What do you think are some of the worst retcons in the series?

[ABED]

But is this actually a retcon?

Raditz saying Goku was supposed to be conquering earth, I saw that as him simply not knowing that Gine and Bardock had sent Goku to earth to save him

Sure. The -con in retcon doesn't stand for contradiction, after all. A retcon is just new information that wasn't initially intended which puts previously established information in a new perspective. What Raditz said about Goku's origin was surely not intended to be wrong from the start, otherwise I think that would've been shown earlier than in Dragon Ball Minus. So it's definitely a retcon, the things we've been shown relating to Bardock in Minus and Super have put old info in a new perspective which wasn't initially intended. And in this case, several people in this thread, me included, don't like that new perspective as much as the initial one.

Oh, I just checked the definition and you're right. I totally had the wrong idea of what retcon meant lol
I thought it did mean something that is basically a contradiction.

Anyway I actually like this new perspective. The thing with Goku failing to do his conquering mission just because he hit his head sound a bit too convenient to me and even kinda dumb.
I think the scene in the Broly movie where his parents send him off to earth gives a little twist and a more powerful meaning to the whole thing and to Goku as a character

You were right before, that definition of a retcon is terrible. It's the textbook definition of a reveal.

[Aim]

Clearly, something happened between Minus and the Destruction of Vegeta that we saw in the Broly movie

Yeah, I also think something happened during that one month. Something had to happen. Because Bardock seemingly knew the exact day and time Freeza would attack Vegeta (and thank Dende he knew, otherwise he wouldn't have rebelled). The bad thing is that I don't think we will ever see/know what truly unfolded during that gap, though...

This is what I mean when I say the Broli movie didn’t have to be cut, why tf was it even cut down.

Now there’s no Saiyan Beyond God. I used to hate that, but it actually just simplifies things, no 7 transformations,

I think the lack of Saiyan beyond God actually complicates things. In a scenario where Goku and Vegeta can't switch to regular Ki anymore, Saiyan beyond God would be a permanent state and whenever they transform into Super Saiyan, it would be Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan.

Or even in the scenario where they can switch between regular and god Ki, Saiyan beyond God still renders the Super Saiyan God transformation useless, which would be the more appropriate scenario instead of what we got.

Also, Saiyan beyond God is not a transformation. It doesn't change one's appearance.

Yeah that’s what I mean, too many transformations. Should just have Saiyan Beyond God and the SS form.
Absorbing the super Saiyan god form and making it into base seems fine to me now. Also having it permanent would have been good if that was what they were originally going for (which I think they were).

This way we would also see more fights in base, though I do wonder if Toriyama retconned this for the sake of Toyotaro, just because of flash backs to having to color Son Goku’s hair

[ZeroIsOurHero]

You were right before, that definition of a retcon is terrible. It's the textbook definition of a reveal.

I know you're a big stickler about "retcons" having to contradict established material to be considered retcons, but it seems like you're the only person with that definition. Every single dictionary I can find says that reveals can still be considered retcons.

Here's what Google says a retcon is:
"A piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency."

Here's what Merriam-Webster says:
"The act, practice, or result of changing an existing fictional narrative by introducing new information in a later work that recontextualizes previously established events, characters, etc."

Here's what dictionary.com says:
"A subsequent revision of an established story in film, TV, video games, or comics."

And here's what Cambridge says:
"A piece of new information given in a movie, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before."

Every single one of those definitions, at least to my eyes, seems to include reveals. Retcons don't have to be contradictions: As long as they revise or recontextualize an established story, it's a retcon. So I'd say that stuff like Goku being Japanese Superman is definitely a retcon.

[ABED]

I know you're a big stickler about "retcons" having to contradict established material to be considered retcons, but it seems like you're the only person with that definition. Every single dictionary I can find says that reveals can still be considered retcons.

I don't care if I'm the only person. Having large numbers agree doesn't make it correct. It's ridiculous to consider them reveals because the whole point of the definition was to make it distinct.

