Even Hideo Kojima wants FF7 remake

[Tifabelle]

I think what Force is trying to point out is that the "dream" in Dallas changes your perception of previous events, but it's still part of the same story/storyline.

As with Cloud's revelations in the Lifestream. It changes your perception of previous events (or in this case what we thought were previous events), and it's still part of the same story/storyline.

So what's the difference? If you're calling Dallas' dream revelation a retcon, why wouldn't the Lifestream events be a retcon?


EDIT: Personally, I don't know that either of these things should qualify as a retcon.

 

[Joker]

Dallas was a TV show.

I think the words "never seen it" and "whole season" kind of indicate he knows it's a TV show.

 

[Tennyo]

@ Tifabelle:

Oh, I get it.

Oops, sorry, Force.

But that is true. If the Dallas thing was revealed in the same TV series, it would be the same as finding out that Cloud's story in Kalm was a lie.

Unless it was a different season? Maybe that's what makes it a retcon?

 

[Joker]

I suppose the dream sequence WOULD qualify as a retcon, wouldn't it? Or does it only work in a second work outside the original (i.e., the rest of the Compilation)?

 

[Shademp]

The way I see it, you can't retcon the game within its self-contained story but you can create contradictions. In the case of the Kalm flashback, it is an intentional 'contradiction' which serves a purpose in the narrative. Then there are unintentional contradictions, in other words, mistakes.

I would count the "it was all a dream" in said TV-series as a retcon because it references (and affects the impact of) earlier episodes.

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

Idk if the Kalm sequence would count as a retcon because at the time it was the only continuity we had in regards to the Nibelheim event

 

[Tifabelle]

The way I see it, you can't retcon the game within its self-contained story but you can create contradictions. In the case of the Kalm flashback, it is an intentional 'contradiction' which serves a purpose in the narrative. Then there are unintentional contradictions, in other words, mistakes.

I totally agree with you here.

I would count the "it was all a dream" in said TV-series as a retcon because it references (and affects the impact of) earlier episodes.

But a later episode part of the same season would count as the same storyline. Or are you considering each episode to be independent of each other?

 

[minimosey]

So what's the difference? If you're calling Dallas' dream revelation a retcon, why wouldn't the Lifestream events be a retcon?


EDIT: Personally, I don't know that either of these things should qualify as a retcon.

The difference:

Cloud's Kalm explanation was always intended to be shown as a lie by the writers. It was part of one whole coherent story; they knew when they were writing his lines in Kalm that they were going to have the Lifestream event.

Dallas? The character was killed off because the actor wanted to leave the show, and then later he wanted to come back. It wasn't planned as a fake-out when the character was killed. The writers were working as they went and had to figure out how they'd work the actor back in, which ended up being by throwing their entire previous season out and making its story meaningless. Now it was just a bad dream, and not the tragedy the writers had originally intended it to be seen as.

In the Lifestream event, Cloud's fabricated story still has meaning, not for real background events but Cloud as a character: just how badly he wanted to be in SOLDIER, impress Tifa, and not be a "failure"/how messed up he got. And, crucially, this was the meaning the writers had intended it to have when they put in the dialogue for Kalm. Not to mention that in Kalm there are hints that something is wrong with the story, while the Dallas season had no hint that this was just a dream--because it wasn't intended to be viewed that way when it was produced.

So I'd go with Dallas being a retcon, but the Lifestream event is the revelation of plot twist. And seasons in a TV show series are more comparable to separate entries in a video game series than a single game, imo, because of how production works with actors, writers and directors joining/leaving/dying/etc.

 

[Shademp]

My gut feeling, as an amateur who is in no way into writing or the rules and definitions of terms such as 'retroactive continuity', is to think of the episodes as independent of each other even if they are part of one greater arc. Perhaps I mainly think so because each episode has an ending, complete with credits.

If you were to strip away the credits, and then cut several episodes together into one long episode/movie, then what I once considered a retcon may suddenly cease to be one.

