|
Post by DoTheMath on Apr 24, 2020 1:43:01 GMT
I didn't even know this was a hot issue. I'll admit I kind of wondered about it myself; but, I never lost sleep over it...... Link to Article
|
|
|
Post by Hari Seldon on Apr 24, 2020 2:17:22 GMT
I didn't even know this was a hot issue. I'll admit I kind of wondered about it myself; but, I never lost sleep over it...... Link to Article Another theory could be that with Marty hanging out with Doc so much, they went over to talk to Doc just to make sure he wasn't causing any trouble. When they arrived, they overheard Doc talking to the dog about the time travel experiment, put it all together, and that's why the new truck was waiting in the garage for him when he returned to the present.
|
|
|
Post by haxemon on Apr 24, 2020 20:45:08 GMT
I didn't even know this was a hot issue. I'll admit I kind of wondered about it myself; but, I never lost sleep over it...... Link to Article I will freely admit that the casual use of the term "plot hole" drives me nuts. This is far from a "plot hole". It makes for a funny Family Guy gag (where Marty's dad accuses his mom of cheating on him with Calvin Klein way back when) but it's not a plot hole. Marty as he looked at that age was 17 years of growing into that look from infancy. That look would always be "Marty our son" to his parents. Now if they had a photograph of Calvin Klein from those 8 days that would be very different of course. But nobody has ever looked at their 17 year old child and suddenly felt they looked a lot like someone they met when they were a kid. Our brains just don't go in that direction. Memories fade, images blur etc. Most "plot holes" you read about online are nitpicks or simply unanswered questions fans come up with. I have similar issues (so my therapist tells me) with the term "ret-con". I mean, if someone decides after telling part of a story to add more parts that aren't in chronological order, that's technically "retroactive continuity" but people use the term "ret-con" as if it's a crime against viewers/readers and changing history. Just because we never knew Hawkeye had a family and even if the writers of Avengers never thought of it doesn't make it wrong to introduce it in Age of Ultron. Though at the time there were certain people losing their minds with rants of "If he had a family how come in Avengers we never saw them? How come they let us assume that he and Black Widow had a past?" Sorry - long week and apparently I had that bottled up. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Hari Seldon on Apr 25, 2020 2:52:04 GMT
Just because we never knew Hawkeye had a family and even if the writers of Avengers never thought of it doesn't make it wrong to introduce it in Age of Ultron. Though at the time there were certain people losing their minds with rants of "If he had a family how come in Avengers we never saw them? How come they let us assume that he and Black Widow had a past?" Sorry - long week and apparently I had that bottled up. LOL As long as you aren't putting down people with differing opinions, there's never a need to apologize for your opinion.
In the case of Hawkeye, it really isn't a retcon. If his lack of a family had been established (medical test showing he was sterile his entire life or such), that would make giving him a family a retcon. At least when the term was established, it meant actually changing the previous story, not revealing a previously untold part of it. An example would be having two characters meet for the first time in one episode/movie then a couple seasons or movies later there's a flashback of those two characters working together on something a few years before they met.
|
|
|
Post by haxemon on Apr 25, 2020 15:01:37 GMT
Just because we never knew Hawkeye had a family and even if the writers of Avengers never thought of it doesn't make it wrong to introduce it in Age of Ultron. Though at the time there were certain people losing their minds with rants of "If he had a family how come in Avengers we never saw them? How come they let us assume that he and Black Widow had a past?" Sorry - long week and apparently I had that bottled up. LOL As long as you aren't putting down people with differing opinions, there's never a need to apologize for your opinion.
In the case of Hawkeye, it really isn't a retcon. If his lack of a family had been established (medical test showing he was sterile his entire life or such), that would make giving him a family a retcon. At least when the term was established, it meant actually changing the previous story, not revealing a previously untold part of it. An example would be having two characters meet for the first time in one episode/movie then a couple seasons or movies later there's a flashback of those two characters working together on something a few years before they met.
Agreed. There are times when it is truly a change. Sometimes with no attempt to explain it away (Logan's various memory losses). Sometimes it's legitimately something the writers never thought of before which can be "proven" by people rallying against the shameful ret-con. That I take issue with really. If you never burned the bridge, what's the harm in coming back later to cross it? Honestly, I just like a good story. If they come up with something new that they can fit into the story, go for it.
|
|