My criteria for good vs bad retcons is the amount of exposition that is necessary for the story to succeed.  In 1989 it was considered so unlikely that a female character could have a long lost child that OLTL created Eterna to explain the relationship between Vicky and and Megan.  Twelve years later when Vicky found out that she forgot and gave birth to twins, thus Natalie, it was all explained through dialogue containing tons of plot holes.  I respect the Eterna (show me) model of storytelling over the Natalie (tell em model).

 

Two soap character retcons that annoy me for similar reasons are Trish Lewis and Clint Buchanan.  Both were introduced as being liberated from their families and finding a new life in a new town.  Then, in a couple of years, both of their families came to town and suddenly Trish and Clint were back in the family fold and fighting the same battles.  By the end of OLTL, the people of Landview completely forgot that Clint was once a reporter/editor while the inhabitants of Springfield just forgot about Trish.

 

I also still scratch my head over Brooke Hamilton on Days....

 

 

1 hour ago, j swift said:

My criteria for good vs bad retcons is the amount of exposition that is necessary for the story to succeed.  In 1989 it was considered so unlikely that a female character could have a long lost child that OLTL created Eterna to explain the relationship between Vicky and and Megan. 

I actually found the Eterna storyline less crazy than Viki and the viewers supposedly trying to figure out for months which Gordon sister (the elder Megan or the younger Sarah) was her daughter when Roger didn't have any other children at the time she was conceived.
 

Edited May 28, 20187 yr by applcin

I have no feeling either way---never watched St Elsewhere. People do tend to get a bit touchy when they feel cheated though. (Talk to me about HIMYM's finale sometime...) A wink-wink ending is always a gamble. 

On 5/23/2018 at 10:40 PM, Paul Raven said:

Y&R

Katherine Chancellor was some dynamic businesswoman who ran Chancellor Industries for years.

 

Carl Williams mysteriously deserted his family causing great angst for years until he tuned up with amnesia.

 

The first one is kind of hard to pin down, but it definitely started under Smith's watch during the Eliot Hampton(played by Michael Nouri) story in 2004-05 that gave the fuel to retcon. Both Latham and especially MAB&Co. lit the fire to such a silly misconception. The only retcon that was worse was giving Katherine sainthood. 

 

The second one is far more interesting. I remember reading on message boards back in 1998 people swearing up and down that they had remembered Carl's disappearance and Paul's quest to find him. A lot of folks were trying to research it because they were quite certain some type of story had taken place and been forgotten. Given that the story was Y&R's first real major retcon, it was an unusual occurrence of false memories and viewers believing that Y&R would never do a retcon.

 

16 minutes ago, soapfan770 said:

 

The first one is kind of hard to pin down, but it definitely started under Smith's watch during the Eliot Hampton(played by Michael Nouri) story in 2004-05 that gave the fuel to retcon. Both Latham and especially MAB&Co. lit the fire to such a silly misconception. The only retcon that was worse was giving Katherine sainthood. 

 

The second one is far more interesting. I remember reading on message boards back in 1998 people swearing up and down that they had remembered Carl's disappearance and Paul's quest to find him. A lot of folks were trying to research it because they were quite certain some type of story had taken place and been forgotten. Given that the story was Y&R's first real major retcon, it was an unusual occurrence of false memories and viewers believing that Y&R would never do a retcon.

 

 

I remember people swearing up and down that the Carl disappearance story wasn't a retcon back then as well LOL

 

It's funny that by the time Arena Bell decided to do the Nina lost child story... viewers (especially newer viewers) started groaning that she was doing another retcon, or trying to retcon a retcon.. and veteran viewers had to chime in and say that this actual wasn't a retcon but a resolution of a previous story from the mid 80s.  But that is what happens when a show does multiple retcons.. that by the time a writer actually writes a legit story from their history... people are quick to dismiss (boy that called wolf syndrome)

17 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

I think it was a creative way to end the show and it's still being talked about 30 plus years later (much like Newhart). 

 

It made sense this came from a mind of a child suffering from autism and people feeling ripped off that the characters weren't real kind of makes me laugh because they weren't real and I viewed the move as a wink to that.  But that's what makes the world a wonderful place... one event conjures up different reactions in different people and when that happens, then it's a success

 

Here's my take on this: 

 

Of course viewers did not believe that the characters in SE were real, actual human beings. But that's not at the heart of the criticism.

 

The characters on St. Elsewhere were portrayed as "real" within the fictional world created by the series.

 

In the Star Trek universe, for example, Kirk and Spock are supposed to exist. They are real for themselves and to each other. As viewers, we willingly suspend disbelief and accept the events and characters we see portrayed as "existing" within that context. Kirk and Spock are real in ST. Luke Skywalker is real within in the realm of Star Wars. Scarlett, Melanie, and Rhett "exist" in the world Margaret Mitchell gave us. We accept that premise going in, and it's a basis for our enjoyment of the material.