I am honestly just rambling whatever comes to my mind atm. This is an issue I've never thought of before but it's quite fascinating.

 

[Joker]

So then it was, in fact, the latter of the two options - you can only 'retcon' within a work that is separate from the original, i.e. a different episode, book, etc.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

I would count the "it was all a dream" in said TV-series as a retcon because it references (and affects the impact of) earlier episodes.

The only problem I have with this is that it applies to all media released serially. Plot-twists in that type of media usually require you to reinterpretation past events with new information. Also, TV series have to deal with actors leaving/coming back. It's part of the territory.

My gut feeling, as an amateur who is in no way into writing or the rules and definitions of terms such as 'retroactive continuity', is to think of the episodes as independent of each other even if they are part of one greater arc. Perhaps I mainly think so because each episode has an ending, complete with credits.

If you were to strip away the credits, and then cut several episodes together into one long episode/movie, then what I once considered a retcon may suddenly cease to be one.

Some TV shows like Psych can have their episodes watched in almost any order; the order isn't needed to understand the show. Then their are others like Lost that whose episodes have to be watched in order; they're like really long movies that were split into 30-60 minute chunks.

I think that the type of retcon varies from media to media. FFVII was finished when CC came out so any conflicting information is clearly a retcon. The story of a TV show is constantly evolving until the show end/is canceled so depending on the circumstances, the change might be a retcon or it might not.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

"Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a literary work."

When you say that particular events that were previously established as fact were a dream, that's changing what was considered truth, because you're suddenly rendering a section of the storyline as fiction. That would be a retcon.

The scenes with Genesis at Nibelheim are inserted into sections that aren't shown in FFVII. Just because something is introduced later in the series that changes your perspective on the reasons and motivations of earlier events doesn't make it a retcon. (Happens CONSTANTLY in Naruto, as Obsidian Fire mentioned

Spoiler: for example

Itachi murdering his clan. There's no retcon when you find out why he did it. It's just twisting the events into a new perspective, but it doesn't change the facts of what was originally shown

).

It's only if the change causes something that's established as a fact to be altered in a way that makes it untrue that it becomes a retcon. That doesn't cover things that adds another level of motivation without directly violating the original story.

As far as I can tell, Genesis' interactions during the Nibelheim incident doesn't go directly against anything shown in the original game, and thus wouldn't be considered retcon. Last Order's change with Sephiroth jumping into the lifestream did change an established event and would have been a retcon, if it hadn't been officially rejected for the original version.


X

 

[Tifabelle]

But it's the Lifestream sequence that's in question. The previously established facts were that it was Cloud as the SOLDIER in Nibelheim (according to what we are told by Cloud). Later in the Lifestream sequence, we learn that this wasn't true. So why isn't this considered a retcon when the "dream" is? Or contrarily, then the "dream" idea shouldn't be considered a retcon either?

I agree with you that Genesis is an insertion, or additional facts. And isn't necessarily a retcon because it doesn't change what we already knew.


I'm not saying I think the Lifestream sequence is a retcon of previous events. But I'm trying to understand the logic.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

"Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a literary work."

When you say that particular events that were previously established as fact were a dream, that's changing what was considered truth, because you're suddenly rendering a section of the storyline as fiction. That would be a retcon.

The scenes with Genesis at Nibelheim are inserted into sections that aren't shown in FFVII. Just because something is introduced later in the series that changes your perspective on the reasons and motivations of earlier events doesn't make it a retcon. (Happens CONSTANTLY in Naruto, as Obsidian Fire mentioned

Spoiler: for example

Itachi murdering his clan. There's no retcon when you find out why he did it. It's just twisting the events into a new perspective, but it doesn't change the facts of what was originally shown

).

It's only if the change causes something that's established as a fact to be altered in a way that makes it untrue that it becomes a retcon.

I kind of disagree with that. An addition/expansion is also an alteration. You've added to what was there before, and, thus, changed it.

