How did DB fans react to Goku retconned as an alien?

[Gaffer Tape]

I think the problem is that people seem like to think of "retcon" as an inherently negative thing. They use it as a pejorative. "Oh, look at that lazy retcon. That's totally not the way it was before." But retroactive continuity as a term is neutral. It's a ubiquitous and almost-essential part of all storytelling and the creative process. Creators are almost always going to have new ideas that they want to implement that have long-reaching repercussions to the future and to the past because stories are not created linearly. And to only be allowed to add linearly would severely hamper the kinds of stories a writer can tell. There's nothing wrong with retcons... unless the individual watching happens to not like that particular example for whatever reason. And because retcons do have a much greater tendency than linear continuity to wipe away or change, they have more potential to be controversial and pick up that negative connotation. But a retcon is not defined by how well or poorly it works or how seamlessly it's integrated or how many plotholes it makes. It simply means that new information is being applied to old stories or characters where it originally did not exist.

[ABED]

I think the problem is that people seem like to think of "retcon" as an inherently negative thing. They use it as a pejorative. "Oh, look at that lazy retcon. That's totally not the way it was before." But retroactive continuity is neutral. It's a ubiquitous and almost-essential part of all storytelling and the creative process. Creators have new ideas that they want to implement that have long-reaching repercussions to the future and to the past because stories are not created linearly. There's nothing wrong with that... unless the individual watching happens to not like that particular example. But a retcon is not defined by how well or poorly it works or how seamlessly it's integrated or how many plotholes it makes. It simply means that new information is being applied to old stories or characters where it originally did not exist.

I get what you're saying, but why come up with such a term unless it has a different meaning than "reveal" or something like that.

[Gaffer Tape]

Because in order to have a reveal, you have to be hiding something in the first place. If you're on Let's Make a Deal, and Monty Hall opens the curtain and nothing's there, he didn't reveal anything (unless of course, the point was to reveal nothing). If he then later wheels out a new car, you can't say opening the curtain revealed the car. And so it is with fiction. The word "reveal" implies the author was purposely holding back information. With "retcon"... well, it's basically making a pact with the author that we're going to pretend the car was always behind the curtain, even if we know it wasn't, even if he/she knows it wasn't. So, yes, there is a need for a different term because it's a different thing. It all comes down to intent. Was the curtain put there specifically to hide the car? Or did the car just happen to be put behind the curtain just before it opened? Or did the car get put there after the curtain was opened?

[ABED]

Because in order to have a reveal, you have to be hiding something in the first place. If you're on Let's Make a Deal, and Monty Hall opens the curtain and nothing's there, he didn't reveal anything (unless of course, the point was to reveal nothing). If he then later wheels out a new car, you can't say opening the curtain revealed the car. And so it is with fiction. The word "reveal" implies the author was purposely holding back information. With "retcon"... well, it's basically making a pact with the author that we're going to pretend the car was always behind the curtain, even if we know it wasn't, even if he/she knows it wasn't. So, yes, there is a need for a different term because it's a different thing. It all comes down to intent. Was the curtain put there specifically to hide the car? Or did the car just happen to be put behind the curtain just before it opened? Or did the car get put there after the curtain was opened?

Okay, you're getting hung up on the term when the real point was that retcon is a relatively new term, it's supposed to imply something beyond just "here's some new history". This is not a new phenomena in writing.

Retconning isn't like in Friends when we learn the reason Monica lost weight was because Chandler called her fat. It's more like retconning Barry Allen's origins and giving him a mother who was murdered.

[Gaffer Tape]

I'm not "hung up" on anything. I'm aware that retcon is a relatively new term. Language does evolve, and we can retroactively (hey, there's that word again) apply new words to old situations. I happen to find that it's a very useful and accurate term. And no, it doesn't just mean "here's some new information," but it also doesn't just mean "hey, here's a plot hole," either.

