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

[precita]

Imagine you grew up in the 80's reading/watching the Dragonball manga or anime. For all those years you think Goku is just a strong human boy with a tail. There's no indication Goku could possibly be from outer space.

Then DBZ comes and completely retcons Goku's origin. Now all of a sudden Goku is an alien and part of some Saiyan warrior race that conquers the galaxy. Then you see the flashback that Goku was unruly as a child and bumped his head before being friendly with Grandpa Gohan. If I had watched Dragonball first that would be the biggest retconning of a main characters origin I had ever seen. I wonder how Japanese fans reacted to this when they first saw this.

I mean if something like this happened *today* and a main characters origin was changed so drastically in a series running for years, it would be viewed as the biggest writing twist, retcon or "ass-pull" in anime history. Its only that most of us came into DBZ first that we didn't think of this the same way original Japanese fans did.

[Chuquita]

I would've been surprised because I probably would've expected Gokû to have a more magical/mystical back story given the Journey to the West elements from earlier.

A sci-fi back story would not have been my first guess.

[obiwan23s]

I certainly can't speak for anyone on this topic since, like most people who watched the dub first, the arrival of Raditz was my introduction to these characters in story. There is also Piccolo, who definitely doesn't look human, but was just considered a demon/monster until Vegeta and Nappa tell him of his origin. It's interesting that the greatest hero and greatest villain before Raditz arrives each have the same bomb dropped on them by space travelers. As a Dragon Ball fan, I've always felt very robbed of not being able to experience these "twists" the right way. Oh how I'd love to have my memory wiped and get to watch Dragon Ball in the correct order for the first time (maybe we can wipe my memories of a few ex-girlfriends while we're at it...). But the saving grace for practically anyone who started with Raditz is that we weren't robbed of that twist's payoff...which was the one Saiyan that got away coming back from whence he came to defeat Freeza.

[fadeddreams5]

That wasn't a retcon; it was a revelation within the story. Prior to that point, nothing was really known about Goku's past, besides the fact that Grandpa Gohan "adopted" him. Retcon would be if they had already revealed his origins, only to change facts about them later on.

[irreality]

That wasn't a retcon; it was a revelation within the story. Prior to that point, nothing was really known about Goku's past, besides the fact that Grandpa Gohan "adopted" him. Retcon would be if they had already revealed his origins, only to change facts about them later on.

Actually, Goku being revealed as Saiyan *is* a retcon: Nothing Toriyama wrote before then was written with the expectation that Goku was an alien. The "facts" of the story were molded to conform with the new storyline. E.g., his tail being an alien characteristic, his were-monkey abilities, his incredible strength, why he is an orphan, the fact that he has amnesia. Before that, he was just written as a mystical characters.

"Some retcons do not contradict previously established facts but instead fill in missing background details, usually to support current plot points. Thomas referred to "retroactive continuity" in this sense, as a purely additive process that did not undo any previous work; such additions were common in All-Star Squadron." (from wikipedia).

[fadeddreams5]

That wasn't a retcon; it was a revelation within the story. Prior to that point, nothing was really known about Goku's past, besides the fact that Grandpa Gohan "adopted" him. Retcon would be if they had already revealed his origins, only to change facts about them later on.

Actually, Goku being revealed as Saiyan *is* a retcon: Nothing Toriyama wrote before then was written with the expectation that Goku was an alien. The "facts" of the story were molded to conform with the new storyline. E.g., his tail being an alien characteristic, his were-monkey abilities, his incredible strength, why he is an orphan, the fact that he has amnesia. Before that, he was just written as a mystical characters.

"Some retcons do not contradict previously established facts but instead fill in missing background details, usually to support current plot points. Thomas referred to "retroactive continuity" in this sense, as a purely additive process that did not undo any previous work; such additions were common in All-Star Squadron." (from wikipedia).

Is it?

If a childhood friend of Goku's was introduced later on in the story, even though he's never mentioned in Dragon Ball, I can see that as an addition-type retcon, which is pretty much the case of Tarble to Vegeta if he was canon. If they make a saga between the Cell and Buu one that adds important details to later stories, I can also see that as a retcon.