 

Now imagine the final scene of the very last Star Trek episode, after the series had given us many interesting and thought-provoking stories; after we had come to care about the Enterprise crew. We see a Romulan furiously typing away on a computer device. Another Romulan happens by and asks him, "What are you doing?" The one with the computer guffaws derisively and replies, "I'm writing stories about my pet tribbles, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Spock, and reimagining them as a pompous human and an anal-retentive Vulcan who run a Starship. Humans will fall for anything I write!"

 

Cut to a shot of two small cages with a tribble in each one. The first cage is labelled Mr. Kirk, the second, Mr. Spock. Fade to black. And...that's it. The creators end the show with a joke, a wink to the audience, that nothing the viewers had watched, enjoyed and invested time in was even "real" within the context of its own universe.

 

In the final moments of Gone with the Wind,  after viewers had lived with the characters through war, romance, destruction and death, we see Prissy whispering and laughing to a group of children behind the barn. Her mother, Dilcey reprimands her for dawdling while there is work to do. Prissy giggles and says she is telling the children some fantastical stories about people she made up in her head; some rich landowners and their families. When scolded again by her mother, Prissy admits to the children that Miss Scarlett, Mister Rhett, and all their kin were just crazy folks she had invented while daydreaming. They existed only in her imagination. Then she bursts into tears and cries, "I don't know nothing 'bout living with rich folks. I don't know what made me say such a LIE!"

 

Again, fade to black, and viewers are left with a final wink from the filmmakers, that everything we had experienced along with Scarlett, Rhett, Melanie, and Ashley was borne from the mind of a nitwit. The characters we loved did not exist and all the events we had sat through had never happened. So, what ends up being the point?

 

Imagine the reaction from ardent Trekkies and Scarlett-ophiles about being "cheated" like that. Critics of the St. Elsewhere finale felt similarly cheated. We would not have sat through six years of SE for a "joke". By ending a series or film in such a joking way, TPTB negate the audience's entire experience for a cheap shock or momentary wink.

 

No thanks.

Edited May 29, 20187 yr by vetsoapfan

1 hour ago, vetsoapfan said:

Again, fade to black, and viewers are left with a final wink from the filmmakers, that everything we had experienced along with Scarlett, Rhett, Melanie, and Ashley was borne from the mind of a nitwit.

 

I kinda felt that way, anyway.

4 hours ago, Khan said:

 

I kinda felt that way, anyway.

 

I don't think Donald T was alive and writing, way back then, ROTF.

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/29/yvonne-mason-retired-teacher-trump-letter-intv-new-day.cnn

Edited May 29, 20187 yr by vetsoapfan

3 hours ago, Khan said:

 

I kinda felt that way, anyway.

 

Rude!  

 

I love GWTW.  

Yes, it's incredibly racist, and that is troubling, but I can't help myself, I still love everything else about it.

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

In the Star Trek universe, for example, Kirk and Spock are supposed to exist. They are real for themselves and to each other. As viewers, we willingly suspend disbelief and accept the events and characters we see portrayed as "existing" within that context. Kirk and Spock are real in ST.

You mean.........they're not really real??????????      

 

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

Now imagine the final scene of the very last Star Trek episode, after the series had given us many interesting and thought-provoking stories; after we had come to care about the Enterprise crew. We see a Romulan furiously typing away on a computer device. Another Romulan happens by and asks him, "What are you doing?" The one with the computer guffaws derisively and replies, "I'm writing stories about my pet tribbles, Mr. Kirk and Mr. Spock, and reimagining them as a pompous human and an anal-retentive Vulcan who run a Starship. Humans will fall for anything I write!"

 

Cut to a shot of two small cages with a tribble in each one. The first cage is labelled Mr. Kirk, the second, Mr. Spock. Fade to black. And...that's it. The creators end the show with a joke, a wink to the audience, that nothing the viewers had watched, enjoyed and invested time in was even "real" within the context of its own universe.

Ironically, DS9 and Enterprise tinkered with this concept a bit, with differing reactions. 

In DS9, the possibility was presented (not at the finale, though) that Sisko was really a 1950s writer named Benny who imagined the whole concept, using his fellow writers as the cast of characters. But that was not the reality within the show and things went back to their normal universe.
The much-hated finale of Enterprise, while it didn't turn the characters & stories into someone's  imagination, turned the series into a holographic historical program that 2 characters from TNG were running. 

BTW, I have it on good authority that one of Captain Kirk's ancestors was a cop. His initials were TJ and were reversed when Kirk's folks were naming him..or will name him. 

 

Edited May 29, 20187 yr by applcin

15 minutes ago, I Am A Swede said:

 

Rude!  

 

I love GWTW.  

