Things that could have been retconned but weren't

[Mike_Murdock]

ETA: Please Read the Edit Before Posting

This is partly inspired by my Avengers #200 thread. One of the things I find fascinating is that there are times characters have done some screwed up things and later writers have had a chance to retcon it. Instead, they decide to have the character explicitly say there is no easy out, acknowledge their shortcomings, and try to do better. Avengers Annual 10 is one example since I recently re-read that too and I'm glad to see the characters don't blame Marcus on mind-controlling them. They just admit their failings. Which, in the context of someone who was victimized like Carol Danvers, is refreshing.

Another example is the Hank Pym/Janet thing. After the trial of Hank, they use a special device to see if maybe Hank had been mind-controlled and Hank says "no, I wasn't. This is something I have to own and try to make up for my mistakes." It's a wonderful redemption moment that, sadly, doesn't seem to stick. Likewise, there are at least two characters who had terrible actions that could have been blamed on Skrulls. The first is Tony Stark for Civil War. They hint at it in the story and I'm glad they don't go that route. Likewise, Quicksilver in Son of M. His actions were terrible. He killed a person. But he did it in the name of saving the mutant race (raising questions of whether he was becoming like his father). In the end, the official story that gets him pardoned is that it was a Skrull that did that, but I'm glad they don't make it a Skrull for real. His actions had consequences and those matter.

What do you guys think? Was it important for these events to not be rationalized away but "owned" by the characters? Can anyone think of other examples?

ETA: Just to be clear, this thread isn't just "things you want retconned." It's about things where there were clear opportunities presented to retcon something and Marvel did not go that route. Please don't just post things you wish were retconned.

[Huntsman Spider]

Hmm, I also kind of liked that Civil War, the original comic, had no secret villain masterminding things or manipulating the characters' actions, as bad as some of those actions were. Still, I'd slightly object to saying that Tony entirely owned up to his actions, as the ultimate consequence of said actions was to be "reset" to an earlier version of himself that had no memory of what he'd done in Civil War, and considering the death of Bill Foster that in my opinion was never properly atoned or otherwise paid for (yeah, it was nice that the heroes ultimately made peace with each other, but after a casualty like that, it was understandable that some people like Bill's nephew Tom wouldn't take that lying down) . . .

Another one, closer to home for me, would be Sins Past. I won't go into details, as anybody who's a fan of Spider-Man probably knows or has read about it by now. That being said, it could have been retconned away, and there was even the desire to do so, but no, and it became just a stain on a certain beloved character that nobody wanted to address even when there was ample opportunity to do so in The Clone Conspiracy.

[Triniking1234]

They still need to retcon Wonder Man forming the Revengers.

That was ridiculously ****ing stupid.

[TakoM]

Actually we had a very similar thread not so long ago http://community.comicbookresources....arvel-Universe

EDIT: I said something similar in it the most hated events were to 80% follow up from Avenger Dissembled and for the Ultimate Universe it was Ultimatum.
Stand alones were : " Time runs out" with SW, Original Sin

But the problem I also raised was there isn't much left of the history you know when you joined the last few years and also a lot of editors and authors would get pissed off throwing their stuff in the toilet.
In the end the only alternative to this would be another universe in which this never happened as newest alt universe like MC2, 2099, and Ultimate

[Mike_Murdock]

That's a little different. That's about things that should have been retconned. I'm asking about things that would have been tempting to retcon but weren't and maybe shouldn't have been.

[Skedatz]

One I enjoyed, though I'm not sure how much it really counts, was Tony's intent to be who he was during Civil War. After WMW, he was reviewing the decisions he made in the past couple years and said he'd do it the same way as opposed to being shocked and creating an excuse.

[Michael Watkins]

They still need to retcon Wonder Man forming the Revengers.

That was ridiculously ****ing stupid.

I'd settle for them explaining who put him up to it. it seemed as if he were talking to someone; before he disappeared (at the end of the story). but yeah I can't see the majority of those characters even signing up to attack the Avengers. wtf was Erik Josten thinking? and Century? really?

[Michael Watkins]

they could retcon Bendis and I wouldn't be upset.

