Alright you film buffs, what are some of the retcons that Hollywood has used over the years to eliminate another film? No, I don't mean adding a gimmick like "The Heart of Damballa" in the Chucky franchise. We're talking H20 kind of retconning. Something that erases a whole movie or at least a significant part of a movie out of commercial/creative existance.

Halloween H2O retcons Halloween 4, 5, and 6 out of existance.

Superman IV retcons Superman III. Superman Returns retcons III and IV, but follows Superman, Superman II, and Supergirl.

Highlander II, III, and Endgame all are alternate universes following the first movie, but none of them following each other.

Freddy's Dead retcons at least two sequels.

"Jason Goes to Hell" retcons "Jason Takes Manhatten" if not all the previous films.

The Scorpion King retcons The Mummy Returns... or something...

-On The Fence-
"Army of Darkness" retcons the end of "Evil Dead 2".

"Batman Begins" retcons all the previous films. "Batman Forever" seems to retcon most of the first two films.

Syd Lexia wrote:

What does retcon stand for? Retroactive conversion?

Retroactive continuity — commonly contracted to the blend retcon — is the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction. The change itself is referred to as a "retcon", and the act of writing and publishing a retcon is called "retconning".

I'm using it to mean: Erasing an entire movie/book/episode/etc. by pretending that it never happened.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Also, I would argue that Dream Warriors retcons the original Nightmare on Elm Street, because the implication at the end of NOES is that Nancy dies. In NOES3, Nancy returns without any explanation as to why or how she's still alive. Sure, there's the Hypnocil, but that doesn't explain how she got out of the situation she was in at the end of NOES.

It's been stated in ANoES fanon that the end dream in the original Nightmare was an independent nightmare created by Nancy's mind and not an act of Freddy. This could be seen as a retcon, but the film never explicitly showed Nancy getting killed either.

And just in case... Fanon: "Fanon is a fact or ongoing situation related to a television program, book, movie, or video game that has been used so much by fan writers or among the fandom that it has been more or less established as having happened in the fictional world, but it has not actually been established as having happened on the show, book, movie or game itself."

This is kind of an extension of that damn Mega Man thread.

Black Zarak wrote:

I heard the rumored 3-D re-releases are going to be altered further.

Sweet.

DarkMaze wrote:

Tebor wrote: Superman IV retcons Superman III. Superman Returns retcons III and IV, but follows Superman, Superman II, and Supergirl. It follows Supergirl? Bah?

Supergirl takes place after Superman II and explains that Superman is not on Earth due to "cosmic journeys". Sounds to me like he could be taking a trip to Kyrpton and the two don't contradict each other. But it is an 'accept if you want to' thing. Most Superman fans disowned the film back when it came out. I love the Supergirl film in an awesomely bad way. It's so... experimental campiness.

DarkMaze wrote:

Tebor wrote: The Scorpion King retcons The Mummy Returns... or something... Nah, it takes place before The Mummy Returns, with the implication that things will eventually go wrong.

Scorpion King is a "prequel" in name only. Interviews before the movie stated it existed in an universe separate from the Mummy films. However, The Scorpion King is also a completely different character in King than he is in Returns. It's not a retcon if you accept the films as two different universes, but you can't go from Scorpion King to Mummy Returns... despite that awkward ending with the fortune telling.

Please note that some of my justifications were made either from internet fanon or just from plot talks with my fellow movie geeks. Supergirl is an example of a justification we agreed on and I believe the IMDB had a thread on it. Does it matter? Hell no, cause Singer's Superman franchise will never include Supergirl. The 80s Supergirl film can also be retconned at any moment should WB make a new Supergirl film, which they've been developing for awhile. Thus, the debate of whether Supergirl happened or not really won't matter in the end. It's just something we buffs can laugh at. By the same token, I guess all retcons are useless as studios don't care about mythology, only the screenwriters do. They can perverse any franchise however they want.

Syd Lexia wrote:

T3 retcons T2 and T1 by tossing out the central assertion of the first two films, No Fate But What We Make.

More importantly, T3 retcons Cameron's gay original ending to T2, but also T-2 3D which is official in the Cameron Terminator cannon. Kind of a "Highlander" type alternate paths.

Murdar Machene wrote:

Evil Dead 2 feels like it stands alone and doesn't have a cliffhanger ending...

No kidding. I commend the film for having such a ambitious ending considering it's a low budget horror flick. How many horror films end that epically? Who ever saw it coming?

JEW wrote:

They explain in Blade II that the vampires had taken Whistler's body and brought him back to life as a vampire. It's possible. Look at how many times it's happened to Blade himself. The problem with these franchise movies is that they aren't usually directed or written by the same guys, so a lot of liberties are taken.

Wait, how many times has Blade's dead corpse been revived as a vampire?

As for the franchise comment, that is very true. Nothing is really sacred in Hollywood when it comes to story. They just want a screenwriter who can talk the shit about how everyone will like the movie because of this story. Usually, those pitches end up becoming: "It's a lot like the first one, but just MORE of it! And the first one made over $150 million! And there's over ten thousand registered users at the message boards! That's a cult! And fans will pay dearly for more of it. Many bites of the same apple!" Or they just hire some respected screenwriter to throw together a sequel. Usually, they're only doing it for the money and don't really care about the franchise. Rarely do those Francis Ford Coppola "Godfather II"s happen.

Although, there's the "Friday the 13th VI" scenarios where a fan is put in charge of the sequel and it turns out very good. Alas, real, talented, sweet talking fans are tough to come by in the industry. And then there's the opposite effect when "fans" are put in charge of the sequel. Avoiding the Singer debate, "Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday" is an example.

EDIT: Actually, I know the director and writer of JGtH are big Jason fans. Their commentary alone proves it and I did speak to the director briefly a couple of years ago. He understands the criticisms, he and the studio just wanted to do something "different". However, JGtH is still a pretty God-awful film... Fun though.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Jason Goes To Hell is nowhere near as bad Jason Takes Manhattan though. Or Freddy's Dead.

Wait a tic, Freddy's Dead is waaaaaaaay better than JGtH. It's horrible, but there's a little too much awesomeness in FD. Case in point: Alice Cooper vs. Steven "X" Williams. Creighton Duke has nothing on Freddy's abusive dad. And any "Twin Peaks" nod scores an extra star in my book.

But, F13:VIII is worse than JGtH. Another film written and directed by a fan, but when I put Jay Huguely and Adam Marcus against Rob Hedden, it seems Hedden was more of a victim than a perpetrator, but it's all subjective...