I've always thought the most useful way of using "retcon" is to refer to any kind of new information that's being added to previously visited events from a previously published composition (previous episode, book, game, movie, etc.). If that new information is a change/contradiction, it's a retcon. If that new information is simply "Following the bar fight, Danny bought a hot dog in a previously unseen event before he got in his car," that's also a retcon.

I think only the contradiction type of retcon is inherently negative, and that's probably why it's come to be the common way in which the term is used.

Like "criticism" really. Criticism can be negative or positive -- it's an analysis and appraisal. It could be praise.

But because negative criticism is, well, negative, and negative things tend to draw more attention in our minds and conversations, that's how the word gets used most often.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I kind of disagree with that. An addition/expansion is also an alteration. You've added to what was there before, and, thus, changed it.

I've always thought the most useful way of using "retcon" is to refer to any kind of new information that's being added to previously visited events from a previously published composition (previous episode, book, game, movie, etc.). If that new information is a change/contradiction, it's a retcon. If that new information is simply "Following the bar fight, Danny bought a hot dog in a previously unseen event before he got in his car," that's also a retcon.

I think only the contradiction type of retcon is inherently negative, and that's probably why it's come to be the common way in which the term is used.

See, I rather disagree with that. Just because it's something you didn't see at the time, doesn't mean that it wasn't something that was designed that way, which means that when you find out about additional information later on in the form of a reveal.

Adding to a fact to change your perspective on the events can still be done without deviating from the facts that were previously established, and that's what makes plot twists and reveals different from retcons.

Retcons have to somehow alter something previously established so that it's no longer true. Reveals/plot twists add or show a different perspective that leaves the original interpritation intact from the point of view without it, and also makes the version with it true as well.


One example that's close, but I would still consider to be a retcon, because of how it seems to have been handled rather poorly, would be from the Twilight books (which I haven't read). Apparently the "werewolves", as they're called through a majority of the books, aren't REAL werewolves, just shape-shifters who change into wolves, and call themselves werewolves.

My reason for splitting hairs is that the phrase itself actually implies that there's an alteration to the continuity of the story from the addition, which isn't the case every time you learn about previously unknown facts in a story, or every flashback to previously unseen information could be form of retcon, and I don't think that's appreoriate to the term.


X

 

[Tetsujin]

It's only if the change causes something that's established as a fact to be altered in a way that makes it untrue that it becomes a retcon. That doesn't cover things that adds another level of motivation without directly violating the original story.

As I said before, retcon is not synonymous with contradiction or rewriting of established facts. Alterations do count as well. When FFVII was released, there was no Genesis in Nibelheim or anywhere else. The addition of this character is a retcon regardless of whether it contradicts anything.

 

[ForceStealer]

Anyway, the point is, I see little reason why Genesis could or should be present in a remake. As I've said before, I am okay with references to Compilation events so long as they are restricted to offhand comments by NPCs in towns and maybe newly-optional things (like finding the ruins of Banora or something). But the original plot should remain (and shouldn't have any problems remaining) intact.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Genesis wouldn't need to directly appear in FFVII's remake because there's no reason for Cloud to ever directly know of him.

The only time Cloud ever saw Genesis was when he got ambushed by those masked Genesis copies with machine guns, and the giant, disfigured Genesis copies wielding scythes. Cloud was unconscious each and every time Genesis himself appeared.

The only way Cloud could ever see Genesis is if he saw him in a book or record of some kind.

Personally, I think it would be cool, if when you raid the Shinra Building, you could go on the SOLDIER floor and fight the data versions of each of the SOLDIERs from Crisis Core as optional bosses. Kinda like how you could in FFVII Crisis Core. Purists would BAWW but it'd be pretty awesome gameplay wise.

 

[ForceStealer]

Technically he did see him when he was holding Hollander and Zack was shouting at Genesis. But it was very brief before Zack sent him chasing after Hollander, so I think your point stands.

And yeah, that's the kinda stuff I mean. They could easily leave the original plot intact because A) they don't really HAVE to change it, and B) it will satisfy purists and could still satisfy people that like the Compilation with optional stuff.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Retcons have to somehow alter something previously established so that it's no longer true.