In the case of Goku being a saiyan, however, his origins were always a completely blank slate. We know from the beginning that he was found by Grandpa Gohan, we learn that he has supernatural abilities (e.g. Oozaru), and there is no one like him on the planet. Nothing implied he wasn't an alien, so it was plausible for fans at the time to assume he was one. If they did, I'm sure they were pretty excited when their suspicions were confirmed (this answers this topic, btw! ). Does the answer to something so important left unanswered really count as a retcon? The only detail I can see as such is the amnesia Goku developed.

[nickzambuto]

That wasn't a retcon; it was a revelation within the story. Prior to that point, nothing was really known about Goku's past, besides the fact that Grandpa Gohan "adopted" him. Retcon would be if they had already revealed his origins, only to change facts about them later on.

Technically retcon is short for retroactive continuity, which means added continuity after the fact. The term has kind of been morphed into a way of saying new continuity overwriting old or an inconsistency, so yes in that case it is definitely NOT a retcon. However technically it IS retroactive continuity, which is what irreality is referring to. But I agree with you, calling Goku's origin a retcon in the context that the term is most often used nowadays is not fair. Plot twist is a better term.

[Gaffer Tape]

It is definitely a retcon. Information that simply did not exist before is being retroactively applied to a character's history. I can understand why people, especially in-universe-minded fans, like to believe that term only applies to retcons that explicitly contradict prior information. That is, if nothing in-universe is contradicted, there's no retcon, right? It validates it and puts it on the level of "withheld information." But there's a stark difference between, "Oh, we just didn't know the truth," and, "information that literally did not exist." But that requires you to look at the series from the out-of-universe perspective. We live life in a linear fashion. All of our "back history" is just, well, our past. It has already happened, and it always shapes us moving forward. But fiction is not necessarily written in a linear fashion. The chronology of creation is different from the chronology of the characters. And for those first three years of storytelling, Goku was not an alien. Toriyama was not writing him that way. In-universe, it creates no contradiction because, as has been said, his origin was a "blank slate." But out-of-universe, it is an implicit contradiction because Goku was created in 1984, yet he was made an alien in 1988, nearly four years after his creative "birth." Out-of-universe he BECAME an alien three years AFTER his creation. In-universe, that new fact was retroactively applied to his entire life. That's what makes it a retcon.

As for the topic at hand, it's something I've always wondered, and I really, really wish we had more information on fan reaction of the time. For all we know about Dragon Ball, there is still so much information that seems somewhat out of reach.

[FortuneSSJ]

Me and my friends were surprised, but that wasn't a retcon. It was never proved that Goku was an earthling.
The most shocking thing was being others like him, though.

[Gyt Kaliba]

I'd be curious to know what fan reaction from the time was like too. It's something that I don't think anyone in the US fanbase ever got to experience, since we pretty much had Z first, and even if someone got into the series from the beginning at a later point in time, chances are they would have already heard about Goku's heritage. It'd be almost as impossible as showing Star Wars to someone that had literally never seen it before, and them actually not know about Darth Vader being Luke's father.

You'd think there'd be something in one of the Weekly Jump issues from the time noting the big reveal if nothing else.

[Doctor.]

I didn't know Goku was an alien when I started watching the series, actually. But I can't really remember my reaction though, I probably just thought it was neat.

[irreality]

Is it?

If a childhood friend of Goku's was introduced later on in the story, even though he's never mentioned in Dragon Ball, I can see that as an addition-type retcon, which is pretty much the case of Tarble to Vegeta if he was canon. If they make a saga between the Cell and Buu one that adds important details to later stories, I can also see that as a retcon.

In the case of Goku being a saiyan, however, his origins were always a completely blank slate. We know from the beginning that he was found by Grandpa Gohan, we learn that he has supernatural abilities (e.g. Oozaru), and there is no one like him on the planet. Nothing implied he wasn't an alien, so it was plausible for fans at the time to assume he was one. If they did, I'm sure they were pretty excited when their suspicions were confirmed (this answers this topic, btw! ). Does the answer to something so important left unanswered really count as a retcon? The only detail I can see as such is the amnesia Goku developed.

A retcon doesn't need to contradict past events, the way Tarble contradicts the number of stated living Saiyans. A retcon could simply provide new information that the author did not have when writing the beginning of the story.