Recontextualizing events is what a reveal does. Changing the numbers of an apartment is a small retcon. How does that recontextualize anything? Most of the ones you gave are bad definitions. They are textbook reveals.

Saying that one encompasses the other muddies the water. Recontextualizing something is not the common denominator of retcons. Look up the origin and tell me how that applies to this definition.

Dictionary.com has the best of those, it's a tad broad but I like it.

Retcon isn't an umbrella term. It's origin shows what it was meant to denote, and it has nothing to do with new information. It's about overwriting existing information.

[Grimlock]

This is what I mean when I say the Broli movie didn’t have to be cut, why tf was it even cut down.

What a silly question.

They obviously had to cut down the interesting part so we can appreciate more sHinY, bEaUtIfUl bAtTlEs!11!1!!11!

Absorbing the super Saiyan god form and making it into base seems fine to me now. Also having it permanent would have been good if that was what they were originally going for (which I think they were).

Pretty sure that was the intention initially, especially if you take into consideration what Toriyama said.

This way we would also see more fights in base, though I do wonder if Toriyama retconned this for the sake of Toyotaro, just because of flash backs to having to color Son Goku’s hair

Could be. Though I'd be more willing to bet they decided to go against because they have to sell no matter what and above all else. No Super Saiyan God = little to no marketing/toys/merchandising related to it.

[ABED]

This is what I mean when I say the Broli movie didn’t have to be cut, why tf was it even cut down.

Because none of that exposition was necessary. Get to the story we care about.

[ZeroIsOurHero]

I know you're a big stickler about "retcons" having to contradict established material to be considered retcons, but it seems like you're the only person with that definition. Every single dictionary I can find says that reveals can still be considered retcons.

I don't care if I'm the only person. Having large numbers agree doesn't make it correct. It's ridiculous to consider them reveals because the whole point of the definition was to make it distinct.

Recontextualizing events is what a reveal does. Changing the numbers of an apartment is a small retcon. How does that recontextualize anything? Most of the ones you gave are bad definitions. They are textbook reveals.

Saying that one encompasses the other muddies the water. Recontextualizing something is not the common denominator of retcons. Look up the origin and tell me how that applies to this definition.

Dictionary.com has the best of those, it's a tad broad but I like it.

Retcon isn't an umbrella term. It's origin shows what it was meant to denote, and it has nothing to do with new information. It's about overwriting existing information.

I know that "retcon" originally meant "overwriting existing stories," but the way the word is used has clearly changed over time. That's not a problem, all definitions change as time goes on. "Gay" originally meant "happy", but it ended up becoming a euphemism for homosexual men. But when people talk about gay rights, you don't see anyone going around telling them "Actually, "gay" really means "happy", the way you're using it is wrong!" Similarly, "retcon" has grown to encompass reveals over the years, so it seems weird to keep arguing that reveals aren't "really" retcons.

I really don't understand why you keep clinging on to an outdated definition of this word, and I especially don't understand why you seem to think Merriam-Webster and Cambridge know less about what words mean than Random Internet User #458026. But whatever, we'll be here all day if we keep debating this petty BS.

[ABED]

It changed into something worse and less useful. It was meant to indicate something distinct and its change was to something more confusing. Please stop giving me a history lesson about changes in language.
The reason I'm arguing the point is because precisely this, the term is confusing because the definition got mangled by people who don't understand it and confuse it with a reveal. It isn't outdated. Why change a perfectly useful definition into something MORE confusing? What purpose does that serve? Why make it broader? Honestly, it feels like the change occurred because people are ignorant and mangled it and that became the definition.

If retcons are now the umbrella term, what term do we use to indicate overwriting continuity as if it had always been there?

What's damn weird is you don't see that that's an awful change. I don't know why you are fighting me so hard on this. how do you all not see how confusing this discussion of retcons is because no one here can agree what the damn word even means? That's why they and you are wrong.