[TakoM]

That's a little different. That's about things that should have been retconned. I'm asking about things that would have been tempting to retcon but weren't and maybe shouldn't have been.

Ah you mean stuff like Doom War basically all the stuff which basically you can argue about the story but weren't damaging for characters or too much tied into who the character is currently

[Montressor]

As much as I was stunned (at the time) by Teen Tony Stark, Iron Boy--and the fact that Marvel was seriously pushing forward with this--I sort of like that it wasn't retconned away and is sometimes even still referenced (I distinctly recall recent Marvel Handbooks mentioning it).

[Cmbmool]

This is partly inspired by my Avengers #200 thread. One of the things I find fascinating is that there are times characters have done some screwed up things and later writers have had a chance to retcon it. Instead, they decide to have the character explicitly say there is no easy out, acknowledge their shortcomings, and try to do better. Avengers Annual 10 is one example since I recently re-read that too and I'm glad to see the characters don't blame Marcus on mind-controlling them. They just admit their failings. Which, in the context of someone who was victimized like Carol Danvers, is refreshing.

Another example is the Hank Pym/Janet thing. After the trial of Hank, they use a special device to see if maybe Hank had been mind-controlled and Hank says "no, I wasn't. This is something I have to own and try to make up for my mistakes." It's a wonderful redemption moment that, sadly, doesn't seem to stick. Likewise, there are at least two characters who had terrible actions that could have been blamed on Skrulls. The first is Tony Stark for Civil War. They hint at it in the story and I'm glad they don't go that route. Likewise, Quicksilver in Son of M. His actions were terrible. He killed a person. But he did it in the name of saving the mutant race (raising questions of whether he was becoming like his father). In the end, the official story that gets him pardoned is that it was a Skrull that did that, but I'm glad they don't make it a Skrull for real. His actions had consequences and those matter.

What do you guys think? Was it important for these events to not be rationalized away but "owned" by the characters? Can anyone think of other examples?

Wait a minute, did Quicksilver ended up revealing the truth in a Press Conference during PAD's Second X-factor run ?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Wait a minute, did Quicksilver ended up revealing the truth in a Press Conference during PAD's Second X-factor run ?

He did, but nothing came of it by then.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I have to say, I wish they retconned Tony and Reed creating Clor.

You don't have to make them skrulls, just say that Skrull Pym used telepathy to 'convince' them to do it

[OOTCS]

This is partly inspired by my Avengers #200 thread. One of the things I find fascinating is that there are times characters have done some screwed up things and later writers have had a chance to retcon it. Instead, they decide to have the character explicitly say there is no easy out, acknowledge their shortcomings, and try to do better. Avengers Annual 10 is one example since I recently re-read that too and I'm glad to see the characters don't blame Marcus on mind-controlling them. They just admit their failings. Which, in the context of someone who was victimized like Carol Danvers, is refreshing.

Another example is the Hank Pym/Janet thing. After the trial of Hank, they use a special device to see if maybe Hank had been mind-controlled and Hank says "no, I wasn't. This is something I have to own and try to make up for my mistakes." It's a wonderful redemption moment that, sadly, doesn't seem to stick. Likewise, there are at least two characters who had terrible actions that could have been blamed on Skrulls. The first is Tony Stark for Civil War. They hint at it in the story and I'm glad they don't go that route. Likewise, Quicksilver in Son of M. His actions were terrible. He killed a person. But he did it in the name of saving the mutant race (raising questions of whether he was becoming like his father). In the end, the official story that gets him pardoned is that it was a Skrull that did that, but I'm glad they don't make it a Skrull for real. His actions had consequences and those matter.

What do you guys think? Was it important for these events to not be rationalized away but "owned" by the characters? Can anyone think of other examples?

I was going to say literally all of the examples that you just gave.

[TakoM]

As much as I was stunned (at the time) by Teen Tony Stark, Iron Boy--and the fact that Marvel was seriously pushing forward with this--I sort of like that it wasn't retconned away and is sometimes even still referenced (I distinctly recall recent Marvel Handbooks mentioning it).

This is because the current Tony is a fused version of the old and teen Tony also he had his life from Heroes Reborn make him 3 but no author used his past memories of the other versions again so far I know.
He also never visited the home dimension of his teen part.