Isn't that what a retcon does by definition?

Well there are the ones that fill in new events in gaps of the continuity. And there are the ones that cast new light on established bits of the continuity. And then there are the big rewrite retcons everybody thinks of.

There are really two kinds of retcons:

• 1. Tweaks. These are things to make continuity run a little smoother, and require no major overhauls beyond the one or two characters it affects. An example is the splitting of the Dinah Lance Black Canary into Dinah Drake Lance (Justice Society) and her daughter Dinah Laurel Lance (Justice League). Another is the use of "it was a Doombot."
• 2. Overhauls. These are changes that affect the entire world. Supposedly everything happened exactly the same except for A, B, and C. But if you change A, B, and C simultaneously it's like removing a puzzle piece from a puzzle and replacing it with a completely differently shaped puzzle piece. You have to make the hole bigger in order to force the new one in. There will be hanging plot threads. Suddenly dozens of issues don't make sense. The new continuity creates stress marks around it that will eventually become cracks in the history of the fictional world.

Oh, the funny thing about resurrecting superheroes? Joe Quesada from Marvel Comics tried to put a stop to it. His attempt failed in the end, but at least he tried to do something about it. It also shows that at least one person in the comic book industry has tried to put some of the rules being proposed here into effect, but the tricky part is getting it to stick!

@Zeal: Nope. A retcon is a change to existing continuity, but does not necessarily contradict it. A good retcon adds to what has gone before without altering it; a bad one just says something else happened.

For example:

• The guy Dredd was cloned from? That was Fargo. Good retcon, because it expands on the backstory.
• Japan didn't actually rebuild MC-2? Bad retcon, because we saw it happen.

Websnark and TFWiki have more and better examples.

A lot of it is subjectiveness and slippery slopes, though. For example, the reveal that Gwen Stacy got knocked up by Norman Osborn. Does it ruin her character? Enhance her character? Does it contradict what was written before? Expound upon it?

It's just a lot of hairs to split.

edited 16th Jan '12 8:31:38 AM by KingZeal

Oh, a retcon that is compatible with established continuity can still ruin a character, no doubt about that; I just figured that "You shall not ruin a character" was simple common sense.

Ruins the character? Maybye for you, I still have no problem with Sins Past. I mean, c'mon, Normal looks like Tommy Lee Jones in it, he could seduce even me, and I'm both male and hetero.

I rest my case.

I found Gwen having an affair with Norman absolutely horrible and just plain bad writing. I think retcons like that shouldn't be used.

I'd like if they stopped resurrecting superheroes, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

• Get new Talent while focusing on the talent you have
• set up a "Mentor's program" were Eisner and Harvey winners team up with young blood in colabs.
• MANDATORY MONTHLY MEET UPS BETWEEN ALL WRITERS Seriously so much nonsense can be stopped if they all just do lunch every month.

Also Sijo's rules are to subjective and Ciders rules are contradictory. Also this thread is dangerously close to a complaint thread. I'll be watching it...

• Marvel
  • Don't try to make Spider-Man angsty. It won't sit well with the fanbase.
• DC
  • When you say that you'll try to avert Comic Book Death, try to avert Comic Book Death.

All of my yes.

edited 28th Mar '12 10:37:09 AM by Nizbel

To both companies—in fact, comic book companies in general:

Superheroes of color are awesome. But do they all have to be legacy characters? Please add some minority heroes who aren't replacing a deceased/retired/AWOL Caucasian. Thanks!

Uh.... What Spider Man have you been reading since.... forever?

He isn't angsty now, but he was back in OMD.

And that issue, can't remember which one it was, where they killed his uncle off. Really ruined the series for me.

Shit, I kinda derped up there.

Please don't say this if you aren't a mod. Calling a mod if someone breaks the rules is one thing, threatening to do it is another.

edited 29th Mar '12 6:57:52 AM by Nizbel

I am confused. How is this a complaint thread?

Well, a lot of people are using this as a way to complain about things they don't like about comic books.

^^^ There's nothing wrong with pointing out how close this thread is to being complainy.

• Corollary: Not every die-hard Batman or Wolverine fan wants to see nothing but Batman or Wolverine.

• Thou shalt not overly exaggerate characters' traits in ensemble works under the assumption that we need to be shown how awesome or unique they are.
• Thou shalt not give into memetic, fandom characterization unless it's really good.
• Thou shalt write relationships but avoid shipping. Never shall the tropes such as Die for Our Ship, Derailing Love Interests or (to a lesser extent, as it is far more difficult to pin down) Strangled by the Red String meet with the official characterization.

Yeah, but he's threatening to call the mods too. Doesn't that seem kind of harassment-ish?

Oh, and:

Marvel

• If a comic book character is not in the comic or only makes a cameo, do not put him on the cover.

And I support Cider's "don't copy other comic book characters" rule. Even if I do like some of the copycats.

edited 29th Mar '12 9:24:55 AM by Nizbel

That one should also apply to DC.

DC doesn't really abuse it as much as Marvel does, though.

For both companies:

If a writer is writing characters he/she hasn't handled before, he/she should be required to sit down with a stack of back issues featuring said characters. In a shared universe, consistency regarding characters is good, yes?

I think most writers try to do that anyway. I know Christos Gage, for example, said he was reading through a bunch of Generation X comics when he was going to be writing Husk and Chamber. I would imagine most writers are the same.