodes to "catch up" with the newer episodes. I feel that the only way to trim out the lore is labeling stories/episodes as "non-canon," but I fear that too will cause fan outrage (see Stars Wars Expanded Universe). What are your overall thoughts on retcons and negative continuity? Do you care or don't care if one episode contradicts an older episode?

 

[Her]

I think only people with a little bit too much time on their hands care about this kind of thing, honestly. Or those with a little bit of obsession in their fanfare. I find it annoying when J.K Rowling goes back and retcons Harry Potter for shits 'n' giggles, but it's hardly taking away from the magic of the series. Retconning and making changes to the understood continuity of a series isn't an inherently bad thing.Unless they're changing major plot points that even the most oblivious person would notice, generally these sorts of things are expected to slip under the radar for the benefit of the majority of people watching it. Writers might intentionally do this to allow themselves new room for further exploration of a story, or a whole new story altogether. Sometimes they just don't remember every detail, it's a very hard job. When this happens, the material generally isn't something that's supposed to have strong overarching continuity. Like, for example, literally every reference point in your post except the the Extended Universe. In general, a poor continuity is kinda the standard for long-running tv shows, particularly comedies. That's how they attempt to stay fresh well over 10, 15 years in production. In comedies, ESPECIALLY animated comedies, writers will settle on a few defining characteristics for each character and then let the world go from there. The continuity is only as important as the joke needs to be. Mr. Burns has had a billion different backstories or contradicting flashbacks to his youth, because the continuity only requires his age to correspond with the time period in order to make the joke. Kenny dying in South Park is the joke, precisely to fuck around with the idea of continuity. As for Spongebob and Fairly Odd Parents... well, given that the show is aimed for kids about a decade or even 15 years younger than you or me, the expectation of consistent continuity is a bit much. The kids sure don't care - all that should happen is Squidward getting mercilessly tortured for simply existing, not keeping up to date with the fact that Spongebob is probably much closer to 40 than 20 given the show's age.

Also, while I think of it, retconning is particularly important in extremely convoluted universes like the DC/Marvel franchises, whose sheer complexity requires a major continuity refresh every 5-10 years or so. It's just the nature of the business. Retconning is fine when done right.

 

[Esper]

I am a big Star Wars fan and I'll admit to reading quite a few expanded universe novels. I'm a big Star Wars nerd. (Ask me who always wins at Star Wars Trivial Pursuit. Actually, please don't.) I've had more than my fair share of discussions about continuity, particularly around the prequel and original trilogies.

I say all that so that when I say I don't really care about retcons I say it as a fan and someone who knows much more than the average fan does. I think anything that gets too big really needs a retcon to trim the fat. The expanded universe is honestly a hot mess with some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some nonsense. It was just too big to handle and I'm rather pleased that the new Star Wars movies aren't holding themselves to keeping continuity with those works.

I will say that I am sick of origin stories. I know Batman's parents died. I don't need to see it hashed out in every Batman adaptation ever made. This is one of those times where I wish they would take the retcon a step further and not just change the circumstances of the origin and completely change it.