[ZeroIsOurHero]

Well, you may not like how the definition changed, but it doesn't alter that fact that it changed, and almost everyone (including the people you're arguing with) uses the new definition. Either way, I can see neither of us are going to budge, so can we just stop trying to police the way people use words so much? It's really been counterproductive to the actual discussion.

[ABED]

Well, you may not like how the definition changed, but it doesn't alter that fact that it changed, and almost everyone (including the people you're arguing with) uses the new definition. Either way, I can see neither of us are going to budge, so can we just stop trying to police the way people use words so much? It's really been counterproductive to the actual discussion.

No, it didn't change, people misused it. and what's counterproductive to the discussion is misunderstanding what the discussion is because guess what, language matters.

A reveal and a retcon aren't the same thing. The cyborgs having different numbers is different than Trunks being revealed as the child of Vegeta and Bulma. But by all means, let's agree that they are both retcons because they fit some of those definitions.

[MyVisionity]

...and I especially don't understand why you seem to think Merriam-Webster and Cambridge know less about what words mean than Random Internet User #458026.

Please don't assume that folks like Merriam-Webster and Cambridge automatically know more about words than anyone else. Just because something is in the dictionary does not make it totally accurate. The dictionary is a useful resource but can and should be challenged when needed. People should think for themselves and trust their own reasoning and judgement.

No, it didn't change, people misused it.

If enough people misuse a word, then over time its meaning will change. For better or for worse.

Language and how we use it is important, but it is an evolving thing, not fixed. I agree that it's important to understand the proper definitions of words but it's also necessary to understand and acknowledge how those definitions have changed over time.

[Skar]

A reveal and a retcon aren't the same thing. The cyborgs having different numbers is different than Trunks being revealed as the child of Vegeta and Bulma. But by all means, let's agree that they are both retcons.

I don't think those definitions are claiming all reveals are retcons. Trunks being the son of Vegeta and Bulma and Goku being a Saiyan are both reveals but only one would be considered a retcon. Trunks was revealed to be their son shortly after his introduction so Toriyama likely already had his origin in mind. I think labelling a reveal as also a retcon is only to differentiate between a reveal that was planned and one that the author came up with later then incorporated into the story.

[ABED]

But those definitions don't say anything about the reveal being planned or done on the fly. It says they recontextualize prior moments. Trunks being Vegeta and Bulma's son does recontextualize things.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the fundamental difference between the two is whether it was initially planned or thought of later. The writing of a good reveal should be seemless. Whether the writer planned it or did it because it didn't contradict anything since they didn't give all the backstory upfront shouldn't matter. Most long form stories don't plan very far ahead initially. So does that mean every reveal in subsequent seasons, volumes, etc. are retcons because they didn't know it when they wrote the first chapter?

[Gaffer Tape]

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the fundamental difference between the two is whether it was initially planned or thought of later. The writing of a good reveal should be seemless. Whether the writer planned it or did it because it didn't contradict anything since they didn't give all the backstory upfront shouldn't matter. Most long form stories don't plan very far ahead initially. So does that mean every reveal in subsequent seasons, volumes, etc. are retcons because they didn't know it when they wrote the first chapter?

It matters when discussing the creation of a story, which is why words like this exist to identify them. "Retcon" is not pejorative. It's simply a state of being. "Reveal" implies something is being hidden in the first place. If it's simply being created whole cloth in that moment, nothing is being "revealed." We are simply accepting the fiction that it is.

I have no idea if it's true that the meaning of the word has changed over time. This is the first I've heard of it. I've always seen it defined as the exact same thing. To me "retroactive continuity" is pretty clear right in the words what it means. But even if it did evolve, I fail to see how the way we're using it now is not far more useful and understandable than trying to lump actual plot revelations, ones which are baked into the fabric of the story, with manufactured retcons, which we choose to believe have always been there. And again, that is not demeaning the latter. Retcons can be good and, in fact, necessary to storytelling. Yes, in terms of diegesis, those should not be considered any different from within the universe of the story. But from the meta-textual analysis, those are completely different things and therefore necessitate different labels.