[jjgp1112]

TVTropes is great, but has resulted in fans having a rather...tenuous concept of what certain terms like Retcon and Mary Sue actually mean and what their merits are. Until the Saiyan reveal, we had no concrete indication that Goku was human other than assuming he was because, well....he was a person on earth. But enough people commented on how unusual he was that it was probably always a possibility with fans. Goku said in the very first chapter that Gohan found him abandoned in a forest, which is an ambiguous backstory that could open up the possibility for a variety of origins.

[Gaffer Tape]

I assume you're referring to me with that post, but I'm not taking my information from TVTropes. Retroactive continuity can assume three forms: Addition, Alteration, and Subtraction. The two examples you list (the rewriting types) are Alteration Retcons, but they aren't the only types that exist. Goku being an alien is an Addition Retcon.

EDIT: Aw, crap, you edited out your other examples. Now I'm not even sure if you're trying to make the same point, or if I even interpreted it correctly in the first place.

[jjgp1112]

I assume you're referring to me with that post, but I'm not taking my information from TVTropes. Retroactive continuity can assume three forms: Addition, Alteration, and Subtraction. The two examples you list (the rewriting types) are Alteration Retcons, but they aren't the only types that exist. Goku being an alien is an Addition Retcon.

EDIT: Aw, crap, you edited out your other examples. Now I'm not even sure if you're trying to make the same point, or if I even interpreted it correctly in the first place.

I was referring to the OP in the original post. I edited it to accomodate the fact that retcon existed before the popular definition.

My point was that retcon carries a negative connotation among fans today and is a symptom of people just blindly throwing out blanket terms like Mary Sue and Retcon not in their correct definition, but simply to describe a new part of the story that they don't like.

[ABED]

I'm not "hung up" on anything. I'm aware that retcon is a relatively new term. Language does evolve, and we can retroactively (hey, there's that word again) apply new words to old situations. I happen to find that it's a very useful and accurate term. And no, it doesn't just mean "here's some new information," but it also doesn't just mean "hey, here's a plot hole," either.

The words come into existence in order to explain something or clarify it because something about the old term didn't fit as well. Language should be clear. If you have things that are unlike lumped together, it's probably a sign that the term is ill defined. I find it odd to lump in filling in back story with "hey, you know this sister we've never referenced or even said didn't exist, she now exists and has always existed." It's useful to look into the history of the term.

[fadeddreams5]

Dr. Gero being part of the RRA and Goku possessing "zenkai" are addition retcons. Piccolo being namekian is an alteration retcon. Tarble's/"Vegeta's brother's" exclusion from Super can count as a subtraction retcon.

To me, Goku being revealed to be an alien is not a retcon. We know from the beginning that he was found by Grandpa Gohan; they're never implied at all to be biologically related. Not only is no one like him introduced in the entire series (in terms of having a tail, supernatural strength and adaptability, and Oozaru transformation), but everyone he meets in the story is always in awe by him. Compare this to characters' reactions to talking animals and dinosaurs, and you'll notice those things actually are considered normal in their planet, unlike Goku. That line Oolong says that somebody here mentioned can also be seen as foreshadowing. Ultimately, the story sets Goku up to be exactly what he's eventually revealed as.

The only reason I feel people see this as a retcon is because of what Toriyama said in some interview. Dude might have lied. You never know. He's contradicted himself a few times in the past. lol.

[ABED]

Dr. Gero being part of the RRA and Goku possessing "zenkai" are addition retcons.

I'm not sure how either of those qualify in light of your views that Goku's true heritage isn't a retcon.

That line Oolong says that somebody here mentioned can also be seen as foreshadowing

Unintentional. Toriyama came up with the backstory much later. Oolong's line was an offhanded comment.

[Gaffer Tape]

I find that a very odd remark because I see "retcon" as very much a clarifying term, and I find the things it lumps together are very much similar in relation to the term. Is it new information? Yes. Does it apply retroactively to earlier parts of the story? If yes, it's a retcon. If no, it's not. To me, that seems very simple. And in terms of clarification, the distinction is needed to distinguish between, as has been mentioned earlier, what is actually foreshadowing and what is actually a reveal. Because without the distinction of retroactive continuity, those terms can become very muddy.