Yes, it's incredibly racist, and that is troubling, but I can't help myself, I still love everything else about it.

 

I've heard about petitions to ban GTWT and remove it from libraries because it is not politically correct, but I do try to remind critics that Mammy ruled the roost, both at Tara and when she lived with Scarlett and Rhett. She was strong and wise, could control Scarlett like no one else, and even had Rhett long for her approval. Yes, Prissy was an addle-brained twit, but Scarlett's first husband Charles Wilkes was not much brighter. Scarlett's sisters were obtuse, lazy ninnies. Belle Watling was a hooker, LOL. So if GWTW portrayed certain black characters in a negative light, it did the same with several of its white folks. Overall, to me it balances out.

5 minutes ago, applcin said:

BTW, I have it on good authority that one of Captain Kirk's ancestors was a cop. His initials were TJ and were reversed when Kirk's folks were naming him. 

 

+1000

5 minutes ago, applcin said:

You mean.........they're not really real??????????      

 

Ironically, DS9 and Enterprise tinkered with this concept a bit, with differing reactions. 

In DS9, the possibility was presented (not at the finale, though) that Sisko was really a 1950s writer named Benny who imagined the whole concept, using his fellow writers as the cast of characters. But that was not the reality within the show and things went back to their normal universe.
The much-hated finale of Enterprise, while it didn't turn the characters & stories into someone's  imagination, turned the series into a holographic historical program that 2 characters from TNG were running. 

 

"Much hated" being the key phrase here.

 

Supernatural has presented episodes revealing that Sam and Dean are characters in a series of fan-fiction type stories. The show's writers clearly amuse themselves with this stuff; the viewers, not so much.

As far as BAD parenting retcons (Carl had mentioned a couple ATWT ones @DRW50) that had left me truly disconcerted there are: 

 

-On Days, Mike and Robin were apparently neglectful and abusive to their son Jeremy, thus causing his villainy. 

-On Y&R, we had the whole Kate/Chloe fiasco with Chloe claiming some crap that Esther never supported her or something like that. 

-On GL, apparently Fletcher shipped Ben off and dumped him in a boarding school and forgot about him, leading Ben to have some traumatic experiences and...UGH it hurts might head too much to type it. 

-On ATWT, Betsy was deemed an unfit mother twice(1996 and 2008) as Dani spiraled out of control on both occasions. Dani sleeping with Craig and calling him "Daddy" at the same time did not help matters at all.

- Didn't phase me too much as I was a Phyllis fan at the time, but the revelation of Danny being a dead beat to Daniel at the time was pretty bad on Y&R. Same goes with Paul being a complete dead beat with Ricky. 

-The retconning/de-aging of Daisy/Susan Lemay on GL. 

4 hours ago, I Am A Swede said:

 

Rude!  

 

I love GWTW.  

Yes, it's incredibly racist, and that is troubling, but I can't help myself, I still love everything else about it.

 

I don't hate GWTW because of its' racist attitudes toward certain characters (although, when viewed and judged by modern-day standards, it IS troubling, to say the least).  Rather, what irks me about the story is the fact that we are basically asked to empathize with a selfish, narcissistic viper of a human being, who cannot get it through her thick skull that the man she pines for and nearly wrecks her life or others' lives on several occasions for cannot, does not and will not return her affections even in the slightest.  Moreover, when she DOES realize Ashley will never love her, not even once Melanie (IMO, the true heroine and most empathetic character) is pushing up daisies, it's too late to save whatever co-dependent "thing" she had with Rhett.  But does she realize that maybe Rhett is correct and that they are no good together either?  Nope.  Instead, she resolves to return to Tara and, once there, think of some way to manipulate him back into her life.  ("Bitch," I always say, "just go home and stay there.")

3 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

 

I've heard about petitions to ban GTWT and remove it from libraries because it is not politically correct, but I do try to remind critics that Mammy ruled the roost, both at Tara and when she lived with Scarlett and Rhett. She was strong and wise, could control Scarlett like no one else, and even had Rhett long for her approval. Yes, Prissy was an addle-brained twit, but Scarlett's first husband Charles Wilkes was not much brighter. Scarlett's sisters were obtuse, lazy ninnies. Belle Watling was a hooker, LOL. So if GWTW portrayed certain black characters in a negative light, it did the same with several of its white folks. Overall, to me it balances out.

 

Except, you knew the white characters, even the "poor white trash" Emmy Slattery and Jonas Wilkerson, all had the freedom to come and go as they pleased.  Mammy, Prissy, Polk?  Not so much.

On 5/28/2018 at 4:58 PM, j swift said:

I also still scratch my head over Brooke Hamilton on Days....

 

I think I've read someplace that Brooke was the first character DAYS ever brought back from the dead...but I could be wrong.

Edited May 30, 20187 yr by Khan