Retcon vs. Plot Twist

Retcons mostly happen in an ongoing series like a TV show or a comic book. Films, instead, have plot twists. They are basically the same thing: you go through the story with one understanding of the facts, and then your mind is blown as you realize those facts weren't true. The difference is the motive and context.

Movies like Fight Club, Planet of the Apes, Saw, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Usual Suspects, Primal Fear, and pretty much every M. Night Shyamalan movie have plot twists. You go through the movie presented with one set of facts, and then you are surprised later by one new piece of information that changes your interpretation of the entire movie. The plot twist is part of the experience of the movie. Revealing it to you before you see the movie ruins the experience.

A retcon, on the other hand, is a "plot twist" that undoes events in an already completed work, thereby creating a plot twist where none was necessary. Here are some examples of retcons:

The most famous retcon is the TV show Dallas undoing years of continuity by revealing that it was "all a dream," which then gave any TV show license to do the exact same thing and claim they were just parodying and/or paying tribute to Dallas. Roseanne, Married with Children, Newhart, and others followed suit. Other examples of TV Show retcons: Fraiser claiming a prior mention of his dad's death was a "euphemism," as was the "magic box" in Lost. Topanga in Boy Meets World had a hippie dad at the beginning of the series who, several seasons later, magically transformed into a conservative traditionalist played by Michael McKean. George Costanza cheated in the contest. Eric Cartman's mother is actually his father...no, wait, she's his mother, and you'll never guess who his father is!

In the Marvel Universe, Wolverine's metal claws were originally part of his gloves. Then they were skeletal implants lodged inside his forearms. Then they were bones. Also, Jean Grey. She died. Then she came back as Phoenix, and then she died again. Then it turned out Jean Grey and Phoenix were different people, and Jean was still alive. Oh, and Spider-Man. They cloned him back in the 70s and quickly killed off the clone to avoid complications. Then they found out the clone wasn't a clone: the geneticist injected his lab assistant with a virus to look like Peter Parker. No, actually, there was a clone, and he didn't die, and guess what? That guy whose adventures you've been following for the past 20 years? THAT was the clone, and the real Spider-Man has been hiding somewhere for all this time. No, actually, scratch that: everything was exactly how you thought it was. Let's pretend this whole thing this never happened...

This is the problem with retcons. Most of the time, they are cop-outs. The writers make a bold choice, the fans overreact, and the writers come up with a lazy way to undo their bold choice. It punishes the fans who trust the writers and rewards the fans who complain. Yes, the writers have a responsibility to give consumers what they want, but as consumers, we should wait to see the writer's original vision before we judge.

With movies, we don't question the artistic vision in this same way. We might fight it before it's been made, but when it's done, we're done fighting. With the finished product, we either like it or don't like it. We don't feel like we have the power to complain to the artist to get what we want. We move on. I imagine there were many pre-1983 Star Wars fans who wanted Luke & Leia to end up together, but when it was revealed they were brother and sister, those fans went, "Ew," and understood her decision to settle down with Han Solo. There was no "Official Petition to Lucasfilms: Please Retcon the Revelation that Luke & Leia are Brother and Sister So They End Up Together While Sleazy Douchebag Han Solo Dies Alone."

Plot twists are usually an artist's attempt to deceive fans (albeit in an entertaining way). Retcons, instead, are usually an artist's attempt to appease fans...except that fans inevitably hate the execution of the retcon more than they hate the thing that was being retconned.

Example: "Wow, Spider-Man is getting really boring to write now that his identity has been revealed to the word and he's married to a supermodel. Let's undo those things...BY HAVING THE DEVIL ERASE HIS MARRIAGE FROM HISTORY AND HAVING A SORCERER RELEASE A MAGICAL FORCE THAT ERASES ANY MEMORY THAT PETER IS OR EVER WAS SPIDER-MAN."

If that idiotic idea was painful enough to read when summed up in a paragraph, imagine what it was like for the fans who followed the series for years. My guess is fans of Dallas felt similarly. When comparing the "It was all a dream" retcon to the "We changed the past and erased everyone's memory" retcon, the former wins in the laziness department, the latter in the stupidity department., and they both tie in the "disappointment to highly invested fans" department.

...but let's be honest: the idea that we can add information to the past that completely changes it in a way that's more convenient? That adds to the escapist fantasy of entertainment. I waited all through high school for that radioactive spider to bite me and give me superpowers (didn't happen). I waited even longer to meet the hot supermodel and marry her (did happen). But I'm still holding out for that one moment that erases literally everything bad about my past, present, and future while leaving the good things intact.

So, adoring fans, when are you going to write angry letters to the editorial board of my life until they cave in?

Where is my Dr. Strange?