I think of a retcon as being different from hidden or unstated information by the author. Hidden information informs how the author makes decisions and acts throughout the telling. Unstated information is often just things that are not particularly relevant until the plot requires them to be revealed. A Retcon, on the other hand, informs the reader to reexamine their interpretation of past events to fit the new data. Oolong's humorous comment about Goku being an alien in the Pilaf saga takes a new light when you read the Saiyan Saga. But Oolong's comment isn't meant to be foreshadowing: it is just a coincidental point that can be used as part of the retcon. But now the reader looks and sees Goku's actions in a different light: he isn't weird in the way Chaozu or Tenshinhan are weird earthlings. He is weird in a truly alien way.

Retcon simply means that the continuity of events (the timeline) does not depend on the author having advanced knowledge as he writes things. Events in the future can inform events in the past.

[Araki]

A retcon could simply provide new information that the author did not have when writing the beginning of the story.

The problem is that following the "technical" definition of retcon, any long running work in any media would be absolutely filled by "retcons". The author almost never has every single plot direction for a manga/book series/tv show/whatever in his head at the moment it starts, and decisions are affected all the time by popularity, change of mind, new ideas etc. In that sense, almost everything from reveals to plot twists could be technically called a retcon if someone feels like it, and the word is certainly getting overused.

Oolong's humorous comment about Goku being an alien in the Pilaf saga takes a new light when you read the Saiyan Saga. But Oolong's comment isn't meant to be foreshadowing: it is just a coincidental point that can be used as part of the retcon.

What if Toriyama lied and said he always planned Goku would be an alien? Or simply avoided the subject, like many authors do. Then would it be accepted as foreshadowing, since there was nothing in the first 16 volumes to contradict the reveal? No one could ever prove otherwise, after all.

There's a very thin line between foreshadowing and retcon. Sometimes the author can review his work, see a line or situation and think "ok, i can use it for a plot twist". But something doesn't feel quite right when we have to use interviews to point out something as a retcon.
So i tend to prefer the general use where a retcon is something that contradicts a previous revelation or past events.

[irreality]

There's a very thin line between foreshadowing and retcon. Sometimes the author can review his work, see a line or situation and think "ok, i can use it for a plot twist". But something doesn't feel quite right when we have to use interviews to point out something as a retcon.
So i tend to prefer the general use where a retcon is something that contradicts a previous revelation or past events.

Why does it matter whether we have to use interviews to determine if something is a retcon or not? Even if there *are* contradictions, you still need to rely on out of universe information to determine if something is a retcon or just a case of "author cannot keep details straight in their head" or "author didn't care about plot holes".

A retcon is a deliberate alteration in the continuity of the story. It is not inherently a contradiction. Things can be contradictory or flat out wrong without being retcons. And things can be retcons without being contradictions.

[Draconic]

I can't speak for everybody, but having watched DB first, before Z, it was amazing. Everything seemed to make so much sense and fall right into it's place.


I was a dumb kid.

[fatgreen]

I was surprised. In a way, I guess it felt like a retcon but on other hand I was a child and was just excited of the new development. Me and my sisters were really excited about Goku being grown up and having a kid of his own, I remember when we saw the ads for Dragonball Z and the mood when we sat in front of the tv waiting for the first episode to start. When it was revealed Raditz was Goku's brother we were really surprised.

In a way I felt like the mood of the series changed. Like before it was just this weird magical world, but now things could be explained as aliens or with space stuff. Like for example Piccolo, Piccolo Jr and Kami felt more mysterious with being just some weird devils or Gods that just came from somewhere? Like I guess expanding the world in some way restricted it in a way? I can't really explain it. This is I guess kind of weird for me, considering I usually don't prefer pure fantasy elements but enjoy sci-fi more (though yeah sci-fi can be fantasy too)

[Gaffer Tape]

The problem is that following the "technical" definition of retcon, any long running work in any media would be absolutely filled by "retcons". The author almost never has every single plot direction for a manga/book series/tv show/whatever in his head at the moment it starts, and decisions are affected all the time by popularity, change of mind, new ideas etc. In that sense, almost everything from reveals to plot twists could be technically called a retcon if someone feels like it, and the word is certainly getting overused.

I don't understand why that's a problem, though. Again, that's what retcon means, retroactive continuity. If something fits the definition, then that's what it should be called. I mean, wouldn't that complaint sound silly if you took away the "retroactive" part of that statement? "The problem is that any long running work would be absolutely filled with continuity." And, well, naturally that happens because, for the most part, any time you tell a story you're going to be adding to the continuity. And any time you add to a story that retroactively affects earlier parts of the story, you have a retcon. So... yes, in any long-running series that isn't meticulously plotted out, you're most likely going to have tons and tons of retcons. That's not overusing a word. It's just using it.

