What's the different between a retcon and simply additional information?
- Thread starter Snarky Oracle!
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Daniel Avery
Admin
Retcon is a contraction of "retroactive continuity". This is a situation where something asserted in current story (whether a line, a situation, or even an entire story or character) directly contradicts what was established in lines, situations, or entire stories that were written before. For example, a female character contracts cancer and is forced to have a hysterectomy, but ten years later the character has a baby--well, that's a retcon. If we see a character with several onscreen siblings who are later written out, only to have the character start talking about being an only child and how that affected his childhood, then that's a retcon.
"Getting additional information" is when they simply fill in the blanks without contradicting themselves. If that character had never been seen with siblings and had never alluded to having any, then the 'only child' story is just adding information. But just as easily, they can create siblings for a character even if he/she never mentioned them prior to that. The key difference is writing something that does not directly contradict what has already been established as part of the character's history. Frequent head-writer changes and inattention to the show's character histories leads to these retcons being identified. The fans of the shows care a LOT more about continuity than the writers do, and I think we'd be seeing a lot more "retconning" if the fans were not watching them like a hawk.
"Getting additional information" is when they simply fill in the blanks without contradicting themselves. If that character had never been seen with siblings and had never alluded to having any, then the 'only child' story is just adding information. But just as easily, they can create siblings for a character even if he/she never mentioned them prior to that. The key difference is writing something that does not directly contradict what has already been established as part of the character's history. Frequent head-writer changes and inattention to the show's character histories leads to these retcons being identified. The fans of the shows care a LOT more about continuity than the writers do, and I think we'd be seeing a lot more "retconning" if the fans were not watching them like a hawk.
Snarky Oracle!
Telly Talk Supreme
But what about something that contradicts established details, but the contradiction is acknowledged and explained very effectively?
Where does that rank?
I did not know that!
Where does that rank?
I did not know that!
Daniel Avery
Admin
On a case-by-case basis, obviously (every situation is different), but if a writer can "finesse" the details sufficiently, then it might eventually be overlooked. It always helps if the change creates a better story, or if the change 'corrects' a detail that the fans never liked in the first place. Some later writer may "undo" a plotline using questionable means just because they know the fans will be pleased (especially rewriting paternity findings of a "Who's the Daddy?" plot). The glut of "back from the dead" plots on soaps showcases how writers will tie the show's plots in pretzels and defy all logic in order to bring back a fan-favorite actor despite an onscreen death. Sometimes the mean does not justify the end; the plotline written to explain where this character has been hiding is so farfetched that viewers actually tune out over the ridiculous nature of the story. But if the writer can get those viewers to "buy in," they can write incredibly bad explanations that are easily glossed over and laughed at in hindsight.
DallasFanForever
Telly Talk Supreme
That’s when we retcon the contradiction itself, and if that doesn’t work we contradict the original retcon.
tommie
Telly Talk Hero
To be fair, a retcon is a retcon even if it's a well-written one that makes some sort of sense.
The reason they happen, especially on soaps, are of course because one headwriter might have some intentions with a character, but then a new headwriter comes in with different intentions and story projections. Plus, they probably keep way less track of these things than the hardcore fans do either way. Soaps of course go on for decades and usually switch headwriters every few years and have way more stories/episodes to keep track of, which is why they're more retcon prone than prime time shows (but even today retcons happen frequently in prime time).
Daniel Avery
Admin
And this is often why head writers prefer to write for his or her creations, the characters they know best since they created them and their back-story. The veteran characters the writers inherited when they took the job might 'scare' the writer, since their long, storied histories might look somewhat like a mine field to negotiate. It's not unusual for a newly-hired writer to be criticized for ignoring the veterans and filling the screen with new characters no one really cares about...and this is one reason why.
Snarky Oracle!
Telly Talk Supreme
And new producers often have a show which exists inside their own heads, and once they have a chance to take over a long-running series, they just apply that phantom show in their brains atop the show to which they've just been assigned.