I think this is the primary element of disagreement about the definition of the word. Isn't putting that particular caviat on the term a connotation thing, just like the idea that "criticism" must refer to a negative appraisal?

Looking at the two words that were put together to form "retcon," you have "retroactive" and "continuity," right? So, I think the most intuitive reading of that is any time in which previously established continuity is altered after the fact.

Any caviat beyond that (e.g. a contradiction) is a connotative association, I feel.

Reveals/plot twists add or show a different perspective that leaves the original interpritation intact from the point of view without it, and also makes the version with it true as well.

...

My reason for splitting hairs is that the phrase itself actually implies that there's an alteration to the continuity of the story from the addition, which isn't the case every time you learn about previously unknown facts in a story, or every flashback to previously unseen information could be form of retcon, and I don't think that's appreoriate to the term.

That's why I say it's best to take it to square one every time you use the term. Separate all negative association from the term and there's no confusion. The nature of the retcon (contradiction or addition) should be clear from the explanation of what the retcon is.

I hate to keep using the example, but, again, just like "criticism." If you use the word while describing an unfavorable review, the type of criticism at work becomes clear. Likewise with a positive review. The colloquial meaning doesn't have to co-opt the original meaning.



On-topic, yeah, I don't think Genesis would have to be in a remake either.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

As I said before, retcon is not synonymous with contradiction or rewriting of established facts. Alterations do count as well. When FFVII was released, there was no Genesis in Nibelheim or anywhere else. The addition of this character is a retcon regardless of whether it contradicts anything.

I think that my issue is really that the term itself is a little too broad. It's bothersome that "intentional overwriting of pre-established story elements to better suit a new development" is connected with "addition of new elements into the preexisting story in a way that doesn't interfere or overwrite the original content" especially because one of them is just a way to cover shitty writing, while the other is a form of revealing storytelling.

I think they deserve their own words.

ASIDE from the technicalities of retcon-related whatnot:


I don't think there's any need to have Genesis directly at any point in a sequel. They could leave behind little hints and clues like they did in DoC, which would be especially excellent if they ever plan on wrapping up the damn story. A lot of my feelings about this particular subject are already discussed in this thread about Cloud's memory.


X

 

[Ite]

I think I've made Tolkein references before, but if they were to re-write The Hobbit, I would certainly hope that the the true nature of the Ring would not be included. Because it is not relevant to the story.

 

[Max Payne]

You guys should probably split the in depth discussion into retcons out of mah thread kthnx

 

[Roger]

Genesis wouldn't need to directly appear in FFVII's remake because there's no reason for Cloud to ever directly know of him.

The only time Cloud ever saw Genesis was when he got ambushed by those masked Genesis copies with machine guns, and the giant, disfigured Genesis copies wielding scythes. Cloud was unconscious each and every time Genesis himself appeared.

The only way Cloud could ever see Genesis is if he saw him in a book or record of some kind.

Personally, I think it would be cool, if when you raid the Shinra Building, you could go on the SOLDIER floor and fight the data versions of each of the SOLDIERs from Crisis Core as optional bosses. Kinda like how you could in FFVII Crisis Core. Purists would BAWW but it'd be pretty awesome gameplay wise.

Again, Cloud was at Modeoheim where thy dealt with Genesis Clones (and briefly saw Genesis himself, at Junon whe they were attacked by Genesis Clones and generally a part of Shinra when they were attacked by Genesis Clones all over the world. I don't think it's a stretch that at some point he accidentally got an inkling as to the existence of Genesis Clones.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

This thread seems to connect with the ideas being explored in the Cloud and Tseng thread.

Also, I'm not sure how Kojima 'passing on' some twit's tweet to Nomura became construed as him wanting a remake [if he even did pass it on. Who knows?]. These guys are supposed to be creative types. You'd think they'd rather make something new than rehash something they've moved on from.