Most Unnecessary Retcon Ever?

[Johnny Triangles]

You raise a good point Omar. My definition of unnecessary retcons may be so broad as to essentially be meaningless and may just end up covering all bad retcons. After all, most retcons at the time they are made are usually in response to things that most people were already fine with. The retcons that actually come about from "popular demand" like Green Lantern and the H.E.A.T. people are few and far between.

[Omar Karindu]

I think your concept works fine if one applies both parts of the two-part test you suggested from the start: 1) It's a retcon of something no one but the writer and a handful of people cared about; AND 2) it's retrospectively insignificant, short-lived, or otherwise superfluous to the character's or the title's ongoing plots or status quo. Writers often employ bad retcons to make a mountain out a molehill, or even, as Johns did, to conjure a mountain from nothing at all. If the mountain stands long enough as a mountain, though, the retcon stops being unnecessary whether it's bad or good.

That would condemn the Johns retcon for the reasons we've both stated -- it never did go much of anywhere, and didn't get mentioned for plot-relevant reasons after the trigger was pulled on the one arc Johns had in mind for it. But it leaves out things like Moore's retcon in Swamp Thing or Bendis's retcons with the Scarlet Witch, story points that have had massive long-term implications. It's hard to imagine even a casual summary of either Swampy or Wanda that doesn't have spend a lot of time on the respective retcons. Johns's retcon, on the other hand, is probably going to amount to little more thasn one line in a Who's Who profile when all is said and done, since the consequences of the retconned plot point have amounted to nothing in a relatively short span of time. The two-part definition also leaves in unnecessary retcons that are major if they clearly don't stick, or if they turn out to be mere sound and fury once the Big Story Arc is over.

In the very long run, of course, reboots and revamps and ultimate universes and recursive adaptations probably make virtually every plot point or arc -- not just retcons -- "unnecessary" in a sense. But few of us are thinking of comics in terms of what is, in publishing terms, almost an analogue of geological time-scales. There's room for bad retcons that don't count as unnecessary, and unnecessary retcons that are too trivial to be "bad" in the big sense if we use the two-part test. And that two-part test of the standard does seem to fit with your initial suggestion.

[AdamYJ]

Ah, ok. See, I read it as retcons unnecessary to the story being told, or to the long-term plot. By that standard, Johns's retcon was utterly necessary to the stories he wanted to tell about Superboy. It's certainly been mentioned since, on plenty of occasions, by various characters in various stories.

As far as I'm concerned, the story itself was unnecessary.

[dupersuper]

Funnily enough, the previous two origin retellings had plenty of unneeded retcons of their owns. As mentioned, "Birthright" had the pointless "Luthor-in-Smallville" plotline, but it also introduced the much-maligned concept of Superman's "soul-vision". I didn't necessarily hate the idea, but I don't think that it was ever mentioned again post-"Birthright". "Secret Origin", similarly, had Luthor in Smallville, only this time, he did acknowledge Clark Kent. Of course, like with "Birthright", it offers nothing to the narrative or to future stories. These are both obvious attempts to return the Superman-Luthor relationship to its Silver Age status, but while remaining unwilling to commit to the full silliness of the idea. As a result, these storylines contribute nothing.

At least Birthright actually used it to give us some good Clar/Lex scenes in Smallville. They barely knew each other in Secret Origin, though the Luthor family have become supporting characters in Superboy. Also, Supes did use his soul vision at least one more time: after his time under Luthors control Superboy was worried he was just a souless clone, but in seperate issues both Raven and Superman assured him they could see his soul. Also, as hokey as it is, it does fit in with the origin of the 2nd of the 3 Ulta-Humanites from Legends of the DCU 1-3 and Superman being able to tell the difference between robots and all the sentient AIs in the DCU would be handy for Mr. Neverkill.

Of course, maybe they'll cheat and say that they meant the first super hero after all the super heroes dissappeared after World War II.

That's what they've been doing since the 1980s (Justice Experience notwithstanding).

[Omar Karindu]

As far as I'm concerned, the story itself was unnecessary.

Ah, drollery.

[zenbullet]

Seeing as theres alot of useless explinations floating in comics I wonder, has anyone gave an in story explination about just why the hell Batman let a kid run around in pixie boots?

Batman started running around with Robin since he was too frightening to kids according to the retcon don't know if it happened outside of the animated DCU.

[AdamYJ]

As far as I'm concerned, the story itself was unnecessary.

Ah, drollery.

I'm not sure if it's drollery or not, but I just wasn't a fan of any of Geoff Johns's Teen Titans.

Though, to be fair, I dislike most versions of the Teen Titans. I usually like younger heroes, but that book is always such a chore to get into.