There's a very thin line between foreshadowing and retcon.

I don't think so. The line is very, very solid. The only thing that makes it seem thinner is the knowledge of it or lack thereof. You're right. Since it is such an out-of-universe idea, we are totally dependent on the honesty of the author in determining which is which. Well, not totally. Sometimes you can just look at the work and make an educated guess that there's no real setup for a plot point, and the few things that could be used to justify the idea of "foreshadowing" are just coincidences. I do tend to have a much more skeptical eye to these kinds of things. Probably because, as a kid, I swallowed hook, line, and sinker all the bilge from George Lucas's mouth about how he'd planned everything out for Star Wars when he was really just a big, fat liar and making everything up as he went along. And, you know, while it's really satisfying as a reader and viewer to look back and see long-forgotten plot points pay off in ways I'd never expected because the author is just that good, there's no shame in making it up as you go along. In fact, that makes it impressive when you do have those silly coincidences that you can pretend for a moment is actually foreshadowing, like Oolong's alien comment. In a way it's almost more impressive that it fits than if he had planned it out. But I see no reason to hide from the reality of it. It's not foreshadowing. It's a retcon. And at least Toriyama has enough integrity to be honest about that.

[Saiga]

The problem is that following the "technical" definition of retcon, any long running work in any media would be absolutely filled by "retcons". The author almost never has every single plot direction for a manga/book series/tv show/whatever in his head at the moment it starts, and decisions are affected all the time by popularity, change of mind, new ideas etc. In that sense, almost everything from reveals to plot twists could be technically called a retcon if someone feels like it, and the word is certainly getting overused.

I don't understand why that's a problem, though. Again, that's what retcon means, retroactive continuity. If something fits the definition, then that's what it should be called. I mean, wouldn't that complaint sound silly if you took away the "retroactive" part of that statement? "The problem is that any long running work would be absolutely filled with continuity." And, well, naturally that happens because, for the most part, any time you tell a story you're going to be adding to the continuity. And any time you add to a story that retroactively affects earlier parts of the story, you have a retcon. So... yes, in any long-running series that isn't meticulously plotted out, you're most likely going to have tons and tons of retcons. That's not overusing a word. It's just using it.

See I ran into a problem with this approach. I tried explaining it this to someone else but they immediately said anything that introduces new characters with a connection to the cast would be a retcon because we didn't know of these prior connections. Which would soon make the term meaningless.

[Gaffer Tape]

Well, yes, it would include that. But not if it's because we didn't know about the new character prior to their introductions. It would be because the creator and the characters didn't know about the new character prior to their introductions. There's a huge difference between, "Oh, here's my older brother I've never mentioned, but he was in the original outline the creator made and has informed my character's motivations from the very beginning even if you weren't aware of it," and, "Oh, here's my older brother I've never mentioned because up until now I had no idea I had an older brother because the writer just made it up a week ago, which means, as of right now, I've always had an older brother and have always known that." Only the latter is a retcon because that's the only one that's retroactively applying a new fact to a character's past history.

[ABED]

To me, there's a difference between a retcon and a revelation. I can't talk about this in the abstract, I have to use examples. In Supernatural, Sam giving Dean the amulet was a reveal, whereas in The Mummy Returns, revealing that Rick and Evelyn had a destiny to be together was a complete retcon. It changes the dynamic of their meeting completely.

In That 70's Show, Donna had a sister for a single episode and she's never talked about again. Donna retroactively becomes a single child.

Little was known about Goku's past, so him being an alien works fine.

Actually, Goku being revealed as Saiyan *is* a retcon: Nothing Toriyama wrote before then was written with the expectation that Goku was an alien. The "facts" of the story were molded to conform with the new storyline. E.g., his tail being an alien characteristic, his were-monkey abilities, his incredible strength, why he is an orphan, the fact that he has amnesia. Before that, he was just written as a mystical characters.

Most of this was taken for granted. Toriyama didn't delve into Goku's backstory. The most we knew was that Gohan found Goku and raised him. I don't think Goku ever said he had amnesia. It's not as though his tail was something any other character had and that fact was forgotten in order to create an entirely new history for Goku.

The reveal works because it's not something soon forgotten and has resonance throughout the rest of the series.