Eric Kleefeld wrote: JB is often accused of retconning things but I think this is an example of people using the term incorrectly. JB has revealed that -- shock! -- a VILLAIN might have lied about something, but that's not a retcon. ************ Nope, that's still a retcon, as it's retroactively altering what was once established as past continuity of what happened.  Sure, it's a plausible retcon, and I'm not arguing that.  But it's still a retcon.

I see this argued a lot and this is an example, I think, of how some fans view continuity. Visit any ANGEL or BATMAN site and you'll see every detail of the character's history mapped out, often based on offhand lines of dialogue in episodes or issues. Of course, that's not how things work in real life. If I tell you that my college girlfriend died and then you bump into her next month, that's not a retcon. I lied when I told she was deceased. I hadn't "established past continuity about what happened."

Yet, Dr. Doom or Ultron says "this is what happened" and despite having no reason to believe them, fans will view this as the gospel and if we're shown something different, they claim it's a retcon.

Another example: Frasier's dad still being alive, despite what was said on CHEERS, is not a retcon. We never saw a body on CHEERS. We just got what Frasier had said. His never mentioning a brother might seem odd but it doesn't discount that one might have existed.

A retcon erases or contradicts the objective reality of what was depicted in a story. Doctor Octopus as part of Spider-Man's origin clearly is a retcon. As much as I hate it, though, the revelation about Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin isn't -- it's just bad writing.

But something someone says is never objective.

John Byrne wrote: Though, I do wonder why Captain America would be described as wearing a uniform. ****** Because he's not Mr. America.

I would also suggest that, since a number of individuals have all worn the same outfit upon assuming the role of Captain America, then this must be the uniform of the position.

Likewise, if everyone who assumes the mantle of the Phantom wears the purple bodysuit and domino mask, then this must also be called a uniform.

The Army issued the uniform to him because it fit the concept of their new super-soldier. It's just unfortunate that the Army wasn't able to crank out a few batallions of super-soldiers, chances are that they might all be wearing the same super-soldier uniform. Alas we got just the one soldier... but we're pretty cool with that.

And Its a PANEL not a FRAME!!!!!

Mike

A while back, on another message board, I came across a raging debate over the use of the word "boots" to describe what Spider-Man wears on his feet. It was, I quickly saw, yet another instance of the Know-Nothings trying to force their lack of knowledge onto everyone else, insisting that Spider-Man does not wear "boots" because his footwear lacks soles and heels -- and completely overlooking the long established tradition that superhero costumes have their own set of terms, and with a few particular exceptions (characters like Hercules, for instance) the coverings for their feet are called "boots". It was one of those don't-know-and-won't-be-taught instances that one encounters so often on the internet.

Nope. Any information that comes from a villain is automatically suspect, whether the original writer "intends" that to be the case or not. That's just one of several very good reasons not to have important story points hinge on something the villain has assured us is true.