As an example, let's look at Star Wars because that series is famous for trying to disguise retcons. In particular, let's look at Darth Vader as Luke's father. That plot point was not created until the second draft of The Empire Strikes Back. Prior to that, the information did not exist and was, in fact, contradicted by the original history that Darth Vader killed Luke's father (yes, they handwaved it away, but it was intended at the time to be the truth). Everything released prior to the second draft of ESB was written under the assumption that Luke's father was a noble Jedi killed by a man named Darth Vader. But let's not even get into the aforementioned contradiction. Let's look a bit more subtly than that at two things fans like to point out as "foreshadowing."

During the reveal of Darth Vader's backstory in the first film, just before he speaks, there is a moment where Obi-Wan Kenobi gets a pained look on his face. Now, taken with the retroactive decision that Darth Vader is Luke's father, fans like to say, "Oh, that's foreshadowing. He's making that face because he's about to tell Luke a massive lie!" But, no, it's not. George Lucas didn't even know that at that point, so Alec Guiness, the actor who decided on that particular facial expression, certainly didn't make that choice based on information that didn't exist yet. It would have been impossible for him to have used that to influence his character that way. And foreshadowing has to have intent. It's a fun little coincidence that happens to work when the retroactive history is applied, but it was not originally made with that intent.

Another example, of around the same time, is when Luke's Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are talking about him. Aunt Beru states that Luke has too much of his father in him, to which Uncle Owen says, "That's what I'm afraid of." And fans jump to that one too. "Oh, it's foreshadowing! He's afraid Luke's going to be seduced by the dark side and turn evil just like his father!" In this case, it actually is foreshadowing, but not of that. This is before Luke has gotten to ask how his father died and before he meets up with Obi-Wan Kenobi. So the line is originally meant to foreshadow the danger of leaving this simple life behind to go on "some damned fool idealistic crusade" and end up dead. Because a new part of Luke's backstory is added to the story later on, it retroactively gives new meaning to earlier parts of the story, even if those parts had different meanings or no meaning when taken in its original context.

But because the Darth Vader parentage is held until the end of The Empire Strikes Back, that entire movie is written under that presupposition, unlike the first movie. So when you have Luke's vision of cutting off Vader's head and seeing himself in the helmet, that actually could be foreshadowing. Since it's being written with that knowledge in mind, there is nothing retroactively being altered or reinterpreted in that scene alone.

And so it is with Dragon Ball. When Oolong asks if Goku's an alien, it's not foreshadowing because it wasn't written with that intent but retroactively can be seen to gain that intent through new information. When Raditz pictures the baby Kakarotto, that can be taken as foreshadowing because it was obviously drawn with that purpose in mind, with the knowledge of Goku's backstory in mind, even though it's being based on information that hasn't been made explicit to the audience yet. There's nothing retroactively being altered or reinterpreted in that scene alone.

I'm not sure how either of those qualify in light of your views that Goku's true heritage isn't a retcon.

I agree. If Goku's backstory isn't a retcon (which I don't agree with), then Dr. Gero and post-injury power-ups aren't either because they're the same thing. Also, I don't see how Piccolo's backstory is an alteration retcon (outside of my view that all retcons twist things to a degree) because nothing is explicitly contradicted in-universe by Piccolo being an alien. I can already guess where this is going, so I'll go ahead and say it: Piccolo being a demon and Piccolo being an alien are not mutually exclusive concepts. He can be both. And he is (retroactively) both.

The only reason I feel people see this as a retcon is because of what Toriyama said in some interview. Dude might have lied. You never know. He's contradicted himself a few times in the past. lol.

Actually, no. Quite the opposite. If Toriyama had lied about making up Goku's origins later, then that would mean that Goku's backstory WASN'T a retcon after all because it was always part of Toriyama's idea for the character.

[fadeddreams5]

I'm not sure how either of those qualify in light of your views that Goku's true heritage isn't a retcon.

Nothing about Dr. Gero's existence is implied at all throughout the RRA saga. All of a sudden, he's revealed to have been a major part of the army, despite Goku dismantling the entire thing and never once confronting or hearing anything about him. The only android Goku ever finds was created by another scientist.