At least, that's how it usually feels.
Taylor Bennett Jr.
Telly Talk Winner
I feel like the whole Jason/Jack/Jamie thing, while not technically a retcon, was unnecessary and messed with the perfect simplicity of the Jock/Digger origin story just enough to be annoying. Maybe if the new characters had been more compelling it wouldn't bug me so much, but for the "replacement hot girl" from Three's Company, who was such a hit that they killed her off twice and barely mentioned her again?
Jack had promise, but they kind of fizzled him out during the Dream Season. He hangs out with Jenna for a few weeks, never even kissing her that we know of (although maybe it wasn't just anti-Dack backstage bias and his style was to skip that step and go straight to the unveiling of the Taj?), and when she understandably turns him away, it being only a few months after the death of her childhood love and fiancee, he acts like he'd been unjustly spurned from the love affair of the century. I don't think he ever regained his momentum after that, even with Grace and Martinique and all that. Did he even do anything in the next season?
The 'who really owns Ewing Oil' storyline was OK, but not on the level of the JR/Bobby contest and I thought the Jock/Digger feud was more interesting when the truth of what had happened was ambiguous. The only outside perspective we'd gotten from anyone else who was actually there was from Sam Culver (something like "I guess you did about as well as you could, Jock, but I could have done it without making an enemy out of him"), and Sam was hardly a 100% trustworthy, unbiased observer.
The "real power is something you TAKE" speech is much more interesting when there's the possibility that it's something of an unintended confession - "you're damn right I took Digger's half - it's MINE!" Otherwise it becomes just perhaps Jim Davis's last full-strength scene and fodder for the crowd on YouTube who seem to think fictional characters like Jock and Don Corleone of the Godfather are real-life sages dispensing the alpha male wisdom of the ages.
If I had to guess, based on what we'd seen prior to Jason and the sanctification of Jock, perhaps Jock was tired of Digger's irresponsibilty and was preparing to buy him out (maybe they had just an understood partnership and nothing on paper?) When a drunk Digger saw that Jock had put only his name on the claim, he flipped out and tried to kill Jock, who had indeed been planning to pay Digger at least for that strike. That was enough to change Jock's mind on the payment, and the two of them being so stubborn, they never talked it out after cooling down (although Ewing 23 must have happened years after the blowup, right?)
By the time we have Donna Reed looking at an old photo like "oh, of course that's Jason!", and we learn Jock had singlehandedly launched the civil rights movement in the US shortly before nearly preventing the Holocaust, some of the magic of the saga had been lost.
Love your analysis of the issue. If I can add some of my take:
Jock did admit once that in his early years, he walked all over people so I can buy that he cheated Digger on the strike. I read biographies on the Robber Barons and how they built their fortunes on the backs of others. I can see Jock doing the same thing before the whitewash years later. Is it possible that it was a misunderstanding on Digger's part, maybe it can't have been all Digger's fault.
I had no problem with the introduction of Jock's family although I would have preferred it done differently. Jamie coming to Southfork uninvited, acting offended at JR's suspiciousness which he was correct, and then her freeloading off on them until JR finally kicks her out.
I would have preferred meeting Jason first and then maybe his kids. I liked Jack in the so called dream season and his relationship with JR and not making him a copy of Bobby.
I would have liked to have seen more of an exploration of Jock and Ellie's families. Yes we met Ellie's brother but only for one episode.
DallasFanForever
Telly Talk Supreme
I’ve always said that this was the way to go about it. Introducing Jason first would’ve given the kids more credibility, instead of just hearing of his passing rather nonchalantly before the offspring start arriving.
I liked Jack’s character at first, but once the Ewings won the court case there wasn’t really any plan for him moving forward.
Jamie, well, I didn’t hate the idea of a wild card cousin that had the potential to cause trouble for the Ewings. Perhaps the problem was the way it was executed, or the fact that they ended up executing her twice, I’m not sure now.