Retconvicts: 7 Sequels That Contradict Events In The Originals

[rrssb]

spider-man-3_c931ac5f

Sometimes sequels can be a stretch to write. You’ve got to create new conflict, while somehow keeping it relevant and personal to the main character(s).

More and more, I’ve seen sequels and prequels doing this via retroactive continuity, the “alteration of previously establish facts in the continuity of a fictional work.”

Here are a few of them.

1. Spider-Man 3

No longer did Spiderman fail to stop his uncle’s murderer. Now he failed to stop a thief who, while fleeing, dodged a man who sneezed and slipped on a banana peel.

While falling, the thief bumped into a hot dog cart, which rolled down a hill bumping the back of the gun-totin’ Sandman-to-be, who accidentally fires on Uncle Ben. Look, I may have daisy-chained the events a little bit.

The point is the same. Failing to stop a volitional murderer is a lot more compelling than failing to stop a thief who is indirectly responsible for a man’s inadvertent murder.

Prev1 of 9Next

Most Popular

  • Nicolas Caiveau

    Spider-Man 3 doesn’t contradict Spider-Man 1 as we never saw Uncle Ben’s death, Peter was just wrong about what he believes happened.
    Batman Begins is a reboot, it’s not a prequel, doesn’t take place in the same universe as the Burton movies. So it doesn’t count.
    For the Mummy Returns, Ank Su Namun was just scared and changed her mind.
    Agree for GI Joe 2 which was a real let down to me, completely sucks by lacking continuity, it’s like it’s GI Joe 3 and you never saw Gi Joe 2 !
    True for X Men First Class, I hope days of future past will use time travel to justify those inconsistensies by saying that it’s a different timeline.
    TDKR, what exactly does it contradict ? Bane was just not mentioned, doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.
    Same for Saw, we simply learn the facts later.