"Zenkai" is an ability Goku supposedly always had. It's a new element revealed later on that's never touched on before, and doesn't come into play until later on in the story. Pieces about Goku's origin can count as addition retcons, such as that and the amnesia. However, him not being human is something you can already assume early on. It doesn't really matter if it's unintentional or not because it goes hand-in-hand with everything learned about Goku up until that point. If he was instead revealed to have been created in a lab to create a super fighter using monkey and human DNA, this wouldn't be a retcon either. His background was open to make him whatever the heck they wanted him to be revealed as later on. It was only a matter of when they were going to explore that. That's how I see it, anyways.

I agree. If Goku's backstory isn't a retcon (which I don't agree with), then Dr. Gero and post-injury power-ups aren't either because they're the same thing. Also, I don't see how Piccolo's backstory is an alteration retcon (outside of my view that all retcons twist things to a degree) because nothing is explicitly contradicted in-universe by Piccolo being an alien. I can already guess where this is going, so I'll go ahead and say it: Piccolo being a demon and Piccolo being an alien are not mutually exclusive concepts. He can be both. And he is (retroactively) both.

Well, that's exactly what I meant. It contradicts him being called the "demon king" in dragon ball. He was classified as a demon, which happens to be a species in this series.

[Gaffer Tape]

Nothing about Dr. Gero's existence is implied at all throughout the RRA saga. All of a sudden, he's revealed to have been a major part of the army, despite Goku dismantling the entire thing and never once confronting or hearing anything about him. The only android Goku ever finds was created by another scientist.

That #8 was created by another scientist is a plot hole created by the TV series. Nowhere in the Red Ribbon Army arc is #8's origins stated, and nowhere in the manga is he stated to have been created by anyone other than Dr. Gero. But, hypothetically, if we do take Dr. Frappe to be fact, then Dr. Gero's existence is an alteration retcon, and you could make the argument that that is the case in the TV continuity. But just taking Toriyama's manga, where there is no Dr. Frappe, Dr. Gero's inclusion is simply an addition retcon.

It doesn't really matter if it's unintentional or not because it goes hand-in-hand with everything learned about Goku up until that point. If he was instead revealed to have been created in a lab to create a super fighter using monkey and human DNA, this wouldn't be a retcon either. His background was open to make him whatever the heck they wanted him to be revealed as later on. It was only a matter of when they were going to explore that. That's how I see it, anyways.

Yes, it does matter if it's unintentional or not because intent is at the very crux of what a retcon is. A retcon is retroactively changing intent. Whether or not it goes hand-in-hand with what we know before has no affect on whether or not it's a retcon because fitting into the story is more of an in-universe concern while retcon concerns itself more with the out-of-universe, i.e., the author's intent. If Toriyama did not intend Goku to be an alien from the beginning, he was not writing Goku as an alien. If Toriyama was not writing him as an alien, Goku was not an alien. When Toriyama decided Goku was an alien, he became an alien, and, by consequence, he retroactively became an alien in all those previous stories where he was not. In-universe, that means he's always an alien. Out-of-universe, he only became an alien the moment Toriyama made it up. That's retcon.

[fadeddreams5]

Nothing about Dr. Gero's existence is implied at all throughout the RRA saga. All of a sudden, he's revealed to have been a major part of the army, despite Goku dismantling the entire thing and never once confronting or hearing anything about him. The only android Goku ever finds was created by another scientist.

That #8 was created by another scientist is a plot hole created by the TV series. Nowhere in the Red Ribbon Army arc is #8's origins stated, and nowhere in the manga is he stated to have been created by anyone other than Dr. Gero. But, hypothetically, if we do take Dr. Frappe to be fact, then Dr. Gero's existence is an alteration retcon, and you could make the argument that that is the case in the TV continuity. But just taking Toriyama's manga, where there is no Dr. Frappe, Dr. Gero's inclusion is simply an addition retcon.

Ah. I had no idea he was anime exclusive.

[ABED]

Out-of-universe, he only became an alien the moment Toriyama made it up. That's retcon.