[ABED]

"Reveal" implies something is being hidden in the first place.

But it doesn't have to be hidden from the beginning. Toriyama likely didn't mean to keep Goku's origin a mystery. I doubt it was anything more than just not feeling it was not important at the time and probably leaving himself room to create something in the future. Goku's Saiyan heritage wasn't held back from the audience the same way that say the culprits on Strangers on a Train was, but it's still a reveal because we didn't know it for years. A reveal doesn't have to be information intentionally kept from the audience for the sake of a twist. It can just be because the writer doesn't want to give away everything up front. A reveal just means giving the audience information they didn't have previously. It says nothing about holding it back from them

It matters when discussing the creation of a story,

It doesn't because continuity isn't about the creation of the story. I don't need to know anything about how the story was created to know continuity was changed when Donna has a sister in one episode and not in another. Continuity isn't concerned with meta-analysis.

Language and how we use it is important, but it is an evolving thing, not fixed.

Evolution implies progress. If language changes to become more confusing, it's a bad change.

The definition I found on Wikipedia is FAR better and more accurate

"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which established diegetic facts in the plot of a fictional work (those established through the narrative itself) are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former."

[Gaffer Tape]

Goku's Saiyan heritage wasn't held back from the audience the same way that say the culprits on Strangers on a Train was, but it's still a reveal because we didn't know it for years.

It wasn't held back from us at all. We didn't know it for years because it wasn't true. It didn't exist. Goku was not an alien. Then he was rewritten to be one. We choose to believe that means he always was one. That's a retcon. Retroactive continuity.

It doesn't because continuity isn't about the creation of the story. I don't need to know anything about how the story was created to know continuity was changed when Donna has a sister in one episode and not in another. Continuity isn't concerned with meta-analysis.

Continuity only exists through the creation of the story. It really seems you're trying to define it solely based on how well the story manages to fool you into believing its universe is created organically. That's a qualitative trait, which has nothing to do with retcons.

Evolution implies progress

Honestly, what you've said in this thread has allowed me to understand your perspective better than I have in all the years you and I have been arguing this. Honestly, I am totally on board with you... when it comes to, say, "reboot." That is a word that has been mangled to the point that it has no meaning anymore. Media outlets and laypeople apply the word "reboot" to literally every piece of media attached to an existing franchise, even when remake or sequel would be far more accurate. It drives me crazy how meaningless that word has become. I get the frustration with evolution of language making discourse more difficult. I just don't see it in this case. Again, I'm not even sure where it's being demonstrated the word "retcon" has changed. I've always seen it defined the same way. But even if I am to take that at face value, it seems odd you wouldn't want your "reveal" and "retcon" to be as discrete as possible. Why would you seemingly want them to be defined by a far more subjective analysis, whether you can spot the plot hole? Wouldn't keeping them separate based on objective criteria be far more conducive to intelligible discourse? Seems like progress to me.

[ABED]

Goku was not an alien.

It was never definitively stated what he was. He was a boy with a tail which no one else had. We just assume he's human because he lives on Earth and he looks human.

Continuity only exists through the creation of the story. It really seems you're trying to define it solely based on how well the story manages to fool you into believing its universe is created organically. That's a qualitative trait, which has nothing to do with retcons.

It has everything to do with retcons. It's up to everyone to decide if that bothers them if something is contradicted, but the fact is that something has to be overwritten for it to be a retcon. If nothing has been written, e.g. we don't know a character's backstory, then why should it matter if new information was thought of from the start or shortly before it's written? the result in the story is the same.

Why would you seemingly want them to be defined by a far more subjective analysis, whether you can spot the plot hole?

But if something is a contradiction isn't subjective. The extent it bothers someone if at all is however.