But what was truly changed? Do his friends treat him any different when they know he's an alien? Do the events in DB take on a different meaning?

[Gaffer Tape]

Well, that's exactly what I meant. It contradicts him being called the "demon king" in dragon ball. He was classified as a demon, which happens to be a species in this series.

No, demon is not a species in this series, and Piccolo being a Namekian does not contradict him being a demon king. The series explicitly states that Piccolo can lose his demonic nature. That was proven when Raditz and Goku went to the afterlife after being killed by Piccolo when his previous victims did not pass on to the next life.

Although this is where it gets interesting, now that you bring it up. I don't know if I've ever thought about it this way before. While this rule was brought up before Piccolo was revealed to be an alien, it was after he decided Piccolo was an alien. According to Toriyama, he decided Piccolo was an alien around the time he introduced God. And that means that all that strange speaking Ma Junior and Shen were doing with each other was foreshadowing of an alien language. And the scene where God explains that Piccolo is becoming less demonic is in the Saiyan arc, after that. So you could make the case that demons were originally meant to be a species up until God (who is clearly of the same species as Piccolo and clearly not a demon) was introduced, and the explanation that Piccolo was becoming less demonic was Toriyama setting up a new idea that demons aren't a species (a retcon) so that his later reveal of Piccolo's alien heritage would not cause a contradiction.

However, as far as I know, we have no information on this, so it's just speculation. But regardless of whether that is a retcon, Toriyama presented it skillfully enough that it didn't ever become an in-universe contradiction.

Also worth noting, in the Garlic Jr. arc, Garlic Jr. and his henchmen refer to themselves as "Mazoku" (demon clansmen) just as Piccolo had from his introduction, and they are clearly not from the same planet as Piccolo. And the term Demon Clan itself seems to imply more of an allegiance or membership than a genetic background.

[ABED]

One could still argue that Piccolo is a different species. He's not simply a Namekian. He's the son of the being that split off from the Namekian who became Kami. Daimao was literally evil incarnate.

[Gaffer Tape]

Out-of-universe, he only became an alien the moment Toriyama made it up. That's retcon.

But what was truly changed? Do his friends treat him any different when they know he's an alien? Do the events in DB take on a different meaning?

I am sincere when I ask, what do any of those questions have to do with retroactive continuity? The second one especially baffles me. What does how Goku's friends treat him have to do with the fact that Toriyama made up Goku's backstory and retroactively applied it to earlier parts of the story? If they were mean to him, would that make a difference? I am genuinely puzzled by what you're getting at.

Nevertheless, it seems you're talking more about in-universe implications, of which this particular retcon had many, but they have nothing to do with whether or not information is retroactively applied to a story.

One could still argue that Piccolo is a different species. He's not simply a Namekian. He's the son of the being that split off from the Namekian who became Kami. Daimao was literally evil incarnate.

Yes. Yes, one could argue that.

[ABED]

I am sincere when I ask, what do any of those questions have to do with retroactive continuity? The second one especially baffles me. What does how Goku's friends treat him have to do with the fact that Toriyama made up Goku's backstory and retroactively applied it to earlier parts of the story? If they were mean to him, would that make a difference? I am genuinely puzzled by what you're getting at.

Nevertheless, it seems you're talking more about in-universe implications, of which this particular retcon had many, but they have nothing to do with whether or not information is retroactively applied to a story.

I'm still trying to figure it out, myself, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it. I guess my previous point doesn't stand, but I do think your view on retconning is incorrect. Simply adding something in the past and it being a matter of intent isn't enough. Let's take Justified for instance. In season 4, the story centers around finding a character named Drew Thompson. It turns out one of the characters in the show was Drew Thompson in disguise. That fact changes how we see that character, and it wasn't something the writers knew when they created the character, but they looked at all of their characters and believed revealing that character x (I'm avoiding spoilers in case anyone hasn't seen the show, it's excellent) was Drew didn't contradict anything.

I do think retconning has at some level have to do with contradictions. Though that has issue, as I still think The Mummy Returns "it's all a prophecy" is a big retcon, or maybe that's just lazy writing.