I'm not sure I quite get your point. It feels as though I see the difference between the two terms is one overwrites previous established information and the other is about giving new information.

Whereas it seems like you see the difference as whether the writer(s) knew the information from the start or came up with it later.

am totally on board with you... when it comes to, say, "reboot." That is a word that has been mangled to the point that it has no meaning anymore. Media outlets and laypeople apply the word "reboot" to literally every piece of media attached to an existing franchise, even when remake or sequel would be far more accurate.

Yes, thank you. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. People mangling words that it confuses things. Actors are constantly asked about reboots of series they were on. Does that mean yes, they would be in a version of their show with a new continuity? (Ghostbusters 2016) or are they talking about a revival (Ghostbusters Afterlife).

[Aim]

This is what I mean when I say the Broli movie didn’t have to be cut, why tf was it even cut down.

What a silly question.

They obviously had to cut down the interesting part so we can appreciate more sHinY, bEaUtIfUl bAtTlEs!11!1!!11!

Absorbing the super Saiyan god form and making it into base seems fine to me now. Also having it permanent would have been good if that was what they were originally going for (which I think they were).

Pretty sure that was the intention initially, especially if you take into consideration what Toriyama said.

This way we would also see more fights in base, though I do wonder if Toriyama retconned this for the sake of Toyotaro, just because of flash backs to having to color Son Goku’s hair

Could be. Though I'd be more willing to bet they decided to go against because they have to sell no matter what and above all else. No Super Saiyan God = little to no marketing/toys/merchandising related to it.

Actually yeah that’s true. So Saiyan Beyond God was permanent (silly Geekdom saying they can tap in and out of it lol), that actually is so much better than having now, like, almost 10 now.

What I don’t understand is they can easily use their imaginations and make toys anyway of SSG.

I also wonder how they would not go to SSGSS 2 & 3 then? I guess because 2 & 3 just aren’t capable of being stabilised like 1

[Grimlock]

Actually yeah that’s true. So Saiyan Beyond God was permanent (silly Geekdom saying they can tap in and out of it lol), that actually is so much better than having now, like, almost 10 now.

I think they can still use the power of Saiyan Saiyan God in base form, but why would they do that now that they unfortunately brought back said transformation? The other way around is also true, Super Saiyan God renders Saiyan beyond God pointless. You can only have one going around, otherwise it'd be redundant.

I also wonder how they would not go to SSGSS 2 & 3 then? I guess because 2 & 3 just aren’t capable of being stabilised like 1

The characters haven't mastered Super Saiyan 2 the way they did with Super Saiyan, but I don't think that's a major factor to not have Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan 2. And it's not like Super Saiyan 2 is "unstable", it's just Super Saiyan 3 which consumes a lot of energy and fast. But there's really no excuse for the characters to not have combined the power of Super Saiyan God with Super Saiyan 2 yet.

(Pretty sure the "control/stabilize" thing was only stated when it comes to combine Kaio-Ken with Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan).

Let's see if at least Dragon Ball Heroes will right that wrong like they did with Super Saiyan Rosé.

[Captain Awesome]

I don't care if I'm the only person. Having large numbers agree doesn't make it correct. It's ridiculous to consider them reveals because the whole point of the definition was to make it distinct.

Unfortunately the entire point of language is that we have a collection of meaningful units, and those meanings are for the most part, shared, while there are a whole heap of other considerations (dialect, culture, semantic change over time) the entire idea is that it's mutually intelligible. Otherwise we're just garbling these arbitrary sounds and scrawling meaningless symbols at one another. Look, I'm the last person to correct anyone on the "proper" way to speak or write (an undergraduate in Linguistics turned me into a descriptivist hippie if anything) provided we understand one another, that's the human experience, that's language.

... But, stubbornly insisting on your own personal definition of what is a really unambiguous fairly straight forward concept is a bit much mate. If this nuance exists, coin a term for it! but you can't approach any form of discourse like this and be surprised when people call you out on it.